66% Apple Market Share For Sales of High-End PCs 724
An anonymous reader lets us know about a recent analysis of retail computer sales numbers that shines a spotlight on Apple's sales growth as the PC market has flattened. In the lucrative >$1,000 PC segment, in the first quarter of 2008, Apple's retail market share was 66%. This includes a 64% market share for laptops and a market share for desktops of 70%. The article attributes the bulk of this success to Apple's stores. Fortune picked up this report and pointed out the somewhat obvious fact that the >$1,000 PC segment is Apple's by default, since Dell, HP, and Lenovo sell the bulk of their machines in the $500-$750 range, and Apple has only one model selling for less than $1,000. As the analyst said, "If you don't give people a choice [in the Apple stores], people will spend more."
Correction (Score:2, Insightful)
Honestly, Apples are overpriced for what hardware and software they contain. Sure they may use a stable UNIX based OS, but you can get just that with any respectable Linux OS (Debian, Ubuntu, etc., depending on the person's preference.)
Windows Fanboys are what we are reading about. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's funny to watch Windows Fanboys write about Mac. Somehow, they always loop the discussion around to their favorite software. Check out this exchange from the fine Apple Watch article:
Really? For about a year now, studies have shown that everyone knows about Vista but no one wants it. It's poor performance has convinced all but the most self loathing of people that Windows is not going anywhere. But finally, Apple is now using almost exactly the same hardware - How can anyone not see that the only remaining difference is software that does not suck?
You have to wonder if any of these people have ever used anything but Windows for more than a week in the last ten years.
You get... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:$1,000 market dominance... (Score:2, Insightful)
spin at it's best. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
But Mac apps, on average, are more thoughtfully designed and crafted than their equivalents on PCs.
That is the very real difference between Macs and PCs, and that's why some people (including, for the first time, in the very near future, myself) are willing to pay the Apple premium.
Re:$1,000 market dominance... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:$1,000 market dominance... (Score:4, Insightful)
On one hand, Dell's plain model would suit most people fine. On the other, you get more for your money with a Mac. And ultimately, it works for the consumer's benefit. Macs depreciate much more slowly than Dells, meaning they can get a kick ass fast machine for less than even the cheapie Dell, if they trade in.
Re:You get... (Score:5, Insightful)
This, of course, is in contrast to the Core 2 Duo's that goes into the Dell laptop - they're from the bottom of the barrel and they are shoveled into the sockets by some off-shored child labor getting paid 25 cents an hour, not getting that TLC that the Apple counterparts get. No wonder the Core 2 Duo's in Dells are so dysfunctional!
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh and with 2.6.24 they completely changed away things were. Apparently there's IT821X kernel drivers, then there's libata. So magically when upgraded my kernel all my hd* drives are now sd* drives. But wait, with libata (or was it the IT drivers) it didn't support UDMA. So I was stuck transferring at a whopping 3-4 MB/s. Recompile again. Shit, now grub thinks my hda is sdi. Reboot again and change grub menu. Ahh, finally... no wait. I have to put a noraid=1 at the grub so that the drive doesn't enable RAID. A short 8 hours after doing a simple kernel recompile I'm back up and running.
Don't get my wrong, I love my linux home server. But in no way does even Ubuntu come close to having everything integrated and 'just working'.
There's a reason my MacBookPro is my main machine, because some days I don't want to tinker with all of that. My grandma finally wants to get online. My parent asked me what I suggested and honestly an old G4 in simple finder with a few applications: iPhoto, Safari, Mail (if that). SSH will be enabled and I'll have an account for fixing most things.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Apple sales figures (Score:4, Insightful)
People going to Staples or whatever to buy a PC want a cheap office machine, emphasis on cheap, and they want it immediately. People willing to spend more or wait a few days will either order from somewhere like Dell, have a whitebox store assemble one from parts, or just do it themselves.
Industrial design does matter (Score:4, Insightful)
The bang-for-buck of Apple's hardware plus their software is a little difficult to justify by itself (though it is arguably a better deal than Windows and a lot less setup than linux). But the industrial design should not be overlooked as a value factor.
Compare a "cheap" consumer-grade MacBook [apple.com] to a similar consumer-grade Dell [dell.com]. The MacBook not only looks svelte and (to some) cool, it also is simply more convenient to deal with. If your computer is something that you use a lot, some of these little details can be very important.
I really appreciate the way a MacBook is almost completely silent. That it slips into the lid of a briefcase. That its speakers, microphone, and camera are all accessible but almost invisible. That I can click, right-click, scroll, pan, and more without moving my hand from one place. That it stays out of my way while I use it, instead of calling attention to itself: no blinking lights, no flashy logos in my face, no stupid buttons all over: it is just a screen with easy-to-use input devices.
People see what they want to see (Score:2, Insightful)
People that buy Apple computers do so because they think they're getting their money's worth. People who buy higher-end PCs are the same. Dell has been mentioned already in this discussion - well they have laptops that cost several grand, and people buy them... even though Dell also has laptops for $500 or thereabouts.
Cue much hand-wringing by the Wintel crowd... (Score:2, Insightful)
Translation to reality:
"If you give people the choice between, as an example, a $2500 Wintel PC and a $500 Wintel PC, both of which offer the same crappy Windows Experience, most people will choose to invest less of their money in a losing proposition."
What truly amazes me is that, apparently, a full third of the people who can afford a superior product nonetheless invest in the inferior version.
Good example of playing with statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You get... (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no judo chop. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's all about pinning your opponent and cutting off their air supply.
How long will all the other laptop makers be able to hide the losses their "premium" laptops must be suffering because no one wants Vista? While they "race to the bottom" Apple is selling exactly the same hardware for twice as much. The only difference is software. The blackout will come soon.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Your grandma uses RAID?
Most things that desktop users does work out of the box with Linu. The only common problem is with wireless networking: if you buy a PC with Linux pre-installed (from Sytem76 for example), even that will not be a problem.
How easy is it to get MacOS working on random PC hardware? Compare like with like and Linux looks pretty good.
Note to commenters (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't be a jackass. Seriously, If you have an opinion, express it thoughtfully but avoid assigning labels to those with different opinions.
For example:
"Apple fanboys are so stupid--they'll pay too much money for a computer they can't upgrade or build for themselves."
This is how an immature person makes an argument. I know I'm asking a lot here on slashdot, but it would be great to see the above opinion expressed in the following way:
"I'm not sure it's wise to spend one's money on a computer that can't be upgraded or one that can't be assembled from parts you pick for yourself. For me, the convenience tax and premium prices for Apple hardware are way too high to be justified."
Macintosh users should note that taking the former flamebait only reinforces the baiting behavior. You paid a pretty penny for the computer you're using to respond so try to use more than just the "CFCKYUO" keys in your response. As much as you might try, it's futile to explain the subjective nature of the "Mac experience" to the kind of person who types flamebait anyways.
Just say no to flamebait.
Re:$1,000 market dominance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Prada doesn't make cheap sunnies for the punters. Apple doesn't make cheap laptops for the punters. If either tried, they'd ruin their luxury reputation and they wouldn't be able to afford to put all that effort into making a nice-looking product.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:$1,000 market dominance... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Correction (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, the quality of Mac shareware is generally excellent. There are many Mac shareware developers (and long term Mac users don't need names to know who I am talking about) whose software is a joy to use simply because they cared enough to produce a superbly polished design.
When they don't, it is obvious. A good example is Firefox, which still isn't really up to par on the Mac (the new version does seem better). When I want a Gecko based browser, I use Camino, because it works just like a Mac app should. Frankly, Mac shareware developers are often better at this than large commercial developers.
Google also needs a kick in the pants. Google Earth on the Mac is horrible, but this is from the same company that distributes Picasa for Windows, which I consider an interface disaster.
It's going to be interesting to see whether, with the influx of iPhone developers (WWDC sold out for the first time ever this year), the standard stays the same.
Re:Correction (Score:2, Insightful)
Costing more is not necessarily more expensive... (Score:3, Insightful)
When I moved out on my own I started buying tools to help me keep my apartment and eventually my house repaired. I started out picking up the first tool I saw that was cheap and did the job. $10 hammer, $5 multi-screwdriver set, 200-piece no-name, all-in-one socket sets for $20.00, etc. They did the job. After all, you can turn a screw with a cheap screwdriver just like an expensive one.
Needless to say, I've had many versions of each over time. I can't count the times I've had my phillips-head screwdriver turn into a rounded-out, useless waste of money at the first recalcitrant screw. It always happens at the worst time too. After expressing my frustrations with my dad one time (in language that probably shocked him) He looked at me and simply said "Why don't you buy decent tools?" My response was "Have you seen how much they cost?!" He responded "How many times have you re-bought that screwdriver?". I had to admit that I'd probably spent twice the cost of a "pro" screwdriver over the years on cheap ones and cursed them every time.
Over time I started applying this lesson to other things in my life. I found that every time I took the cheap option "to make due" I was disappointed and invariably wound up replacing it much sooner than I should have. I found that I actually saved money and aggravation by buying quality the first time. I traded in my cheap POS for a used Mercedes. I threw out my Walmart tennis-shoes for a pair of quality walking shoes. I passed up the $3.00 T-shirts and invested in quality brands. The list goes on...
I've had the extreme pleasure of driving my Mercedes every day for the last 10 years. It's as good as the day I bought it and when I go to sell it I'll have paid less for it year-over-year, than I ever did on the myriad el-cheap-O's I used to drive. Where I used to replace my shoes every year, or so, I have had my current pair of shoes going on 4 years and have experienced more comfort than I had imagined possible in a shoe up till that point. And my T-shirts? They used to fade and grow thin after a few washes and I'd donate them or throw them out and have to re-buy them. Today, I still have T-shirts that look almost new that I've worn regularly for 7 years. I still have one I wore to my brother's wedding rehearsal 9 years ago.
All this is a very long way of saying that, amortized over time, buying quality is often cheaper (and almost always more pleasurable) than buying the first thing you can afford.
Now, I've built my share of PC's. I enjoy picking through catalogues and eBay auctions and getting the best bang for my buck. But, those are my hobby machines. My TrixBox. My MythTV. My fun stuff. My main system is (currently) a Dual G5 Power Mac that I bought refurb'ed shortly after they came out. Even then, it cost me more than $1,000, but I've had it almost 5 years now and It's still doing it's job well. My neighbor just gave me his 3rd Dell in 5 years (a trade for re-installing Windows so many times). He's spent way more on all those systems than I did on my one and has had no end to his aggravation. I sit down at my system (that I've never had to re-install) and get my work done. Would I like to get a cool new 8-way Intel system? Sure. No doubt. But I don't *need* it yet, and I haven't saved up for it yet. It's budgeted for this fall - yay! :-D
Some people can get by just fine with the cheapest piece of crap Dell or Walmart sells. It looks like crap, it's loaded with useless crap, it's made with the cheapest parts that can be had, it's "settling" for the lowest common denominator. Like the cheap screwdriver, it can get the job done, but you wind up fighting it every step of the way. Their entire experience with computers is based on that. They are used to it. They expect it. It's sad.
There is something special that you experience the first time you pick up a professional tool. The hammer feels more balanced. The screwdriver turns the screws with surprisingly little effo
It's mis-leading anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a bit like saying that Joe is the world leader in selling over-$1000 cats by Ebay and air mail. Sure, he only sold one on Ebay, but he's the only guy who sedated the cat and sent it by air mail. The rest of the people bought their cats face to face, or had them delivered by courier in a few cases. Narrow it down to Ebay and air mail, and, bam, Joe has 100% of that market.
Better invest in Joe. In fact, this year he found two stray kittens in his backyard, and plans to sell them both on Ebay by air mail. That's 100% year-on-year growth, baby. At this rate, in 20 year, Joe will ship over 1 million cats yearly. As a savvy investor, you don't want to miss _that_ boat.
In other words, it's just a PR masturbation exercise.
Big Correction (Score:2, Insightful)
Next time buy a $40 card that works. You only defeat yourself when you give money to a card maker that is not playing nice. I'm glad people write software for nasty hardware but I'm not about to waste months waiting for it. There are too many good cards and too little time to fool with the bad ones.
Re:Note to commenters (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:It's mis-leading anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
Style is money (Score:3, Insightful)
If you buy a pair of ripped jeans which cost you $5 you are cheap and have no style. If you buy the same pair for $200 you are a superstar.
Re:$1,000 market dominance... (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies aim to maximise profits, not market share. More sales doesn't necessarily mean more profits if those sales are achieved by lowering margins to a point where they need to sell 20 items to make the same as they currently do from one (meaning they _have_ to sell 20x as many, and also cope with 20x the support calls, carry 20x the inventory, etc.) or in the case of a company with a reputation for quality, by cutting corners in ways that result in an inferior product.
The fact that Apple are making lots and lots of money while others with significantly larger market shares are struggling means that the company obviously isn't being run by idiots who aren't capable of working out the price point for each product that allows them to maximise their profits while maintaining their very high customer satisfaction ratings.
Yes, but it's still misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like saying that Moraelin's Fairies won the most games played on a rainy Tuesday under artificial lighting. They have a whole two games won under those conditions, while everyone else has at best one win that's on a rainy day _and_ tuesday _and_ played at night. It's trivia, at best. It doesn't make it the best team in any actual category that matters, it just crafts an artificial niche to make my team look good.
And probably more importantly, a tell-tale sign of a PR masturbation exercise, is that even that niche doesn't really support the conclusion they try to feed you. ""If you don't give people a choice [in the Apple stores], people will spend more."" Really? Exactly which part of that percentage supports that conclusion? Did they compare before and after a price hike, or what? Did Apple try to have cheap computers too, and people were going for those instead?
But even that wouldn't be visible, if you only look at the over-1000 segment. You need an entirely different sample to make that point.
No, it's very likely just a PR exercise masquerading as news.
Re:$1,000 market dominance... (Score:4, Insightful)
It appears that you consider a computer that works from the moment you turn it on and real people enjoy using, a luxury, but I think that it's just how things should be.
That's called customer service. If I bought almost any other product, and it broke, I'd expect the person who sold it to me to get it fixed.
If you actually spec up an equivalent Dell, you'll find that it usually comes out slightly more expensive then the Apple machine. Just because Dell will sell you a $300 piece of crap doesn't mean they're selling you something better as well.
Re:Price != High End (Score:5, Insightful)
FACT Apples have always been about the same OR BETTER priced compared to equal PC's
And the rest of your FACTs sound just as plausible as Microsoft's 'Get The Facts'
What does this mean? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You get... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Style is money (Score:5, Insightful)
If you buy a pair of ripped jeans for $50 that look like they cost $5, though, then it's a fashion statement.
Re:$1,000 market dominance... (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't surprise me, but it is significant (Score:4, Insightful)
* Apple has such a big market share for the $1000+ market because most PC are cheaper.
* True, but if you deck out a regular PC to match Apple's specs, it'll be around the same price.
You're all missing something rather significant. Apple makes very competitive machines, but they don't make all those low or no margin PCs that other manufactures make to boost sales and act as a loss leader for their more expensive models.
And, because of that Apple is doing quite well. Thank you very much. Apple could greatly increase their market share if they started selling low cost PCs. But, if Apple started doing that, they'd be lowering their profit margins. And, that would make the Apple stores unprofitable. Apple would be forced to close the Apple stores and cut back on customer service in general. That would make Apple just another Dell or HP.
Compare an Apple store to a typical PC retailer. There are dozens of Macs all running, and they're all connected to the Internet. iPhones and iPods are everywhere. Sales people don't chase you away if you're just browsing. Heck, browsing is highly encouraged. And, salespeople actually know something about the product. Apple service is highly rated by almost all consumer surveys.
In other words, Apple sells PCs that they can actually make a pretty profit on, and then use that profit to build an image that encourages people to spend the extra dough for an Apple PC. All this makes Apple (get ready for this...) more profitable than any other computer or electronics company - ever. Back in 1998, I bought $1000 of Apple when Steve Jobs took over. I thought I was clever when I sold it after a few months for about $5000. Well, if I was still holding on to that stock today, it would be worth over $1,500,000. Duh! Over the past decade Apple's stock has outperformed Google.
Whether or not you are a Drinker-of-the Koolade or an Apple Basher, you have to look at Apple as a way to be highly profitable in a commodity business. You don't need a MacBook to appreciate this aspect of the business. Anyone who is interested in running a company should pay attention to Apple's playbook. Apple caters to the higher end of the market, but unlike companies like Bose and Mercedes, which also have a similar strategy, Apple's products are not prime luxury goods that only a few can consider buying. A more significant number is that Apple has broken the 10% mark of market share and is the third largest manufacture of PCs. And, that's pretty hard to bash.
Re:$1,000 market dominance... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free Apple! (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was in high school, and even college, I pirated software. But as an adult with a job, I either buy the software or I don't use it. People can make the case for buying a copy of OS X and then using one of the hacked kernels off the internet to get it to boot on non-Apple hardware, but let's face it -- most people who download these iso images are not doing that -- they're criminals.
Re:masturbation in 3,2,1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:$1,000 market dominance... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you are confusing "luxury" with "no cost cutting". I for one I'm glad there are a few companies out there who design with quality in mind first.
Then again, what value is my post, being the trendy guy and all (seriously, it's pretty hard to be trendy at age 38 and for 20 years of using Apple products..when does this 'trendy' novelty wear off?)
Re:Free Apple! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:$1,000 market dominance... (Score:3, Insightful)
But is "market share of all systems" really that interesting to the industry? If you're a software developer, do you want to sell software to people who bargain-basement shop, or people who are willing to spend more? Apple is a very profitable company, the major third party apps on the platform appear to be profitable, and the community has a huge ecosystem of mom&pop software developers that manage to make a tidy profit.
It's kind of like a television station that has 60% market share of 20-35 year olds. Sure, that segment is a minority of the population and a somewhat arbitrary gauge of spending power, but nonetheless that television station could consider themselves wildly successful and will probably sell gobs of advertising.
I think the bottom line is that any software developer who hasn't ported to the Mac yet should probably figure out a path to do so if they want to make some money.
Re:Costing more is not necessarily more expensive. (Score:2, Insightful)
Folks, this is the Samuel Vimes 'Boots' Theory Of Socio-Economic Injustice. From Wikipedia (easier to blockquote than the dead tree):
Early in his career, while he is still a nearly-impoverished Watchman, Vimes reflects that he can only afford ten-dollar boots with thin soles which don't keep out the damp and wear out in a season or two. A pair of good boots, which cost fifty dollars, would last for years and years - which means that over the long run, the man with cheap boots has spent much more money and still has wet feet.
This thought leads to the general realization that one of the reasons rich people remain rich is because they don't actually have to spend as much money as poor people; in many situations, they buy high-quality items (such as clothing, housing, and other necessities) which are made to last. In the long run, they actually use much less of their disposable income.
Re:$1,000 market dominance... (Score:3, Insightful)
For fun, here's what I came up with today:
From Dell: 13.3"
Alpine White
Intel® Coreâ 2 Duo T8300 (2.4GHz/800Mhz FSB/3MB cache)
Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition
Standard Display with 2.0 Megapixel Webcam
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
160GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW Drive)
Intel® Integrated GMA X3100
Intel Next-Gen Wireless-N Mini-card
Built-in Bluetooth capability (2.0 EDR)
10/100 Ethernet
37Whr Lithium Ion Battery (4 cell)
High Definition Audio 2.0
Biometric Fingerprint Reader
McAfee SecurityCenter 15-months
1Yr In-Home Service, P+L,24x7 Phone Support
Included 3 GB DataSafe Online Backup for 1Yr
Price: $1254
From Apple: 13" Macbook
White
2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 3MB shared L2 cache
13.3-inch glossy widescreen and iSight camera
OS X (Panther)
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz
160GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
Dual Layer Superdrive dvd burner (DVD+/-RW Drive)
Intel® Integrated GMA X3100
Integrated Bluetooth
Apple Airport Extreme 802.11n
Gigabit Ethernet port
4 cell Li-Ion battery
Built in Audio
iLife08--iMovie, iDVD, garageband, iPhoto
Price $1299
No the Dell isn't higher priced, but the Apple isn't significantly higher, when you consider the "entertainment"software that it provides that doesn't come with the Dell. That easily covers the $45 price difference.
Add to that the reliability issues of Vista versus OS X and it's pretty much a wash that ends up being a choice of personal preference.
The days of Apple being significantly higher priced than the competition are long gone. Now it's just FUD from anti-fanboys.
Re:There is no judo chop. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's for this reason primarily that OS X will not be licensed for standard hardware any time in the near future - Apple is using their software to sell hardware. Dell and the like are using their own hardware to sell a package that uses software that they largely can't control.
Re:Style is money (Score:4, Insightful)
If you wear a pair of hot pink ripped cutoff jeans that you bought for $5 and nobody copies you, then you're just a weirdo.
Re:There is no judo chop. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is really ridiculous is that Apple doesn't sell a laptop with a slower processor than 2.1GHz. Seriously ridiculous. I can't get a laptop without a high-quality webcam. I can't get a non-pro laptop that has real graphics. I have to pay $200 for a DVD burner because Apple wants to have a "good, better, best" layout. Apple charges $200 for a better looking black case.
With Apple, it's a game of getting you to buy the highest margin items by withholding what you need. It's bait and switch. Where PC manufacturers give you choices, Apple forces you to buy things that pump up their profits. Where PC manufacturers have sales that give you good deals on soon-to-be replaced models, Apple screws you over as hard as they can.
And I put up with it because of the Mac OS (user since System 6). Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that Apple's pricing is as fair, honest, and competitive as their PC counterparts. We pay up to use our favorite system. Apple knows that they have something special and they know they can get much greater profit margins because of it and they take advantage of that. Apple isn't evil or anything, but they aren't cuddly either.
Re:$1,000 market dominance... (Score:4, Insightful)
Macs, on the other hand, are a different market. The best they could hope for in the low-end is to become a prettier Dell. I'm a Dell stockholder, and I wish they'd abandon that market to repair their brand name. Dell doesn't have to be cool like Apple, but they need to get the word "crap" disassociated with their name.
Re:There is no judo chop. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm guessing you have roughly the same opinion of those that buy a Porsche or Vette rather than a Yugo or Prius. They are only showing off their money, right?
Life isn't all about being practical...sometimes it is fun to blow some money on a fun toy or high performance machine. Sure a Yugo will transport you to the store and back....but, the ride isn't nearly as much fun.
Re:There is no judo chop. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know where you get these ideas from. Apple sells higher end hardware and ignores the very low end. For what they offer though, their prices are quite similar to other premium hardware vendors like Sony and Lenovo. Seriously, other vendors aren't losing money or subsidizing their high end offerings. They aren't losing money on them either. They're charging similar amounts to what Apple is. There have been plenty of studies of Apple's margins and they really aren't that far off of other vendors. They're a bit high for towers and a bit low for all-in-ones and the mini.
Frankly, I'm tired of this unsupported "Macs are more expensive" bullcrap. Macs have fewer offerings than the rest of the companies put together. For what they sell though, they're right in line with other vendors offering similar hardware with similar reliability and support rates.
Twice (Score:3, Insightful)
I have never had a Mac, or any of its associated hardware, die on me, and my son gets the hand me downs pretty rapidly. He just got the year old MacBook. And, somebody else will get that when he gets this... And, on they go for five or six years, until they're in the hands of 5 year olds.
The difference is the software! But, the hardware is pretty damn nice at times!
Re:There is no judo chop. (Score:4, Insightful)
The HP model also has a touchscreen, tablet mode, and a fingerprint reader (which if I was a Mac fanatic I would hold out as absolutely critical requirements on the Mac to make a fair comparison, but I'll just discount them as extras).
You'll never get exact specs, especially if you're trying to use a particular vendor and be careful about price. The HP is lacking a Webcam, Firewire, and who knows what else, but also has some other things you didn't mention. The main problem I have with comparisons like yours, however, are that you don't take quality into account. HP laptops had more than three times the failure rate within the first year as Apple machines did (according to Consumer Reports). Sure they both have 2Gb of RAM, but from what vendor and how reliable is it?
If you want to do a comparison of an Apple laptop and want it to be meaningful, you really have to compare it to a Sony or Lenovo as those are the only two that even come close when comparing reliability and support ratings from independent vendors. You also can't start with a model form one vendor and try to get as close as possible from the other. You need to look at a few models from each and try to match up the closest specced systems where both parties have a comparable system.
As to Lenovo, most aren't available with the specs the Macbook has - when I checked their sitte[sic] the most expensive 15" laptop they current sell is about $1200. That in itself represents a very nice advantage of PC laptops: their ability to dial BACK the hardware when wanted.
Heh. That's kind of funny. Apple is inferior for not having very low end systems in some ranges, but when Lenovo doesn't have a high end competitor in a given size, that is a plus?
Even comparing feature to feature Mac's usually loose[sic], but it gets REALLY bad when I can choose a little bit slower processor. A little smaller of a hard drive, etc.
...assuming you ignore the quality of the hardware and only compare numbers, e.g. a 250Gb hard drive from any vendor is exactly the same as from any other vendor, even when they cost different prices and one lasts twice as long.
As has been said by others, Apple's main strength is their OS, not their hardware.
Oh I agree entirely, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing that according to independent testing and evaluation, Apple has fairly average margins for their market segment and some of the most reliable machines from any vendor. They make good hardware, arguably the best in the industry.
That OS would work fine on budget machines, which is what most people buy.
It would work as well as any other OS does on crappy hardware (provided it had good drivers), which is to say okay, but seemingly worse than on quality hardware, thus giving end users the impression that it was inferior.
And when it is stated that way, the truth is I can get a functional Windows laptop for $399. I can't get an Apple one unless I lay down a minimum of $1099.
Actually you can. if you're willing to buy refurbs. But that is neither here nor there. Apple does not have a machine in every market segment and that is a significant drawback for potential buyers. It is not, however the same drawback as their hardware being more expensive than that from other, comparable, vendors.
Regardless of specs, the Windows laptop has a far lower entry point, because the people who make those computers aren't forcing you to buy faster hardware that you don't need.
Your phrasing is a bit inflammatory. No one is forcing you to do anything. Apple is one, fairly small, hardware vendor. Of course they won't have comparable hardware to every other hardware vendor on the planet combined. They already have a pretty broad selection of models for a company their size, with more than twice as many systems as companies like Asus, who have significantly mo
Re:Moore's Law (Score:2, Insightful)
instead of the vostro, you should be looking at the m1530 for the 15 inch, for the 17 inch, not really a comparison. (xps?)
It's a bit like comparing a (Hyundai/kia/lada) to (BMW,mercedes,lexus). They both have an engine and four wheels. but the plastics you touch when you sit inside them, are definitely different.
But I guess you wouldn't know....
Re:What a great shill. (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be new to the Intertubes. Ever hear of "Usenet"? Threadjacking has been around a lot longer than twitter ...
Re:masturbation in 3,2,1 (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple has the market power to push people toward better machines. That results in better profitability, but also higher customer satisfaction, better reliability, and a longer equipment life span.
Average sale prices of PCs are diving into the toilet, and Dell/HP would like to reverse the trend, but they can't. If one tries to prop PC prices up, the other undercuts them with cheap crap and ends up with "higher market share" despite lower profits (or greater losses).
That has locked HP and Dell into low profit spirals where they have to support junk instant eWaste PCs that only last for 18 months. Apple is not only maintaining a higher ASP, but also developing a quality brand and rapidly eating into the valuable growth in the market.
That's also why the fascination with "market share" is pointless. Obviously, Apple's 5% of the world / 9% of the US is far more valuable per percentage point than the 30% shares of HP and Dell. Every new percent Apple adds is a major expansion into greater profitability while the PC makers burn their brands as they turn into profitless Packard Bell junk vendors.
That in turn enables Apple to invest in developing better software that further differentiates its brand. Low prices are great, but most people don't want to drive a Yugo just because its cheaper.
Mobile EEE PC, UMPC, and Internet Tablets vs the iPhone [roughlydrafted.com]
How Dell, Lenovo or HP can beat Apple.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds like the start of another classic Microsoft bashing session, but it's not. The problem that all these companies have is not poor quality hardware, or lack of features, or even ugly hardware (although anyone who has ever opened a Mac tower must realise the extreme amount of thought and work that went into designing the case and the insides). Rather the problem is that all of those companies are dependent on a company that has its own agenda and treats all of its partners as if to only tolerate them, not as if they were valuable in any real way to Microsoft.
If one of the big hardware makers had the wisdom and the courage to buy up a significant stake in a popular Linux distribution, be it Ubuntu or Suse/Novell, they would be, in the long term in a very favourable position.
Firstly, consumers don't really care about the OS. They like OSX because Apple pays such an enormous amount of attention right down to the single pixel corners of windows, but the basically just want to surf, chat, work, email, play games etc.
Apple has been able to leverage its control of both the hardware and the software to deliver a good user experience, and crucually, a stable one with all the tools (and more) that a average consumer needs to use their computer.
If, say Sony, which puts a lot of effort into the design of their machines, were to say, buy Suse, or simply start up their own Kubuntu based distribution (the KDE 4.1 desktop is nothing short of amazing), and most importantly build up a developer team to start making beautiful but simple to use applications, they would
a) have the control over what went into the distro nd what not, b) an enormous amount of developer talent worldwide to base their efforts on
c) crucially, control of their own destiny.
If Sony were then to preload enough, simple and good apps into the computers, and keep it open enough to encourage others to develop for it,they could very well take Apple on in their own space. And it would grow.
The sad thing is that none of these companies is able to find the courage or has the vision to build up a long term effort like that,that might very well mean losses over the short term, and possibly even a break with Microsoft.
None of them will do that. Hell, even Microsoft could do it, if they started their own computer brand. they would lose all their hardware partners within a year, but their hardware in the form of Keyboards, mice and Xbox has not been too bad.
Ok, back to my beer, now.