« Boffins | Main | SQL Server 2008 »
Lamb in wolves skin
By sparky | August 6, 2008
Some recent musings with a fellow uni-companion brought to light the fact that many people go out purchasing Apple’s ‘macbook’, with the only intention being to scrap the host os (OS-X), and replace it with windows, usually XP, but some are going to Vista.
We were discussing how stupid it was, the main reason being that the Mac’s are actually four or five times more expensive (depending on what model you get) than a standard PC varient.
I can testify to how silly it is, because a few years ago I actually took out a personal loan to purchase a powerbook (back when they used PPC processors).
One could argue you get what you pay for; However, in my personal experience, that is definatly not the case with a Mac. Their smallest, and cheapest notebook starts at $1500.
I recently purchased an Asus for $786. This came with 2gb’s RAM, 160gb HDD, Vista Home Premium, Webcam, and 2 years manufacturers warranty, and I purchased an additional 2 years warranty (for a total of 4 years) for $189. Subtotal: $975
If I went with the cheapest option for the Macbook, the base system is $1,499. Add an additional 1 gb memory ($150), bring the hard drive up to 160gb ($80), Additional 2 years (for a total of 3 years) warranty $419. You’re now looking at $2148.
There’s only two key arguments to try justify this cost.
1. It’s a stylish unit. Yes, it is. Some *may* call it ‘sexy’ – I wouldn’t.
2. The system is responsive and flies. This is true. I’ve seen it. It’s scary. It’s even more embarrassing for Microsoft when Vista runs the best on a Mac. Battery life is also apparently up to 6 hours on these units. Mine does close to 4.5 these days.
3. They seem to use a 2.1 ghz Intel Core 2 duo, as opposed to the Asus 1.7 ghz.
They both use the same graphics card though (which I was a bit surprised at); Seems the macbookPro’s are the ones with the dedicated high-end cards (Nvidia GeForce 8600). Of course, these notebooks start at $2,699.
The reality is, Apple can’t really justify the cost of their products. Once upon a time, during the megahertz wars – they may have been able to. Unfortunately, it appears the fools and their money is parted all too easily these days- since people are still prepared to pay that price for the Apple products; many are under the illusion that they’re either ‘easier to use’ or ‘better’. Whenever I ask the people to explain “What exactly is ‘better’ about it?”, they stare blank-faced.
I give full credit to the marketeers at Apple for this. They’ve managed to create the perception that there’s a product that is ‘worth’ spending that much money on. I’ll let my own personal experience speak for itself.
At anyrate- if you buy a mac, at least try use the operating system / software that comes with it, and get your head out of the ‘windows’ mindset. It’s really not as cool as it was in 1995. I’m serious. Otherwise it’s like buying a Ferarri and replacing the enging with one from a Datsun 120Y.
Topics: Evironment, Hardware, OS | 10 Comments »
August 7th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I bought a Mac because of the software environment. It’s like Unix, but easy. The biggest uptake with Macs is with the “creative professional” crowd and unless you do what they do, it’s not easy to explain the reasoning behind buying a Mac.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
But that’s historic. Mac had the software designed for it, and it utilised the full potential of the hardware. These days it makes no difference – especially since Mac is now Intel chipset too.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
But what has changed? Mac software still makes the most of the hardware, whether they’re Intel or not.
August 8th, 2008 at 8:28 am
You did gloss over one other feature about a Mac – the incredibly high quality of their displays. I don’t know of any other whole “package” of notebook that can offer 1680 at that high-a quality for less.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Long: Yes, the Mac OS is brilliant and that’s my key quam with people buying the mac just for looks, and putting windows on it. I really think people should try something different.
). I suppose the offset is the Research and Development that goes into their products.
However, I’m not so sure the cost for the hardware itself can be justify; except maybe their LCD panels which really are quite amazing (and that’s an agreement there, farseeker
August 8th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
The reason Macs cost what they do is because Apple have very strict reseller pricing. Having worked in a computer shop, I can tell you that there’s not much leeway when it comes to Apple products and people who buy Apple stuff generally aren’t fussed about a few dollars difference between stores.
On the other hand, when it comes to other non-Apple brands, if someone down the road is selling the same thing for $5 less than you, people are going to flock over there, and so prices drop rapidly because of competition.
And to farseeker, yes, the displays are brilliant. I’ve got the 17″ Macbook Pro with a 1920×1200 display and it’s gorgeous. My 30″ Cinema display is also one of the best I’ve seen, even compared to the 30″ Samsung.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Oh, and of note, I’ve found an interesting article just published a few days ago from Tom’s about Apple pricing. Interesting read.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Long: Kind of a timely article really, nice find
They do make some valid points; and I never had issues with the OS. After reading the article, I’m not quite so critical of them, but my bad experience with mine still leaves a bit of a burn in my opinoin and dealing with them.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
That’s totally understandable, sparky, I’ve got friends who will never buy Sony because they’ve had bad experiences with them while I’ve never had a Sony fail on me before. I waited till Apple moved to Intel before I got my Mac Pro because I knew the G5s weren’t very good so I guess I knew what I wanted and knew what to expect.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Something else I should point out – the Datsun 120Y was a brilliant car with a revolutionary engine for its day. It was the first car that showed the british people that on a cold day they didn’t have to massage their engine into life. Judging by the number of services the Ferrari owned by the guy we contract to versus the number of kilometers it drives (It drives… 0 kilometers and gets serviced every few months), a 120Y would be more reliable too.