Mac Value Comes from Productivity, not Price
From Jason:
Hey,
I read your
article and found it very interesting, but I thought some of the
conclusions were rather unrelated to the actual task of comparing
pricing or tended to inflate the price of PCs to compensate.
I've seen many Mac vs. PC pricing articles that have priced in
expensive, unnecessary software in order to try and even out the price
difference and make the Mac look better. It's definitely worth noting
that while many Mac users consider purchasing iLife to be
indispensable, there are many free alternatives available for PCs,
including the terrific Picasa
from Google. As for iMovie, iDVD, GarageBand, and iWeb, there are not
really comparable Windows counterparts at all - at least without
stepping up to the expensive pro market.
In terms of antivirus, Norton is pretty horrible, and most PC users
would not use it for free, let alone pay $39 for it. There are several
powerful free antivirus programs out there including AVG
Anti-Virus. Basically, I don't think it's really valid to include
software comparisons when factoring price - I consider iLife to be one
of those intangible advantages of the Mac platform, not a monetary
one.
for normal usage (of course, YMMV), there's also no need to factor
in the price of Vista Ultimate or other upgrades. The standard Vista
Home Premium matches Leopard in terms of designed usage, at least for
most users (once again, YMMV).
Finally, I thought a few your conclusions were a bit flimsy. for
example, you accused cheap Windows PCs of being poor at gaming, but
it's pretty much the opposite: If you look at the price of a low-priced
Dell Vostro with an 8600GT, it will absolutely demolish a MacBook in
all objective gaming performance tests and likely match or beat a
MacBook Pro, which costs twice its price.
I don't think there is anything wrong with admitting that Windows
machines are cheaper. They just are. That doesn't mean Macs aren't a
great value in terms of actual productivity, time saved doing
maintenance, build quality, etc. I think it's important to stress the
user experience and design of a Mac when trying to convince someone to
switch, since it's useless to play with numbers and make Macs look like
they are cheaper.
(And as a side note, once you factor in the multitude of coupons
offered by Dell, their computers really bury MacBooks in
pricing)
Bottom line for me is, Macs still require a modest premium over PCs
to attain the same level of performance, but the real question is
whether the overall ownership experience is worth that premium. I
suppose that in the great LEM tradition, the core of the argument lies
in actual functionality and productivity. for the vast majority of
users, the Mac will provide a better workflow that would be well worth
the extra money. However, there's also lots of software developers,
gamers, etc. who require performance/dollar. In their case, it's hard
to argue with the financial advantages of PC laptops.
Wow this turned out to be a lot longer than I planned. Hope I
made a couple worthwhile points!
-Jason
Jason,
I may be wrong; I don't think we disagree on much, but
my emphasis was different. I agree that there are cheaper PC laptops,
but they have lower specifications than a basic MacBook. I raised the
specifications on purpose to show that these extras cost more whether
you buy from Apple or HP. Once we get to close specifications, the gap
in prices get much smaller. Sometimes, depending on specification and
model, the price can be in Apple's favor.
I actually point out most of the things you are
talking about:
- for the dv2700t, I gave HP the win for hardware, and I said that
software would depend on personal needs. That's not automatically in
Apple's favor, nor did I assign it a monetary bonus, but if you were
starting from scratch, it would be useful to have.
- for the XPS 1350, equal hardware was just as expensive as the Mac.
That does include the battery, because what good is a laptop with a
short battery life?
- Buying Norton Antivirus isn't my idea; that is what Dell and HP
post on their websites. I only suggest that with a PC you do have to
take this into account.
- The multiple flavors of Vista is simply greed on Microsoft's part.
It would make the comparison easier if there was only one version to
compare. I still use just Leopard when I compared high-end desktops
that came with Vista Business. If you do want or need one of these
other Vistas, then I listed the price quoted by HP and Dell.
- Cheap computers not meeting expectations are not something I
invented. Search the Web for the class action suit by those people who
bought" Vista Capable" machines. They aren't happy about the missing
features. I did simplify the whole story to one sentence for my
article, but it does happen to PC buyers. It has even happened to me
using Macs - in one year a new game came out that needed slightly
higher processor speed and graphics card than I had. You can't tell me
that this doesn't happen to PC buyers.
- Ask your self one question: Why can Dell sell the "Vostro with an
8600GT, it will absolutely demolish a MacBook", but Dell's own XPS 1350
is priced the same as a MacBook. There has to be something better in
the XPS 1350 or the MacBook that you are missing in your
comparison.
- No I didn't go looking for coupons or other price savings ideas. I
used each vendor's own website and any instant savings they listed. If
that wasn't good enough, then these vendors are at fault for making it
difficult to find out the actual prices.
Good luck with whatever you buy and use.
- Frank
MacBook Needs a Better Graphics Processor
From Joe:
Frank
You missed a few things, like on the dv2700t you can add a 128 MB
Nvidia Geforce 8400M GS for $50 that you can't add to the MacBook.
The Dell XPS M1330 let's you add a 128 MB Nvidia® Geforce™
Go 8400M GS for $100. They also have more CPU choice as well.
With Apple, even at $1,500 you still get onboard video and a 13"
screen.
There are other good laptops at $1,200 - $1,900+ with the same of
better video than the $,2000 MacBook pro.
Joe
Joe,
I missed many things; HP has 9 different home laptop
choices. I could spend days going through all the details and the
different choices. That wasn't the point I was trying to make. One of
the first things I pointed out was that Apple has a simplified line
up.
I think that using each vendor's own website, like any
average shopper, I found that for the MacBook the prices were not
outrageous for the configuration. Yes, I did show that HP could save
you a few dollars. I'm sure if I wanted to spend the time I could have
hounded that point as well. Looking all these facts up and
double-checking the numbers takes time. I had to stop the comparison at
some point.
The MacBook Pro is an entirely different beast. It is
more expensive, and you either want the features it has or you
don't.
You are right that PC vendors can offer higher speed
processors on some models, but that just raises the price. That would
not have helped them sound any less expensive - no point going on about
how much more expensive I could make everything. I did state the price
range I was going to cover at the start, which is mostly the base model
on the Mac side. Adjustments were made to even things out.
I'm sure that many PC website have taken the time to
compare dozens of different models and configurations. If you want more
of these facts, it may be better to search those sites.
Good luck with your own computer choices and finding
the best price.
- Frank
Frank,
But something should be said about the lack of a real video card in
Apple laptop systems under $1,900 and the many PC system that do have
one or let you add on for not that much. Also, at $1,500 no real video
card is bad.
Joe
Joe,
I purposely avoided comparing video cards for a number
of reasons. The most important is that I am not up-to-date on the
latest news about graphics cards. This is mostly because I gave up
gaming on a Mac and spent the money buying a PlayStation and a Wii. I
no longer wait for the Mac version of a new game to be released. Macs
were always behind getting the latest games, and I don't think that has
changed much.
Without video games, the need for average person to
buy a better graphics card is very small. Some people might do 3D
modeling or connect to a 67" LCD monitor, but generally these aren't
your average Joe. for regular work or 2D drawing, any modern graphics
card is more than enough.
You may not know this, but Mac OS X heavily uses the
graphic card for core service and displaying information on the screen.
The screen redraws, shadows, etc. are all handled by the graphics card.
The integrated graphics card is plenty capable. I own a MacBook, and I
like how quickly it handles all my everyday tasks. The processor speed
and memory is mostly what gets taxed.
Since Apple doesn't design their system to be used by
games, there's not much reason for them to burden the system with a
video card option on the MacBook. That is just one of the many
differences that I had to take into account when comparing Macs to
PCs.
If you want a cheap system to play video games on,
you'll just have to stay with a PC. Of course the MacBook Pro is
different, but it isn't cheap.
- Frank
Frank,
Graphics cards are not just for games, and the Intel board video is
the weakest video systems out there. Other onboard video chip sets are
better. Also, at $1,200 onboard video is bad, and at $1,500 is a big
joke. The OS uses 3D on the desktop; having to use onboard video eats
up system RAM and slows down the system by eating up RAM I/O that your
apps can use to run faster. The older Mac laptops had lower end real
video cards at that price. The low-end video cards in most systems at
price are not designed to be used by games, as they can't run them at
high detail with good FPS.
Joe
Joe,
I can tell that this video card issue is important to
you, but I'm not sure if you are looking at this from a Mac or PC point
of view. It may be nice for Apple to offer a choice, but they don't.
They are good enough business people to know that this won't hurt sales
of their laptops, and it hasn't.
I've seen your arguments before back when I wanted a
computer to play games. But I can't think of a single program that the
average person uses for 3D graphics that isn't a video game. AutoCAD
might use it to render a 3D model of a house, but that isn't exactly an
average Joe program. Even Photoshop or DVD editing software really
doesn't push the graphics card too hard.
It is fair to say that shared RAM will use up
resources for your computer. That tells me to buy more RAM, not a
fancier video card. Extra RAM has always been a good resource for a
computer, even if the graphics card isn't using it at the time.
Mac OS X has a pretty good memory management system.
You'll know when to buy more RAM because it will be hitting the hard
drive more often. I'm ready to buy more RAM for my desktop computer,
and it has a good graphics card.
The older Mac laptops did have a separate video card,
but they didn't use Intel chips. Intel has got a lot of computer
companies - Dell, HP, Sony, Apple, etc. - using its integrated
graphics. Apple is in a crowd of other computer makers that are taking
advantage of the price and performance savings of an integrated video
card. The integrated graphics drain less power and give better battery
life for your laptop. That is more important to me than playing Halo
3.
If you have programs that need a better graphics card,
you can either buy a MacBook Pro, get a desktop computer, or find a PC
that has one. You've got to find the solution that works for you.
- Frank
