The Apple Mac Cost Misconception

[vonbose]

The only thing that this article settles, is how ignorant MAC users are to PCs.

 

[cjl]

Oops - forgot to finish the citations properly. It should look like this:


Where does it state that it is shared?The only thing it says on the base model is this:[citation][nom]Dell[/nom]NVIDIA®GeForce®8700M GT graphics[/citation]On the higher models, it is slightly more enlightening:[citation][nom]Dell[/nom]NVIDIA®SLI™Dual GeForce®8700MGT with 512MB2 GDDR3 Memory[/citation]I would say it's a safe assumption that they use the same cards for the single as for the sli models. In fact, I don't think the 8700 series cards even support shared memory - that is a feature typically reserved for low end cards.

 

[darshbagel]

[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]Briliant.[/citation]

And you spelled "brilliant" incorrectly.

I also don't see any logical counterargument from yourself, Tuan. And Tom's could probably make more money writing an article from these comments than your article.

 

[truerock]

I think a lot of the comments here are suggesting that Mac computers are overpriced in the same way someone might say a Lexus automobile is overpriced - at least in part. It is important to distinguish between cost/benefit and cost/comparison. Those are 2 totaly different things. In general - determining if the cost of a Lexus automobile is appropriate, involves analysis of intangibles that go beyond basic functionality. There are lots of individuals who suggest that a Lexus is too expensive. What they are trying to convey is that they do not feel that the extra benefits of a Lexus do not justify its extra cost.
I am fortunate in that it is irrelevant to me if I spend $500 or $5,000 on a personal computer. Nevertheless, at work and at home I have many computers with many operating systems. As a computer scientist, I admire the quality of the design and functionality of a Mac. But, I certainly understand that a Mac would not be selected as the primary personal computer by many individuals.

 

[truerock]

Apparently the author of this article made a typographical error in that it says Macs are an open architecture because they have an 8 percent market share. That is probably an editing mishap.

 

[goodsyntax]

Tuan,

I hate to pig-pile, but many of the previous commenter’s had a point. Obviously, if you build a PC with EXACTLY THE SAME HARDWARE, pricing will be consistent; the only variable is the software.

Does Apple choose the hardware because they honestly feel that it is the most feature laden, most stable, most high performance hardware available, or do they choose the hardware because of favorable contractual pricing models?

This is an enthusiast site, we all know what's out there and most of us can cherry pick hardware and tailor configurations where the impact would be felt the most.

Would I personally purchase top of the line NVIDIA or ATI video cards for office productivity and email PC's, or would I eschew the upgrade in favor of additional memory, larger hard drive or larger monitors? The PC environment allows me to tailor my hardware according to how I will use it, giving me the opportunity to splurge on hardware that boosts productivity and cut costs in other areas that are deemed unnecessary.

To give this article more credibility, you should take several PC and Mac configurations (OEM and purpose built - solicit advice from readers on what configurations would be best), run a bunch of benchmarks and boil everything down to objective, empirical numbers. Performance/watt, performance/dollar, FPS/dollar, etc. Without hard facts (and I don't mean cherry picking pricing that best suits your position), I'm afraid this article represents nothing more than your (favorable) opinion of Apple structured around a very narrowly scoped argument that Mac pricing is in-line with PC that have identical configurations.

Can I build a Mac clone for the same price? Yes, I can, but my point why? One of the most compelling reasons to build a PC yourself is the ability to tailor the configuration according to usage and/or esthetics. Would anyone install an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280 on an email/internet browsing PC? Obviously not! Computers, whether PC or Mac can be used for web, email, photo editing, movie editing, file serving or a thousand other purposes. Building a computer dedicated to that purpose will always perform better and in many cases will cost less than generic OEM machines.

@gxsolace - Insults and name calling are unnecessary and undermines whatever point you tried to make.

@scimanal - I am a developer who has chosen to weigh in on the subject.

Your arguement that 67% of web servers run Linux is great, but so what?

Of course most web servers will be running Linux because
1 - It's free
2 - It makes sense from a utility computing perspective
3 - Why carry the overhead of the UI layer in Windows or OSX when you don't need it?
4 - Open source gives companies the ability to tailor their environment where proprietary software does not allow it.
5 - *nix operating systems have a smaller attack surface and have a tiny fraction of the known exploits of Windows.

Your comment comes off as pompous and arrogant. Clearly you underestimate the intelligence, experience and capabilities of the population here. Yes there are fanboys putting in their two cents, but remember that this site is geared to enthusiasts who know a lot about hardware and software, much of which has been learned through years of experience and research. Casually dismissing the population here and asserting a sense of superiority because you are a *nix elitist who dabbles in C/C++, PERL or AWK shows a clear inferiority complex. Either that or you are so self loathing that you lash out against everyone behind a veil of anonymity.

 

[T-Bone]

Proprietary / Not proprietary...The point here is that it can only be installed on Mac hardware while Windows has no such requirement. Actually, they are both proprietary as neither are open-source types.

I think there is nothing wrong with Mac or Mac articles on Toms BUT so long as they're "fair & balanced" and not dishonest & biased. (I refuse to use the phrase "intellectually dishonest" because that phrase is BS; things are either honest or not. Besides, the phrase itself is intellectually dishonest.) Furthermore, I think there should be articles/sections on the Mac especially since it IS a pc now. However, there is no need to make these articles always about Mac vs pc. Most of the points stated here by pc fan boys are true (not all); and many of the mac points are true as well but it seems that most of the true points about Macs are coming from pc users that use macs as well.

 

[Antioch18]

In addition to Cherry Picking PCs for prices, it seems Tuan is also Cherry Picking his comment responses to ones he thinks he can win, but has yet to respond to the more relevant critiques of the article.

I would like to see him respond to the MANY equivalent, cheaper machines posted in this thread in regards to the machines he posted.

 

[gxsolace]

[citation][nom]zenmaster[/nom]LOL!!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You are Joking Right?Do you know the Difference between System Memory and Graphics Memory.[/citation]


Did you read the description tag on the system memory box on the Dell spec page you idiot? It says part of system memory will be shared for use with graphics.

You sir are total tool.

 

[guyladouche]

I used to have the idea that Mac's were absurdly overpriced, but over the last year, I've realized that for what they have in them, especially the laptops, it's difficult to configure a comparably spec'd PC-based laptop for less $. But the thing is, sometimes people don't want a $2k laptop--a $500 would do just fine, in which case Mac fails. They are expensive, but not in a price/performance aspect.

In regards to comparing a desktop Mac and a desktop PC--building a comparably spec'd desktop PC to match a Mac is a nice comparison to make, but I'd take the PC any day despite price--because at least the components are not proprietary, and if something goes wrong, you can get in there and fix it with your hands as opposed to taking/shipping it to tech support somewhere... That's where Mac fails in the desktop market. But for most users, they don't build their own computers, so if they want a performance desktop, why not go Mac (assuming OC gripes don't come to mind).

 

[skittle]

[citation][nom]Antioch18[/nom]In addition to Cherry Picking PCs for prices, it seems Tuan is also Cherry Picking his comment responses to ones he thinks he can win, but has yet to respond to the more relevant critiques of the article.I would like to see him respond to the MANY equivalent, cheaper machines posted in this thread in regards to the machines he posted.[/citation]

No kidding, instead of responding to my post, he instead decided to correct my spelling. I think this says a lot about the quality of the staff here :|

 

[tuannguyen]

[citation][nom]cjl[/nom]Where does it state that it is shared?The only thing it says on the base model is this:[citation]NVIDIA®GeForce®8700M GT graphics[/citation]On the higher models, it is slightly more enlightening:[citation]NVIDIA®SLI™Dual GeForce®8700MGT with 512MB2 GDDR3 Memory[/citation]I would say it's a safe assumption that they use the same cards for the single as for the sli models. In fact, I don't think the 8700 series cards even support shared memory - that is a feature typically reserved for low end cards.[/citation]

Did you not notice the annotation to the memory category? "2" ?

 

[lumpynose]

I like how he claims he's not an Apple fanboy and then says "In terms of hardware, there’s nothing really special about a Mac aside from elegant designs, be it a Mac Pro or MacBook Pro, that makes it incredibly more worthwhile than the PC equivalent."

"incredibly more worthwhile"?!

 

[sandmanwn]

[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]Write a 1 pager argument and second take point of view to this article, in an objective and non demeaning manner, and I will append it to my article as a new page called "Second Opinion."[/citation]
How bout you give us your bosses email address and we all write a 1 page paper on why you shouldn't be a writer for THG.

 

[tuannguyen]

I'll respond to the "cheaper PC" posts here in one response instead of individually.

The bottom line here guys, is that you can ALWAYS build anything for cheaper. A car, a computer, a PC, a Mac, a house, whatever it may be. You can get from Point A to Point B cheaper one way or another.

The whole argument was, can you build the SAME thing Apple builds for less?

Even in this question, it is sometimes yes, sometimes no. But the point is, it's not WAY WAY less like some people mentioned. One last person in the article said he build the "exact" same system for HALF the price. C'mon now.

/ Tuan

 

[Mach5Motorsport]

[citation][nom]tuannguyen[/nom]- Lian Li case because it's the equivalent to the Mac Pro tower. Get a clue.- [/citation]
ah "equivalent" Mac Pro Tower = excessive non-performance option. Guess a Mac Pro buyer can't opt for something cheaper.
hmmm does the Lian Li case make a system go any faster? No.

It's just cosmetic. The Mac image through and through. Simply extra money that a good $60 standard case could also provide.

 

[tuannguyen]

[citation][nom]lumpynose[/nom]I like how he claims he's not an Apple fanboy and then says "In terms of hardware, there’s nothing really special about a Mac aside from elegant designs, be it a Mac Pro or MacBook Pro, that makes it incredibly more worthwhile than the PC equivalent.""incredibly more worthwhile"?![/citation]

Huh?
I think you read that sentence wrong. Let me simplify it for you. "There's nothing more special about a Mac that makes it anymore worth while than a PC equivalent in terms of hardware."

Not sure why this sentence is slanted towards Macs -- it is on the contrary.

 

[nitrous9200]

My brother recently picked up a laptop for school. What he got: XPS M1530 with a Core 2 Duo T8300 (2.4GHz), 3GB RAM, 15.4" WXGA+ LED screen, 8600M GT, 160GB 7200RPM HD, slot loading DVD burner, Intel wireless N, bluetooth, fingerprint reader and 2.0MP camera. Total price: $1,619.00...but then take off about $400 for the 25% coupon, free shipping, and add the tax: $1,303.78. And just think, the cheapest MBP costs $1,999. Obviously your article needs some work, and I also noticed that your wannabe Mac Pro includes a $277 copy of Vista ultimate retail. The OEM version is about $100 less!

 

[tuannguyen]

[citation][nom]Mach5Motorsport[/nom]ah "equivalent" Mac Pro Tower = excessive non-performance option. Guess a Mac Pro buyer can't opt for something cheaper.hmmm does the Lian Li case make a system go any faster? No. It's just cosmetic. The Mac image through and through. Simply extra money that a good $60 standard case could also provide. [/citation]

That's the whole point, can you do the SAME for much less? I keep repeating myself but people just fail to see the argument. You are trying to MATCH the Apple build for LESS. This is different than simply saying can I go as cheap as possible.

 

[tuannguyen]

[citation][nom]sandmanwn[/nom]How bout you give us your bosses email address and we all write a 1 page paper on why you shouldn't be a writer for THG.[/citation]

You're welcome to go elsewhere.

 

[rockbyter]

take the first article, and cut out all of the opinionated stuff.
take the second article, and cut out all of the opinionated stuff.
Merge the two articles so they make sense,

it becomes a review. sifting through that many opinionated pages of gloating then self defense rant really sucks. I choked it down to see if you redeem yourself, but it actually just infuriated me a bit more to see it all happen again.

Your interludes and digressions gotta go. Do the comparison, tell us what the deal is, talk about the pricing problem, and you wouldn't have gotten nearly as much slander.

OR

post it all in the forum instead where it doesn't make THG look so bad.

 

[skittle]

There are VERY NICE cases that are priced under $200. Lian-li, while being exceptionally nice, are not the only choice.

 

[Antioch18]

Something no one has bothered to touch on: LINUX.

We've already established that it is possible to build a more or equally powerful "PC" machine for less money. However, the article points out that, side from hardware, OSX offers a faster, more stable, and more secure environment to work on than "PCs". Well, Linux does the same thing, and it runs on the same "PC" - heck, it even supports much more hardware to boot. It even has fancy desktop effects and widgets (thanks Compiz/Beryl) just like OSX.

It was also pointed out that OSX has poor game support and that you can always boot up into XP/Vista. Well the same can be said for Linux -- and it's FREE and can run on whatever hardware I choose.

 

[tuannguyen]

[citation][nom]rockbyter[/nom]take the first article, and cut out all of the opinionated stuff.take the second article, and cut out all of the opinionated stuff.Merge the two articles so they make sense,it becomes a review. sifting through that many opinionated pages of gloating then self defense rant really sucks. I choked it down to see if you redeem yourself, but it actually just infuriated me a bit more to see it all happen again. Your interludes and digressions gotta go. Do the comparison, tell us what the deal is, talk about the pricing problem, and you wouldn't have gotten nearly as much slander. ORpost it all in the forum instead where it doesn't make THG look so bad. [/citation]

It would have received the same slander anyway. A Mac article on TH is going against the tide.

 

[scimanal]

I may sound somewhat arrogant, and I give you that, I apologize, however, some of your points are kind of true, and kind of not.

1. Linux is not exactly free anymore, many professional web hosts use things like Red Hat, etc and do pay for it. That's not a small number.

2. Good Point here, could argue for either Windows or Mac on this one, but it wouldn't change the argument per say.

3. both Windows and Mac can also lose the UI layer, so this is not entirely a argument point.

4. I can see where you are coming from on this one, point taken, but there is still an immense amount of tweaking that is possible in Windows (Server), and an equal amount in Mac OS X (server)

5. *nix structures have just as bad of an attack possibility. I completely understand how the size is less, but often the attacks against servers are generally more severe and much more harsh than your day to day windows script/exploit. I do agree with you on this point, but you have to at least acknowledge my perspective on this, because I think its a serious one.

1 - It's free
2 - It makes sense from a utility computing perspective
3 - Why carry the overhead of the UI layer in Windows or OSX when you don't need it?
4 - Open source gives companies the ability to tailor their environment where proprietary software does not allow it.
5 - *nix operating systems have a smaller attack surface and have a tiny fraction of the known exploits of Windows.