The price difference between Macs and PCs widens

Yes, they're much more expensive. But I think that saying it's the hardware is to miss the point. People don't really think as much about the mac hardare as much as the mac software.<p>And let's be honest here, smart and educated software engineers go out of their way to buy macs when they definitely have the skills to install and run linux. They could definitely buy a cheaper Windows PC. Unless you want to be utterly derisive and dismissive, you can't simply say, "It's a fashion item."<p>People are buying macs because they want Mac OS X. Maybe instead of arguing about how "overpriced the hardware is" or "how people love candy coating" people in charge of competing products/projects should look into the reasons why hen you go to a tech conference you see a sea of glowing Apple logos. People there <i>are not stupid</i>, and if you just dismiss their choice as such you're going to miss out on key information.

I find that most numbers treated as specs became less relevant, say 2-3 years ago. Today, I want a computer that will be a pleasure to use and agree with what I think constitutes a well-designed laptop.<p>Today, where even the cheapest boxes have enough horsepower to do everything I do and more, how good I <i>feel</i> while using the machine became more important to me.<p>Those cheap PC laptops are generally more gaudy designed, feature cheaper materials and make me feel like I'm being treated like a child. Just like you don't pick the person you date as a simple list of pros and cons, you don't pick a laptop via purely a tally of features.

The article takes it on faith that the current margins Apple has can't last. Maybe I missed the part of the article where they back that up, but overall it seems like Apple's done a bang-up job selling (the perception of) lack of computing misery for a premium. If people want to pay extra to have the experience debugged for them out of the box, good for them, and great for Apple.<p>That quoted blurb from Wilcox about the Apple announcement of dropping product margins ignored the other parts of that announcement, when they also said they were planning on releasing a new product. Maybe the Macbook is staying upmarket and the new product is going to be a low cost / high volume machine that would eat into the cheaper machine segment.<p>It would actually be quite novel (for the PC business) if Apple was intending to invest in their brands and move them up and out instead of down and out. The Mac Pro (formerly known as a Power Macintosh), as a nearly $3k, 8 core Xeon desktop, has been positioned as an ultra-premium product that is suitable for only the highest level users, the MacBook Pro (formerly known as a PowerBook) is holding the cost line and too expensive for anybody but professional users or monied geeks. The MacBook is currently the laptop a non-geek would buy, but Apple has not addressed the lowest mobile market segment, which probably should be considered the sum of the cut-rate laptop market and the eeepc-type market.<p>This is a pretty common strategy in the automobile industry. The current Honda Civic is larger than the first generation Honda Accord. The Honda Fit slots into place where the Civic used to be. Honda has spent decades moving brands upward, keeping them relevant to their customer base and fixing segment gap with new vehicles that are the right size and marketed toward the appropriate people.<p>It's nice to see a tech company market their products more like major investments (Honda Pro) than like disposable consumer goods (Gillete Mach 8 Vostro 2100xblqi).<p>tl;dr: Apple cares about their brand -- don't expect to see a $500 MacBook, Apple probably will create a new product to combat the threat in the article.

&#60;disclaimer&#62;I am not a Mac fanboy.&#60;/disclaimer&#62;<p>The argument in the article is flawed for two reasons:<p>1. Windows Vista needs more hardware to accomplish the same thing as Mac OS X. For example, I can get a along fine with 2 gigs of memory on a MacBook while it would be excruciating to run Vista with anything less than 4 gigs.<p>2. Generally what you are paying for when you buy a Mac is the experience. The fact that a <i>growing</i> number of consumers are still willing to buy Macs given the price difference reinforces this. Macs have always been a great demonstration of the synergy between hardware and software.<p>The article would have more merit if the author discussed the cost, in time and money, of performing a task (ex. create a document) on a PC or Mac.

I wonder how the screens compare.<p>I know when I bought my MacBook Pro, it had a higher pixel density than most PC laptops with similar screens, and that got lost in a lot of comparisons. Slimness and weight are sometimes also overlooked. PC notebooks equally slim or light as the Mac equivalent are often more expensive than the Mac model.<p>Does that $699 PC have equal or better pixel density to the equivalent Mac model? Is it as skinny?<p>(I honestly don't know. It's been about 3 years since I last looked.)

Note that this follows a standard fallacy: comparing circuitry alone. You're not buying a motherboard, RAM, and disk, you're buying a whole machine.<p>For example, the Inspiron 518 that they mentioned was a cheap plastic tower, and they compare it to the integrated iMac. The integration is going to add cost, no matter who builds it.<p>Apples to apples folks, apples to apples.<p>When I do comparisons, here's what I usually find:<p>1. When you find the same build quality (e.g. a macbook pro versus upper-end thinkpads or dells (I don't remember their naems)), the prices get pretty close<p>2. At an update, the macs are slightly cheaper. But the PC vendors quickly adapt. Then the macs are more expensive (usually ~$100).<p>3. To do fair comparisons, you have to also match in the software/accessories included. Lots of stuff free on either platform has to either be given credit or be matched.<p>4. You usually don't want everything included. But, for the sake of intellectual honesty, you have to make the comparisons fair.<p>5. Complaining that Apple offers poor selection or customization options are perfectly fair.

A Ferrari can be four times as expensive as a Corvette. News at 11.<p>It's an apples to oranges comparison. Average selling price is a terrible comparison tool - it only works for very similar products that cater to the same public. While I am not a Mac user (I am, but my main computer is a PC running Linux and the Mac is used mostly at home), I have the deepest respect for the product and I understand fully it's not the same as a more mundane Dell PC.

I'm more than happy to see info like this come out and put apple in its place as an expensive computer.<p>I was shocked at the low prices and great hardware I've been seeing on PCs compared to Macs. If this forces apple to be less stingy with hardware specs on macs then its a good thing. Its great that apple is going so well but i care far, far, far less about their bottom line than mine and other consumers.

Mac is the first computer maker that has succeeded in making computers a fashion item. They get to charge extra for being the in name-brand.

Let me be a contrarian here. I have both a Mac and a Windows PC right here on my desk. I use the Windows XP machine far more often (and not because of any apps I cannot get on a Mac).<p>Before you flame me as a Windows nut, keep in mind that my first computer was a Mac, and I started on Windows after 2 years of Mac.<p>I am fairly certain I am not alone, but most Windows users are the silent types.

I bought my mac because I wanted OSX, I write software. I'm shocked at how many of my friends that bought a PC with Vista say it's utterly horrible. I'm happy I chose to switch given that common sentiment.

It's always the same. Apple introduces new Mac, it's priced competitively. Apple waits a year until it releases a new version and doesn't cut price while other manufacturers release new versions, so the Mac becomes comparatively more expensive as time goes by. Then, Apple releases a new Mac, and the cycle starts anew. Repeat annually. There's really no need to write these "Apple is cheaper" "Apple is more expensive" articles twice each year.

Face it – arguing over computers is futile.<p>Certain characteristics simply hold more value to some individuals over others, which is why some people choose to share their lives with blondes and others with brunettes or redheads. Similarly, some people choose to have Macs; while others choose Windows or Linux.<p>Suggestions that WomanA is "better" than WomanB are incredibly subjective e.g. a 5/10 to you might be a 10/10 to someone else. Although such suggestions can promote passionate discourse (as in this thread), inevitably the arguments that ensue end in deadlock - where you realise that no matter how much you argue, you and your critics will never see eye to eye.<p>Quoting hardware specifications is like saying "she's an X out of 10” and running Windows, Linux or OSX is like preferring blondes, brunettes or redheads.<p>Hackers, it’s time to agree to disagree - because we all like to think we’re spending our lives with babes.

The notebooks really are price-competitive, especially right after a refresh. People compare numbers saying "oh I can get this from dell with the same processor and memory and harddrive for half the price!" but neglect several things:<p>-Almost all those inexpensive PCs are significantly heavier than the macbook.<p>-The screens are not as good as the macs, at all. Even at the same resolution the macs have better backlighting and better color &#38; contrast.<p>-The macs have better battery life.<p>Show me a PC that weighs 5 lbs or less, gets 5 hrs of battery life and has a screen as nice as the macbook for the same or less money. They don't exist.<p>You can get a Sony with all these qualities except the price.<p>You can get a Dell with all these qualities except the battery life and nice screen. (Or you can get a nice screen in a machine that weighs 6+lbs and still has terrible battery life).<p>You can get a Lenovo with all these qualities but the screens are awful.<p>And so on.

One of the things that makes these comparisons annoying is the multiple versions of Vista (is Home Premium really comparable to OSX? I don't actually know) I think they do that just so they can have a positive showing on these checklist comparisons, but it ends up hurting the consumer, who has to make uninformed choices and ends up being dependent on slimy salespeople. In addition, developers also have to deal with multiple versions, which must be a support nightmare.<p>It's a classic example of marketing directives (market segmentation and looking good in these price/feature comparisons) hurting the overall product.

It's easy to find price differences when you compare the wrong specs. In their example, they compare a 19" LCD with no viewing angle, slow updates, etc. with a 20" one of better quality. Yeah, that's going to cost more. You can't compare the 20 to 19 and assume they are the same; there are lots of different 20" panels and lots of different 19" panels.<p>Anyway, I still think my Thinkpad is much nicer looking than any Apple laptop. (Oh, and it's more expensive than a Dell. It must be some sort of conspiracy between Apple and Lenovo, yeah, that's it!)

Funny thing, I just discussed this with a friend. We are both mac users. I think they are overpriced if you compare hardware only, but he maintained that if you compare the hw specs on the best MacBook pro with an HP laptop, you only save like 40 bucks (at least in this part of the world).<p>Anyone got numbers?

fwiw here in India the Macs have a 33% surcharge for some reason ( The dealers say "customs duty", though PC prices track international prices pretty well - something strange is going on). This makes the macs <i>way</i> more expensive than an equivalent PC.

I flagged the article and downvoted everyone who has made a comment because Mac vs. PC flamewar at #1 on Hacker News is sad.

That makes me sad :-(

While I don't deny he has a point, average selling prices are not a very fair metric. Mac buyers more often care about computers, want a higher end one, and allocate a larger budget to their computer.

Yet another Apple-bashing article. Really, I thought HN was above this crap, this kind of submission is better on Reddit or Digg...<p>Cmon folks, get real. Most of the people who buy Macs want OSX, they aren't even considering a Windows machine. And this article had deliberate mis-prints on the Apple specs, for example the iMac has a Core 2 Duo processor, not the older Core Duo.<p>When I bought my MacBook Core 2 Duo laptop in December, 2006, I went to Dell.com and the exact same machine spec'd out to a few hundred more for the Dell vs. what I got with my Mac.<p>Apple does indeed have an entirely new laptop line planned and rumors say they will be introduced in September. And they also say the Apple laptops will have entirely new Intel processors in them.<p>I can run Windows and OSX on my MacBook, very useful really. But I only run Windows to play games, I get my real work done on the Mac. :-)