Macs are more expensive ... why?

[Cabbit]

Anyways I think I'll get one .. once you consider in the quality of the display in the mac the price is actually pretty reasonable. And the form factor is pretty good, even for a cranky meat & potatoes user like me.

I'll have to replace some software ($700 for PS ) but that's life.

Again thanks for all the help, even those who tried to get me to think of a hot-dog vs. steak or Volkswagen vs. BMW .. it's all good.

Don't go buying photoshop again, adobe will give you a Mac version for about $40 and change the license over to a Mac one.

 

[VoodooDaddy]

Hmm, nice clean iMac "All-In-One" installation ...BUT:

- where's the printer?

- where's the TimeMachine backup drive?

- where's the drive for my music/photos/video ?

- where's the USB/firewire "sound card"?

- where's the Elgato video input box?

My iMac has NINE connectors on the back of the cabinet, and the
cables for every one of those connections MUST be routed across
the desktop. I can hide a tower under the desk -- with only one
power cable, one video cable and (maybe) one USB cable visible.
The other stuff is either hidden inside the tower, or wired directly
to the tower, without crossing my desk.

...in the RealWorld™, "All-In-One" is pure fantasy,

LK

What is your purpose at this board?? All I ever see you do it try to disparage everone with every comment you make. I mean I dont expect everyone to swallow Steve Jobs' load, but why, as a Mac user, are you hell-bent on calling out other Mac user and to make us feel like what we say is the wrong thing???

I could give 2 craps what else you have hooked up. I have 3 external drives, printer, and other things. Add all that to the Dell and its even more of a mess. The picture is a comparison of the BASIC computer as is.

And as far as all this stuff:

- TimeMachine backup drive?

- drive for my music/photos/video ?

- USB/firewire "sound card"?

- Elgato video input box?

You DONT HAVE TO HAVE ALL THAT TO USE A MAC. Thats all your add-on for YOUR USAGE.

 

[inkswamp]

he iMac has a freaking screen built into itself!!! If that alone does not justify a big sum of extra cash, then I don't know what does.

It once did justify the price difference but as has become abundantly clear, the quality of the displays in the current generation of iMacs is awful. If Apple is going to let their quality slip to PC standards, then they need to stop charging so much.

 

[cloudnine]

It once did justify the price difference but as has become abundantly clear, the quality of the displays in the current generation of iMacs is awful. If Apple is going to let their quality slip to PC standards, then they need to stop charging so much.

what constitutes awful? i'm just wondering since i have a 23" ACD and i was going to sell it and get a 24" imac...

 

[clyde2801]

It once did justify the price difference but as has become abundantly clear, the quality of the displays in the current generation of iMacs is awful. If Apple is going to let their quality slip to PC standards, then they need to stop charging so much.

Does anyone have photos of the white and alum imacs side by side? Is there any difference between the former matte and current glossy displays, or does that alone justify 'awful'?

In what other ways are you alleging that quality has slipped?

Come to think of it, how have the updates lagged? If you've been a mac user since '92, you must certainly remember PPC updates like the power books going from 1.33 to 1.5 ghz.

 

[czachorski]

Apple land: wonderfully open OpSys -- closed, paternalistic, "we know best" hardware.

PC land: wonderfully open hardware -- closed, paternalistic, "we know best" OpSys.

...choose your poison,

LK

So true - and very well articulated.

Since the OS and software are what I interact with everyday, the choice for me is wonderfully simple. Spend a little more on Apple hardware to get a config that works for my needs, and then enjoy the superior OS, software and user experience. It is just another way of stating that you get what you pay for. Super cheap, super fast hardware is very little value to me if it does not work well on the UI and software for my needs. Apple knows this, and prices their machines accordingly. No surprise this is their strategy.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

<snip>Basically if I price out a PC with the same hardware the Mac costs 30% more. Here in Canada a 24" iMac runs about $1,850 and the same PC box will cost me maybe $800 max., then maybe another $600 on a good monitor .. so approximately $1,400 total.

I understand the performance to be about the same .. so can someone tell me what I get for my extra $450 besides a great looking aluminum box

Apple has a monopoly on OS X, so they can sell their computers for whatever price they want.

 

[czachorski]

Apple has a monopoly on OS X, so they can sell their computers for whatever price they want.

Really? Any price they want? You have a strange definition of the word "monopoly".

 

[Leon Kowalski]

Does anyone have photos of the white and alum imacs side by side?

http://picasaweb.google.com/TheLooby

LK

 

[Leon Kowalski]

Spend a little more on Apple hardware to get a config that works for my
needs, and then enjoy the superior OS, software and user experience.

'Zactly! Too bad linux is so fragmented and lacks supported high-quality
apps like iLife. IMO, the underlying foundation is a better unix than OS-X,
but it's too much hassle to run linux as a "home computer." It's great for
servers, but will probably never be suitable for anything else.

It is just another way of stating that you get what you pay for.

...No. You pay for what you get.

LK

 

[czachorski]

'Zactly! Too bad linux is so fragmented and lacks supported high-quality
apps like iLife. IMO, the underlying foundation is a better unix than OS-X,
but it's too much hassle to run linux as a "home computer." It's great for
servers, but will probably never be suitable for anything else.



...No. You pay for what you get.

LK

Agreed. I wonder if you realize that your posts come across as you being upset at these aspects of Apple's strategy. I don't think that is your intended message. For me, I am thrilled that Apple fills this niche so nicely.

 

[Leon Kowalski]

I wonder if you realize that your posts come across as you
being upset at these aspects of Apple's strategy.

Yep, I'm extremely unhappy with Apple's paternalistic hardware strategy,
and their attitude, in general. It's not the price -- (obviously) I'm willing to
pay a premium to run unix, iLife and (most important, to me) the Xcode
development tools.

OTOH, self-proclaimed "geniuses" and mindless fawning over out-of-date
hardware in 'clever' form-before-function packaging are laughably cultish.

Apple Stores have much in common with Saturn new car dealerships.

...I refused to sign the loyalty oath, but they accepted my money anyway,

LK

 

[czachorski]

...I refused to sign the loyalty oath, but they accepted my money anyway,

LK

Or from my perspective, you bought one anyway. As long as people like you with your same opinion keep buying, it is only good for Apple to continue to behave in this manner.

 

[luffytubby]

It once did justify the price difference but as has become abundantly clear, the quality of the displays in the current generation of iMacs is awful. If Apple is going to let their quality slip to PC standards, then they need to stop charging so much.

?

I have only really had hands-on with an alu Imac in a store, but it looked perfectly good to me.


As for specs though, I do agree that the specifications should rise more rapidly, or the prices should lower as time goes by, but overall. considering everything.... I still think Imac is a bargin compared to what you would get on pc.

 

[gnasher729]

Basically if I price out a PC with the same hardware the Mac costs 30% more. Here in Canada a 24" iMac runs about $1,850 and the same PC box will cost me maybe $800 max., then maybe another $600 on a good monitor .. so approximately $1,400 total.[/QUOTE]

I see a contradiction here. If you have a PC box with the same hardware as an iMac, why would you buy a monitor? Or do you mean you just took any old PC box without a monitor?

Ok, I'll tell you what you are paying for: You are paying for the operating system, which will give you at least five extra years before you get grey hair. You are paying for build quality and good service. You are paying for having huge space savings, no ugly box under your desk to hurt your knees or worse, wasting space on your desk. You are paying for a machine that is absolutely quiet. You are paying for a machine that looks good. You are paying for the ability to go to an Apple Store if you have problems and get help from a person who actually knows what they are talking about.

Finally, you pay so that Apple makes some profit.

 

[gnasher729]

Please. Apple bids their manufacturing out to whoever can give them the lowest price in China.

I don't think so.

Apple has low manufacturing cost anyway. Trying to squeeze out a little bit more from manufacturing cost would cost the company three times the savings by having to pay more for service and warranty repairs, plus the cost of unhappy customers.

I think when Apple choses a manufacturer, the cost is not number one on the list of priorities.

 

[AMessy]

I would think that the iMac would have more R&D cost factored into the price than a standard box PC. It seems like some of the apple products have more complex designs which would have more engineering hours put into things like the cooling system, component layout and things like that.

When you compare the cost of the iMac to other all-in-one systems, which would require similar engineering hours to design, it seems like the iMac is a pretty good deal. (Someone else earlier in the thread had a good comparison of the iMac to some other all-in-ones).