Why are Macs so darn expensive?

[SpiderPig]

Why?

Wanted to buy a Macbook because they look nice and OSX looks kinda cool. But even for the base model you only get a subpar laptop with componants that you could get in the same windows based laptop for much cheaper?

Is their any reason?

I love the look of OSX and would love to try it out for video editing and other multimedia tasks which windows sucks at. Maybe osx86?

 

[Eejit]

All Apple stuff is pretty overpriced, from MacBooks to iPods. Style-tax I suppose.

 

[Emporius]

Macboon?

They're expensive because they know people will still buy them because of their 'popularity'.

 

[Sir Phoenixx]

I love the look of OSX and would love to try it out for video editing and other multimedia tasks which windows sucks at.

Because no one makes any video editing or multimedia programs for the PC, right?

Windows also sucks at image editing and drawing, which is why you buy other programs like Photoshop and Painter.

 

[G(ordon)-man]

Talking of iPod, i am getting one tommorow

 

[Unfocused]

Why?

Wanted to buy a Macbook because they look nice and OSX looks kinda cool. But even for the base model you only get a subpar laptop with componants that you could get in the same windows based laptop for much cheaper?

Is their any reason?

I love the look of OSX and would love to try it out for video editing and other multimedia tasks which windows sucks at. Maybe osx86?

In bold.

And because the consumer has to pay for the advertisements that brought him to the product.


Since we're on the topic - why are Macs associated with graphic artists? What's so more convenient, compared to the PC?

 

[xcellerate]

I don't know what you're talking about, to make a fair comparison between a macbook and a dell:

13" computer
3yr warranty support
dual core
64bit OS
Bluetooth
Webcam

Dell: $895
Apple: $999

...it's not that much more expensive. The difference is the companies have different standards for what constitute a base model. It's like how a base model toyota camry is cheaper than a base model audi A4. Yea they're both cars and they'll both do the same stuff, but they're equipped differently.


The problem you're going to get, is there's this stigma that apple's are stupid and don't do anything but look pretty. There was a thread about what OS people use and there were numerous people jumping in screaming about how stupid OSX is and how macs are dumb, but amazingly when confronted by myself and others, none of them were able to give ANY reasons as to why.

And and I don't even own an apple computer.


edit: apples are associated for video and picture editing because the G processors would out benchmark intel and amd on processing power. So while it may fail at video games, it could unsharpen mask a picture in photoshop twice as fast as a comparable intel processor. But now that apple switched to intel processors it's all fairly even. But OSX is still a lot better at dealing with multi-core processing than vista/xp, and when snow-leapard comes out they're implementing a technology called "grand central" that makes every application in OSX multi-core aware.

 

[Iced_Eagle]

Apple charges more mostly because people pay for it. I mean, if you could sell a product at $1,000 when it only costs you $800 to make, and you make a great profit, isn't that what you would do?

xcellerate: Personally, an extra $105 + tax is a lot, especially considering how different they are. With my PC I can play all of the latest games, all of my apps work (VStudio = amazing, no Mac code editing program can come close), and it's more decently priced. With the Mac, you may look "cooler" but it can be a bit too flashy at times, and it doesn't have the wide range of support of apps that Windows does.

Yes, I'm sure you will point out Bootcamp, but that also adds the cost of buying a Windows license as well in addition to the already more expensive machine.

 

[Raziaar]

For the same reason that machine worn/stressed jeans are so expensive.

There are idiots that will pay good money for them.

 

[swan_song1973]

because they know you'll pay it.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

Gimmick. That people loooove to whore over.

 

[xcellerate]

Yes, I'm sure you will point out Bootcamp, but that also adds the cost of buying a Windows license as well in addition to the already more expensive machine.

Vista on newegg is $75. So basically you have two options:

Computer A
or
Computer A that will run OSX and Vista for +$180.

So you like Vstudio, that's fine, you like windows, that's fine, I really don't care what OS people like. I used 64bit vista and XP at home. What kills me is when people flat out say stupid things like, "OSX is terrible" or "macs are stupid".

There will some people who will never outgrow the cool/trendy/whatever stigma attached to apple products, and that's sad. You can go look at factory recalls between a 2003 jetta and a 2003 civic, the civic has 12 and the jetta has 2, but if you asked any person on the street which one is more reliable they'll almost 100% say "honda".

If you don't like OSX because you like the vista layout more, or you like Vstudio, or even if the startup sound gets you a hard-on, THAT IS FINE. But I just hate how people try and brush OSX off as being nothing but pretty. Especially people who have never used it extensively. They used windows for 10 years, play with OSX for 20 minutes in a mac store or at a friend's house and OMG WINDOWS IS SO MUCH BETTER.

 

[Kadayi]

I use OSX at work and Vista 64 at home. Tbh, both are pretty robust and do what they need to. Personally I don't buy Apple for home, because short of buying a mac pro (the tower) you're pretty much hardware locked, and your machine will show it's age 3 years down the line, plus the OS might be robust but Apples build quality isn't great in my experience.

Really you have to ask yourself what you need a laptop for. If you just want it for emailing etc, you'd probably be better off looking at a netbook. They are cheap as chips Vs Apple lappies.

 

[Ravioli]

 

[StardogChampion]

I love the look of OSX and would love to try it out for video editing and other multimedia tasks which windows sucks at.

How does windows suck at it?

Avid, Premiere/After Effects or whatever else all run on windows... and no, Macs can't magically render your video faster just because they're Macs.

 

[xcellerate]

Last Mac Pro Update: January 08, 2008.

and no, Macs can't magically render your video faster just because they're Macs.

and no it's not magic...

http://retouchartists.com/pages/speedtest.html

there's also results between PC and Apples in there.


apple products are expensive, in some configurations they're more expensive than others. But there is more to a computer than how much a blu-ray option costs. I built my vista machine, and it was cheaper than a dell and an apple, and performed better (at the time). Gasp!

 

[giant384]

yea i really do hate when people get in the OSX argument.

Macs are good for what they do,they excel in video and graphic rendering. they are optimized for it. Pcs can do the same but the majority of the time you will have to spend more money on hardware(workstation cards) with windows to match a Mac. So in the end it might even come out to the same price for the same rendering performance.

 

[Operational]

and no it's not magic...

I had the perfect test machine, too - a day-old midrange Macbook. Windows XP (Pro, SP2) was a vanilla install

I'm shocked, shocked to find WinXP loses to MacOS when it runs on a Mac without drivers.

 

[giant384]

rofl it was tested against a vanilla copy of xp on a mac?

 

[Asus]

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4949/mac.png

Yes, the cheaper desktop is faster in SPECrate than the old hardware in the Apple Mac Pro workstation which costs a lot more.
But this is Intels issue between their new desktop CPU and lack of a new workstation CPU atm. It is not a PC vs Apple thing. Intel has yet to release/replace their workstation CPUs for both PC and Apple with the Core i7 cpus.
ATM the new tech (which has Hyperthreading - OS sees a quad CPU as 8 cores) is only on desktops.

Can't use this against apple...
They don't run G5 hardware anymore.

 

[Raziaar]

What does the integer and floating thing represent in the image? What do the numbers represent?

 

[Bakurei]

Only thing integer and float remind me is that integers are whole numbers (1,2,3 etc) and float has decimals (0.1,0.123415, etc). So I'm guessing they represent how fast the calculations are done in given accuracy. And also everything you do to an image is just math (suprise...). The whole image is just a huge matrix. And by using the rules of matrix algebra the image can be changed. Say you want to rotate the image the program would transpose the image matrix. So the faster you do integer and float calculations, the faster you can calculate the changed matrix.

And as for the mac conversation concerning 3d rendering. I don't think any company uses macs for rendering. Maybe just for the modeling part. I've had to use a few macs at the university and I have to say I'd rather use win98 than OSX. The whole oss just feels like some teenage girls glitter house.

 

[G(ordon)-man]

Macs have different graphic cards, RAM sticks and hard drives. That might be the cause too.

 

[CptStern]

They're expensive because they know people will still buy them because of their 'popularity'.

ya apple has 5% of the computer market, they sure are "popular"

 

[xcellerate]

I'm shocked, shocked to find WinXP loses to MacOS when it runs on a Mac without drivers.

why would windows not have drivers?

 

[Kadayi]

Macs have different graphic cards, RAM sticks and hard drives. That might be the cause too.

Trust me the only thing different inside a Mac when it comes to the components is the motherboard layout, the rest is pretty much all 3rd party gear. They don't make that shit in specialist Mac factories.

 

[xcellerate]

Trust me the only thing different inside a Mac when it comes to the components is the motherboard layout, the rest is pretty much all 3rd party gear. They don't order make that shit in specialist Mac factories.

Exactly. I love it when people act like apple's are specifically designed to work with OSX and against windows. The imac I'm on right now: panasonic DVD-r, Intel Audio, ATI video card, crucial memory, intel sata controller, seagate harddrive. My god, how will windows ever support the drivers for this apple-only hardware! -_-

The funny thing is when I used my XP notebook in public, I've never been approached by an apple user trying to convince how far superior his computer is to mine. But, I HAVE been approached multiple times by people trying to tell how god-forsaken my iphone is and how apple makes the shittest products in the world and how much better their Nokia mz700whatever is. Weird right?

 

[Kadayi]

It should also be pointed out that Apple don't pick the best components, they tend to go for the best within a price point. By limiting the amount of hardware component types their machines have to handle they are able to tailor the OS accordingly for a slightly slicker experience, Vs MS who are making a OS that has to work with an enormous number of differing hardware skews.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

They know how to sell, thats for sure.

 

[Escaep]

I'm shocked, shocked to find WinXP loses to MacOS when it runs on a Mac without drivers.

I don't know if this is how you view it but.....Windows does not run on OSX. When people say they run Windows on a Mac what they are saying is they used Boot Camp to create a partition on their hard drive which they directly loaded Windows on to.

I used Boot Camp to put Windows on my 24" iMac. What I did:

1. Partitioned my drive
2. Inserted my Windows CD. Installed Windows normally.
3. Inserted the OSX CD once I was in Windows which installed the necessary Windows drivers. From there I installed all the latest stuff.

So when I want to switch to Windows from OSX i simply change the start-up disk to Windows, restart, and it restarts into Windows. Vis-a-versa for when in Windows.

 

[G(ordon)-man]

Wait, i meant that Mac components have different arhitecture than mainstream components.

 

[CyberPitz]

The same reason Rotary Engines are so expensive to repair. Lack of parts floating around + lack of sales = more expensive to make up the cost to make it.

*Then again, Rotary Engines are hand built in Japan, unlike Pistons, so I'd assume that's another reasons prices are up. Hey look, a lesson for all!*

 

[Operational]

why would windows not have drivers?

I'm assuming that he is using the stock drivers that come with XP because there is no way that, properly setup, XP is so inefficient that it takes twice as long to do something than MacOS on the same hardware.
Especially when more trustworthy benchmarks paint a much closer picture.

The funny thing is when I used my XP notebook in public, I've never been approached by an apple user trying to convince how far superior his computer is to mine. But, I HAVE been approached multiple times by people trying to tell how god-forsaken my iphone is and how apple makes the shittest products in the world and how much better their Nokia mz700whatever is. Weird right?

Because there must be equality in the number of crazy people between the non-apple majority and the apple minority, right?

 

[Fliko]

Wait, i meant that Mac components have different arhitecture than mainstream components.

What? The hardware is practically the same as PC now. It's in the OS where the differences lie.

My experiences with Mac have not been pretty, but other people have had much better luck.

 

[xcellerate]

I'm assuming that he is using the stock drivers that come with XP because there is no way that...

I've dual booted more than a hundred apple machines with XP, and XP never recognizes all of the hardware by itself. I have always had to use the apple hardware CD to install the drivers. So I must believe that he did the same thing.

And how much more fair can you get, than running the same test on the EXACT SAME MACHINE, and only changing OS's?

and:

The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year (through 10/25/07) is a Mac. Try that again: The fastest Windows Vista notebook we've tested this year--or for that matter, ever--is a Mac. Not a Dell, not a Toshiba, not even an Alienware. The $2419 (plus the price of a copy of Windows Vista, of course) MacBook Pro's PC WorldBench 6 Beta 2 score of 88 beats Gateway's E-265M by a single point, but the MacBook's score is far more impressive simply because Apple couldn't care less whether you run Windows.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/136649-3/in_pictures_the_most_notable_notebooks_of_2007.html

yea it's old, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Things might be different now, but still funny how this happened.

Because there must be equality in the number of crazy people between the non-apple majority and the apple minority, right?

My point was, people always act like apple folks are the crazy, annoying people who are so quick to talk about how awesome apple is. When in my experience it's only the windows people who confront you and annoyingly, without any real arguments, tell me apple is 'stupid'.

you might want to read these benchmarks also: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html?page=2

With 1/3 the ram of a vista machine, the mac still opened photoshop nearly twice as fast, with EIGHT programs already running. Weird huh?

 

[xcellerate]

...apparently I quoted myself...instead of editing myself...


edit: I guess my goal here isn't to convince everyone that OSX is superior, because an operating system comes down to more than benchmarks. Like how safari 4 is faster than firefox, but people still use firefox because of add-ons. I just want people to understand that OSX is a lot better than most people make it out to be. That said, I use windows on my both laptop and desktop.

 

[G(ordon)-man]

What? The hardware is practically the same as PC now. It's in the OS where the differences lie.

My experiences with Mac have not been pretty, but other people have had much better luck.

I dunno, I read it somewhere that their hard drives and RAMs have different working architectures. Also they use different file format, HFS+.

 

[Eejit]

We're kinda off topic now. Even the Champions of Macs and OSX here will probably agree that they're overpriced.

 

[Operational]

yea it's old, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Things might be different now, but still funny how this happened.

I don't have a problem with MacOS beating WinXP in a benchmark, my last post even linked to a benchmark where this happened.
I have a problem with the results in the original benchmark you posted. It is pretty incredulous, I think it is more likely that this random internet artist screwed up than his results being an accurate reflection on the performance of the OSs.

 

[Saturos]

For the same reason that machine worn/stressed jeans are so expensive.

There are idiots that will pay good money for them.

^agree

All Apple stuff is pretty overpriced, from MacBooks to iPods. Style-tax I suppose.

^ditto

My friend tried to get me to buy a Mac once. Says they are good for business apps because of fewer malware threats.

I'll never get one though, because I really don't give a crap about bootcamp (laziness?) and I use PC-only stuff too often.
Macs are expensive because fewer people buy them, and like the above poster said, they still need a way to pay for expensive advertising.

They've really just become somewhat of a fad too.