Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Total Misconceptions and Being Severely Misinformed

The Apple Mac Cost Misconception

Just for kicks, let’s look through some of the comments that ended up having the highest amount of votes from the last article:

VTOLfreak - 07/28/2008 3:13 AM Wrote:
"After reading this article I went to the Apple site and configured a Mac Pro with 2 Xeon’s, 8GB memory and 4TB storage. Cost: about €6000 ($8000) Then I went to a local webshop and put together a machine with the same specs as the one on the Apple site except I put in a GTX 280. Total cost: less then €3000.

OS X may be nice, but do you really want to pay a 100% premium on a machine just for the OS? For a €3000 price difference I’ll stick with Vista x64 or Ubuntu 8.04 x64. (Wich is free btw)"

Okay. Firstly, to do a proper comparison, you take the baseline Mac Pro at the price that’s indicated, and then you take all the components to the best of your ability, and go price them out. I specifically mentioned in my previous article that Apple’s options are insanely priced. There’s no basis to see this and then intentionally load up on overpriced upgrades to skew the prices when what a customer should do is get the upgrade parts elsewhere. This is what you would do if you bought a base system from any system builder, not just Apple. For fun, I took the specifications from the last page and loaded it up with 8GB of memory and 4TB of storage.

Added $404.97 for an additional 6 GB of memory
Added $719.96 for four 1 TB drives (Samsung Spinpoint F1 HD103UJ 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/sec.)
Subtracted $79.99 for the single Seagate 320GB drive
Total Additional Cost: $1204.92
Total New Cost: $3978.25 for the Clone

Configuring the real Mac Pro system on Apple’s website following what VTOLfreak’s setup yielded a new price of $5949.00. Even with tax, and expensive shipping ($100), the price came out to be $6554.65 — where did VTOLfreak get $8000 from? I wonder that myself. As an interesting note, this Mac Pro as I configured according to VTOLfreak’s specifications, is $2051.00 less than what he claimed. Does going from a HD 2600XT to a GeForce GTX280 really cost a difference of $2051.00? No.

Also, the simple reason why the above user did what he did was because he configured a hypothetical system. "It’s sure fun to load up on all that overpriced hardware and get a nice big number at the end!" In reality, if real money was involved, an informed customer would not be adding in any of Apple’s ridiculously expensive options, and would instead source upgrades from elsewhere.

Kaldor - 07/28/2008 8:16 AM Wrote:
"Its a Mac. Congrats on paying too much for a computer."

How much is too much? Let’s take a look at a solid apples to apples comparison. We can already see from the previous results that Macs only command a small premium over an exactly equipped PC and in some cases cost even less for the same thing.

Where do these baseless misconceptions come from? At one point in time, Macs were more expensive than PCs, but even back several years ago, the difference is not "double the price" as some have mentioned. Compare hardware to hardware, not one way cheaper PC that "does the same thing" to a better configured Mac.

Mach5Motorsport - 07/28/2008 8:31 AM Wrote:
"You enjoy laptop with a propriatary based OS with an intel CPU? Enjoy those sluggish gamming framerates.

but you are keeping your desktop PC"

Generally speaking, isn’t this what people do when they have multiple computers for different duties? A user may have a home file server, a HTPC, a mobile workhorse, and a gaming desktop. All these machines serve different duties and therefore should come with different hardware, and as a result, different prices. I wouldn’t build a home file server the same way that I would build an HTPC. The same thinking applies to having both a Mac and a PC. If you spend a majority of your time doing creative work, you may end up using a Mac. When I play games for example, I go right back to my Windows box — and I pointed out a clear reason for that, the lack of high-end graphics support by Apple. This very issue is what I pointed a finger at Apple for.

Mac OS is definitely not "proprietary" and is widely used across many professional industries, especially audio, video, image processing, photography, architectural and others. To claim that Mac OS is proprietary indicates a total lack of understanding on the computer landscape. As proof, a survey conducted by Fortune indicated clearly that even Linux on the desktop still has yet to surpass the 1-percent market share milestone. In a recent posting at ArsTechnica, Apple surpassed 8-percent market share. Proprietary? Absolutely wrong.

React To This Article