rather than guessing my intention, how about just answer the question I presented? Since Im sure you have some ideas, and I sincerely don't know...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Study: average Mac price more than twice of average PC
- Thread starter clevin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
rather than guessing my intention, how about just answer the question I presented? Since Im sure you have some ideas, and I sincerely don't know...
A study without much analysis
I don't think the article is all that accurate, but it's not off base either. The point that they are skirting around is that to achieve the iMac / Mac mini form factor, Apple is using laptop components that are traditionally more expensive than desktop components. So if you compare equivalent specs a big box Dell desktop will be probably be cheaper than it's iMac counterpart in this manner.
It calls into question Apple's strategy in dealing with target market, and product segmentation but the gizmodo article seems more interested in spuring forum posters to start flame wars. At least the Electronista article they link to discusses "motivating factors behind Apple's mystery product transition" which IMO is where the analysis of the data should focus on.
I don't think the article is all that accurate, but it's not off base either. The point that they are skirting around is that to achieve the iMac / Mac mini form factor, Apple is using laptop components that are traditionally more expensive than desktop components. So if you compare equivalent specs a big box Dell desktop will be probably be cheaper than it's iMac counterpart in this manner.
It calls into question Apple's strategy in dealing with target market, and product segmentation but the gizmodo article seems more interested in spuring forum posters to start flame wars. At least the Electronista article they link to discusses "motivating factors behind Apple's mystery product transition" which IMO is where the analysis of the data should focus on.
I would have to agree with Electronista on this.
The reduction of margins would do two things:
- Allow price drops in the next upgrade but still with the historical regular spec bumps. This may go to the lower-end MacBooks, Mac minis, and iMacs (if we look at the last few years).
- Increase specifications beyond the historical regular spec bumps for the same prices. This may go to the higher-end Macs such as the Pro Macs (if we look at the last few years). Prices may even increase, but that would mean a very large spec bump.
This next set of notebooks are likely to have a component bump instead of a numerical spec bump (historically speaking), and it'd be great to have both in one revision, including a case revision. 3-in-1 yay!
In defense of Clevin, I got kind of lost somewhere in your argument myself...
Are you saying that Apple's higher unit cost is justified by their lower economy of scale? This is probably somewhat true, although Dell sells a large number of units of a huge number of product lines, whereas Apple probably sells more of many of its given models (since it has so few) than Dell does.
I'm not actually all that sure Apple's price reflects poor economy of scale issues all that much (that is, I'm not sure Apple is forced to sell at higher prices by virtue of the fact that they do not sell as many computers as Dell does). At least I suspect it's a small part of the overall picture.
In defense of Clevin, I got kind of lost somewhere in your argument myself...
Are you saying that Apple's higher unit cost is justified by their lower economy of scale?
thank you!, I was indeed confused rather than "kidding", I have several guesses but are too complicated to present.
As for the situation you presented. I think we are somewhat off the track now, if thats what Mr. Yellow meant to say.
We are talking about price of average pcs and macs, we can not assume average pcs and average macs are using same level of hardwares. So we can not estimate the price tag in any accurate way.
This isn't surprising. There are always sales for PCs all the time. I just bought a Dell Vostro 1510. 2.5ghz T9300 Core 2 Duo, 3 gigs of ram, Nvidia8600gt, 250 gig hard drive Win XP all for $865.XX
I work in a retail environment, and yeah I definitely agree that Macs cost double the price of competitive PC computers.
Take the MacBook for an example, for $1149 your getting Intel Core 2 Duo, 13.3", 1gb of RAM, 80gb HDD, CDRW/DVD (no DVD burner), and Leopard OS X.
For $749, you can buy a Intel Core 2 Duo, 14.1", 4gb of RAM, 250gb HDD, DVD burner, and Vista Home Premium.
I definitely agree with the fact that whoever buys Apple, wants to buy an Apple, very rarely do I see customers who are in the market for a laptop go home with a Apple notebook. The only way Apple will gain market share is if they put out cheaper products, the Mac Mini was a good try but even that was quite expensive for its power and features.
If they had a current spec'd MacBook in the $600-700 range, everyone would be buying MacBooks. They're current price points are too expensive for most students, and customers who just want a laptop.
That said, I'm not against paying extra for Macs, I myself will be purchasing a MacBook whether they update or not, or whether they drop the price or not.
Take the MacBook for an example, for $1149 your getting Intel Core 2 Duo, 13.3", 1gb of RAM, 80gb HDD, CDRW/DVD (no DVD burner), and Leopard OS X.
For $749, you can buy a Intel Core 2 Duo, 14.1", 4gb of RAM, 250gb HDD, DVD burner, and Vista Home Premium.
I definitely agree with the fact that whoever buys Apple, wants to buy an Apple, very rarely do I see customers who are in the market for a laptop go home with a Apple notebook. The only way Apple will gain market share is if they put out cheaper products, the Mac Mini was a good try but even that was quite expensive for its power and features.
If they had a current spec'd MacBook in the $600-700 range, everyone would be buying MacBooks. They're current price points are too expensive for most students, and customers who just want a laptop.
That said, I'm not against paying extra for Macs, I myself will be purchasing a MacBook whether they update or not, or whether they drop the price or not.
A four year old apple laptop sells for about $450 on eBay. That's recouping about 25% of the purchase price.
Part of the article that I read, is the question whether Apple wants to go after low-end products to get its name in the hands of more people or stick with quality.
There is money to be made in the low end, razor-blade (disposable) approach to computers. But at what cost to reputation is there? My analogy of shutting a Ford door or Lexus Door stands.
There is money to be made in the low end, razor-blade (disposable) approach to computers. But at what cost to reputation is there? My analogy of shutting a Ford door or Lexus Door stands.
Yet -- in the entire Tech industry which includes over 1000 companies
they are 9th in terms of net income
13th in terms of annual revenue,
3rd in terms of market cap (worth)
and 4th in per share cost of ownership
they are so liquid that they have enough cash and near cash that they could take care of ALL of their current liabilities and still have money left over.
They are 1.6 times as solvent as their industry average and over 2 times as solvent as the S&P 500.
where as they're direct competition in dell and hewlett packard are both fall below industry standards for all the above criteria i outlined
it seems that Apple is doing something right
My Versace tie cost probably 10 times what it would have cost at wal-mart. A wal-mart tie and a Versace tie really aren't tooooo different in the end....hell the polyester wal-mart tie is probably more durable than a soft silk tie. Some people might not understand why someone would pick the Versace tie, in this case, just like they don't understand why people pick Macs.
Where are you finding Versace ties, out of curiosity? I feel like the last time I saw a Versace tie was years ago... like maybe the first season Donatella took over and actually impressed everyone with her colors and vibrance.
Harry Rosen here in the Greater Toronto Area has them at all their locations
there was one place I knew off in my City of Hamilton -- but they closed down --- just a quick jump on the highway to get what I want now
In defense of Clevin, I got kind of lost somewhere in your argument myself...
I'm not saying that Apple's higher prices are justified. I'm saying that this study, the 1:1 comparision of average prices, isn't quite fair.
A company that sells vast numbers of computers can afford to buy more componants in bulk for lower prices, otherwise they don't run their business very well.
A company that doesn't sell as many computer, has to pay a higher premium for it's componants, and therefore must pass that price onto the consumer.
This MUST account for some of the price differential betwixt your "average" PC and your "average" Mac.
The geist, take this study with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, people won't even read the original study and will simply walk away with the tag-line as "fact". Macs are 2x as expensive as PCs.
Then what was the point of posting this article?
Heh, I should find a location. That last time I saw a Donatella tie, I really liked it.
Yeah, I do see your point, and I think it's true at least to some extent. The same argument is made that components cost more for manufacturers outside Apple to make music players because Apple is such a large customer for the little HDs and flash chips and so on.
Anyway, Apple's sales don't seem to be hurt too badly by this kind of press....
And damn it, now I want to go tie shopping.
For nowadays all macs and pcs have identical hardwares inside, are you seriously suggesting apple pay significantly higher price tag for one piece of same hardware than Dell or HP or Acer or SONY?
Mind you, Apple is not on the bottom of the list when we look at shipment. there are many pc companies with less shipment than apple.
point being average mac price 2x more than average pc.Then what was the point of posting this article?
thats a simple fact, you just dont need to read too much into it.
Who said "significantly"? Once again, you're putting words into my post that don't exist.
In your last post, you said:
Now you're contradicting yourself by saying that they have the same hardware? OK, then.
And you're seriously suggesting that when Dell purchases 1,000,000 intel processors to go into laptops, they pay the SAME price per unit that Apple pays when they order 10,000?
That doesn't seem economically responsible, does it?
You're not reading enough into it.
Hey, is the average price of a Lexus twice that of a Toyota?
Fixed this for you
The problem is that simple facts often don't give a complete picture. As an example the StatsCan Average household size for Ontario is 2.5 people... that doesn't mean that the average household has half a body residing there now does it?
I think there's a sweet spot around year 3, after which the values tumble a bit.
Just looking on ebay, I can see an iMac G5 from September 2005 for £439.
Say the original price was £800, that's a retained value of 55% after 3 years.
Another way to look at it is, once you've bought your iMac you can then have a brand new machine every 3 years for £120 a year.
As long as you sell in year 3, not year 4 or 5, I would say though.
seems? who told you what you "think" is "reasonable" is always the fact?
also, for your logic, why we didn't see Acer, ASUS have higher price tag? since they sell less than apple?
Not to mention DELL or HP, even when total shipment of computers are vastly out sell apple, they have more lines of products as well, how can you be sure that each model of their CPUs, mainboards, graphic cards are actually outsell apple who has less lines after all?
if those CPUs are exactly same technologically, how much do you thinkk apple is paying per unit, compare to DELL?
hehe, whats the point making dishonest analogue? you want to say something, say it in plain words. Im not as knowledgeable as you with cars, Sorry I don't even know what you are talking about.
Fixed this for you
The problem is that simple facts often don't give a complete picture. As an example the StatsCan Average household size for Ontario is 2.5 people... that doesn't mean that the average household has half a body residing there now does it?
well, you can fill more facts to show case the "whole picture". But facts itself can not be ignored.
Like above, mr. Yellow suggest the sales amount has a role to play in the price tag. Now, thats a good "suggestion", and might be true, when the products are unique in the market. For a mac that with everything the same inside as PCs. I m just waiting for him to fill in the "facts" to support his suggestion.
Facts shouldn't be ignored, but some 'facts' get altered or fall apart under more scrutiny. That's the problem with many news items today, they rarely detail how the data was collected, which leads to sensational claims leading to poor analysis of the situation. If this 'average' was collected on like systems (which can only be speculated on) it would still be important to break the pricing out on the cost of the options available to consumers or if you wanted to go a different angle, figure out the cost of manufacture to estimate the product markup.
The aforementioned articles might be a great piece to draw readers in, but there's not a lot of substance in there to make any claim other than broad generalization.
Yeah, but why let detailed analysis stand in the way of sensationalist "simple facts"?