Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Businesses Apple

Apple Dominates "Premium PC" Market 475

Posted by kdawson
from the PC-hunters-shy-away dept.
itwbennett writes "Macs made up a whopping 91 percent of the $1,000-and-up computer market in June. Not so long ago, $1,000 got you an entry-level machine. Today the average computer sells for $701, while the average Windows machine sells for only $515. Still, Macs only make up 8.7% of PC sales. But is that really such a bad position to be in? Consider an Apples to Apples, that is, Macs to iPhones comparison: the iPhone takes only a sliver of the phone market but a much larger share of the profits."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Dominates "Premium PC" Market

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25, 2009 @02:35PM (#28820361)

    Windows 7 "Premium" Edition - $1000

    • by flowsnake (1051494) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @03:29PM (#28820807)
      Maybe Microsoft will start selling the Windows 7 "I Am Rich" Edition for installation on Apple hardware?
      • by node 3 (115640) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @07:37PM (#28822717)

        Maybe Microsoft will start selling the Windows 7 "I Am Rich" Edition for installation on Apple hardware?

        Snow Leopard upgrade is $29, Snow Leopard is $129. Windows 7 Home Premium upgrade is $119, Windows 7 Home Premium is $199.

        It seems MS already has the "I Am Rich" edition of Windows, and it's the their entry-level home edition!

  • by RonnyJ (651856) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @02:36PM (#28820367)

    Apple dominates the premium priced market, not the premium PC market.

    • by NotBornYesterday (1093817) * on Saturday July 25, 2009 @03:17PM (#28820707) Journal
      "Hi, I'm a Mac, and I am a PC."
    • by je ne sais quoi (987177) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @03:18PM (#28820725)
      I know slashdotters love this kind of sentiment, but this is a pretty inane thing to say and the poster and the people who modded this insightful have never actually looked at a mac laptop's features carefully. Just off the top of my head, here is a list of stuff that is included in mac laptops that you don't find in the "average" PC:

      easy removal of power connector in case of tripping
      accelerometers to shut the hard drive off if the laptop falls
      backlit keyboards that have a sensor to automatically come on
      automatic screen dimming at low light levels
      single piece aluminum frame construction for less stress on the motherboard (the most common point of failure of a laptop, in my experience)
      custom battery arrangement to maximize useful lifetime but leave a smaller dimensional footprint.

      I'm sure there are others that I'm missing but the very idea that mac laptops aren't "premium" is ridiculous. You can argue that the set of features that you get are not worth the price, but one can make the same argument about "premium" cars as well and has nothing to do with if the object itself has a feature set above and beyond the average.
      • by RonnyJ (651856)

        The article says that Apple dominates over a certain price point. That's exactly what I said.

        I didn't say that some Mac's shouldn't be considered premium, I was merely correcting the article title.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by UnknowingFool (672806)

        I'm sure there are others that I'm missing but the very idea that mac laptops aren't "premium" is ridiculous. You can argue that the set of features that you get are not worth the price, but one can make the same argument about "premium" cars as well and has nothing to do with if the object itself has a feature set above and beyond the average.

        Probably the most cogent analogy I can think of is cars. For the most part, an Acura is a Honda. Indeed a good majority of Acura parts are actually Honda parts. Bu

    • Apple dominates the premium priced market, not the premium PC market.

      Indeed. I suspect most of the premium PC market is taken up by self-build gaming PCs, which of course don't show up under any PC manufacturer's sales figures. A sub-$1000 PC covers everything that most home and office users want; people who need something more tend to know exactly what they want, and don't mind fitting it together themselves.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Korin43 (881732)
        Not to mention that only idiots try to build a "premium" laptop. Laptops are for when you're not at your desktop. Incredibly fast desktops can be built for ~$500.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by o0OSABO0o (937312)
      So right! Saying Apple dominates the premium priced market is like saying Vegetarians dominate the vegetable eating consumer marketplace -- it all they got.
  • by Anrego (830717) * on Saturday July 25, 2009 @02:36PM (#28820371)

    but Mac has no real "economy" option. Part for part, as many mac fanboys will tell you, mac hardware is around the same price as PC. The difference is that you can buy stuff that is a few months old (still very good hardware, but not the latest and greatest) and save a lot of money.

    I guess you could call that the "premium pc" market.

    I equate it to designer sunglasses. People will spend $300 for this years sunglasses, passing over last years (now priced at $20). I think mac appeals to this market.. people who want the absolute latest and greatest regardless of how much actual added value they are getting.

    • by jonbryce (703250)

      As far as I can see, development of new faster hardware has pretty much stalled. There is the Core i7, but I see very little of them around despite the fact they were relased 9 months ago. Most of the new development seems to be based around reducing costs at the expense of pretty much everything else, which I guess is what you expect to see in a recession.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Pentium100 (1240090)

        Also, people no longer need very fast computers. Some years ago, PCs were slower, couldn't work with many applications running and so on. Now even a cheap computer wil be able to run Office, Firefox and some other applications for work, so there is no need for faster PCs for those people.

        People who buy expensive computers do so because
        1) They have money and buy it to have the latest and greatest. They can buy PCs or Macs.
        2) They want to play latest games on highest settings. These will buy PCs and usually m

      • by daybot (911557) *

        As far as I can see, development of new faster hardware has pretty much stalled.

        Are you kidding?! That was the case during the Pentium 4 / Athlon XP/64 years, but since 2006, mid-high range Intel systems have gone from strength to strength - Core Duo, C2 Duo, C2 Quad and now i7 all had pretty decent speed bumps. We're beginning to see quad-core laptops, for God's sake!

        In my own video encoding (Handbrake) benchmarks, a Core i7 at 2.6GHz (May 2009) beat a Core 2 Quad at 3.3GHz (March 2009) by 70%...

        • by jonbryce (703250)

          Yes I know there is a Core i7 and it is much faster than the Core 2, but there are hardly any of them in the shops and very few people are buying them.

          I bought a 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook two years ago as an ex-display model - so certainly not the latest and greatest available at the time. The currently shipping latest MacBook has a slightly slower 2.13GHz Core 2 Duo, but more RAM and a better graphics card.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by daybot (911557) *

            ...there are hardly any of them in the shops

            But your comment was that development of new faster hardware has pretty much stalled. I strongly disagree with that.

            It's true that laptop chips haven't done very much - I have the same 2.16 chip as you, in a late 2006 15" MBP - but the hardware has come a long way elsewhere, especially inside Apple. Just about everything other than the CPU is significantly better on the current versions of our respective laptops. Better screens with LED backlight, much faster graphics, huge multi-touch trackpad, and check

    • The Mac Mini isn't an economy option, especially refurbs as low as $419 on the Apple Store? Granted, you could build a cheap PC for less, but I'd hardly call $419 expensive, or even $599 expensive, putting aside arguments of what you get for the money.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by drsmithy (35869)

        The Mac Mini isn't an economy option, especially refurbs as low as $419 on the Apple Store? Granted, you could build a cheap PC for less, but I'd hardly call $419 expensive, or even $599 expensive, putting aside arguments of what you get for the money.

        The difference is that the $599 PC comes with everything you need to use it (keyboard, screen, etc), while the Mac Mini still needs a couple of hundred spend on it before it can be more than a paperweight.

        The PC will also have roughly twice the specs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by iluvcapra (782887)

      but Mac has no real "economy" option.

      They have tried, through various schemes, to compete in this market and have come up bubkis.

      I equate it to designer sunglasses. [..] people who want the absolute latest and greatest regardless of how much actual added value they are getting.

      This mac is over three years old. You might do better if you at least assumed all of those people with all of that money aren't stupid, but for many slashdotters this seems to be the only possible explanation.

      • by v1 (525388) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @03:22PM (#28820755) Homepage Journal

        They have tried, through various schemes, to compete in this market and have come up bubkis.

        I believe the reason for this is it's hard to compete in the low AND high end markets at the same time, at least under the same brand.

        Dell tries to do this, but the world knows dell for cheap PCs.

        Cisco/Linksys is my favorite example. They keep those two brand names very separate for a good reason. What IT dept would shop Linksys for their company firewall, and who would imagine they could afford/use a Cisco at home?

        Apple is known for quality, longevity, and higher price. There's nothing to gain from them trying to get any sizable portion of the low-end market. The only reason they sell the mac mini is to get PC converts, not because they want a foot in the low end market.

    • by v1 (525388)

      but Mac has no real "economy" option.

      You sure about that? [apple.com]

      • by hairyfeet (841228)

        Nope, because while the Mac Mini may be an economy model for Apple guys, who see nothing at dropping a couple of thou on a laptop, the simple fact is you can get a more powerful Dell or HP AND a keyboard AND a mouse AND a 17 inch flat panel monitor AND sometimes when their is a sale on a multifunction printer, MP3 player, whatever they decide to throw in to sweeten the deal.

        So while a mini might be economy to a Mac guy, to someone from the Windows world the Mini is anything BUT economy, because by the tim

      • So the imac is taking a laptop and giving it the portability of a desktop, and this is taking a laptop and... what, removing the integrated screen and desktop?

    • by MikeFM (12491)

      I think it compares more with the luxury car market. You pay more for a car that will last longer, look nicer, and run better. It's the same thing with computers. Apple only sells premium models so I know any Apple product I buy will be high quality. Last year's Mac hasn't devalued the way last year's PC has because people know the Mac isn't going to need replaced every other year.

  • Ob. Car Analogy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bheer (633842) <.rbheer. .at. .gmail.com.> on Saturday July 25, 2009 @02:38PM (#28820395)

    BMW has about 5-8%* of the auto market, but they make a lot of money in that little niche. You don't have to dominate the world to be profitable.

    And yes, this does go to show that Microsoft is right in the laptop hunters ad -- Macs *are* pricier. But to those that buy them, they get something of value for that extra $$$.

    *I just made that up.

    • Lol. I wonder why those "laptop hunters" ads are mentioned so much. I mean do those who mention it, really believe, that there is any single human out there, stupid enough, to take those cheesy, completely stupid, and all around ridiculously horrible ads seriously? What are you smokin'?

  • De-spinning. Again. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @02:39PM (#28820403)

    Wow, what a clever manipulation of statistics. Somehow people who spend less than $1,000 don't have "premium" computers? How does that even work? I mean, I blow $1,500 on hardware but no software and it's "premium", but if I'm a poor graphic designer and buy a PC for $700 instead and spend the rest on Adobe's atrocious licensing fees, that makes me "not premium"? This doesn't say anything about "premium" or "not premium" -- this DOES however say a lot about how much people are willing to blow on Apple products. Answering why they're doing this is left as an excercise for the reader.

    • by iluvcapra (782887) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @02:49PM (#28820475)
      "Premium" is sorta "more expensive" by definition. It does not necessarily mean higher quality. It just means it can summon a higher price on the market, for whatever reason.
    • by Telvin_3d (855514) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @02:53PM (#28820503)

      That's right. When comparing the price/value of computer hardware, the cost of software does not matter. Your $700 mid-range (or upper middle or however you want to measure it) hardware is $700 worth of hardware regardless of how much you spend on software.

      For the obligatory car analogy, if you buy a cheap second hand car and then put a $50,000 sound system in it, you still have a cheap second hand car. It just has a nice sound system.

      • That's right. When comparing the price/value of computer hardware, the cost of software does not matter. Your $700 mid-range (or upper middle or however you want to measure it) hardware is $700 worth of hardware regardless of how much you spend on software.

        Hey, captain obvious called -- something about the "total cost of ownership"? I'm saying "premium" is a weasel-word. It's meaningless.

    • by MikeFM (12491)

      If you buy a cheap PC most of the time it's components aren't as high quality as a Mac. It may be cheaper but it probably isn't going to last as long. My experience is that cheap PCs last me about a year where a Mac lasts me about five years under the same level of (ab)use. I count my hassle of switching systems (moving files, etc) as a cost. I count loss of data when a system dies as a large cost. Add that the Mac is cooler (not as hot) so I can use it on my lap, bed, etc without worry and easier to use (m

  • It's easy to make up 91% of a segment when all your products fit in that segment and none of your competitors do. Of the 67 PCs sold on Walmart.com, only 10 are over $1,000 [walmart.com]
  • So, if I sell laptops for $10 000, I can get 100% of the Exclusive PC-marked? Woohoo!
    We've done this before, it's not very interesting. It could be interesting to look at the profits they make, but the percentage of some arbitrary set point?
    Bah!
     
    M.

  • People that are willing to spend more than a $1000 on a PC are probably your key software buyers... I would think at this point that developers who point to Windows masses might be redirected towards those Mac users, that actually have money.

  • Apple doesn't suck. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MikeFM (12491) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @02:47PM (#28820461) Homepage Journal

    I don't buy branded PCs. If I need one, usually for a Linux server, I build it. If I want a desktop computer I buy Apple. The hardware is better quality than most branded PCs and is highly similar between units so it can easily be tested and relied on. It also happens to look nicer and come with an OS that works a whole lot better. We use VMWare Fusion for those who need Windows or Linux desktops.

    My Dell, which has a bigger screen and faster CPU than my MacBook, is mostly used by my wife and she is wanting to switch to a MacBook because it is so much easier to use and doesn't get to hot when used on your lap. My sister recently switched from PC to MacBook too.

    A couple hundred dollars of cost upfront is a lot cheaper than TCO on a PC and in almost every way a Mac is better,

    • A couple hundred dollars of cost upfront is a lot cheaper than TCO on a PC...

      Only if you stick to OEM computers. My $350 whitebox is a little better spec'd than a Mac Mini, for just over half the cost and shows no signs of dying just yet. If I decide to upgrade it, the relative savings goes up almost exponentially. If my computer completely dies ~2/3 of the way through the Mini's life cycle and I build a new one for the same price, not only will my TCO be lower but the new one will also be much better than it's predecessor.

      • by MikeFM (12491)

        I don't think you're understanding the concept of TCO. How much time are you spending building, maintaining, and upgrading? How much data loss and time down do you suffer when your PC dies?

        You may not use your computers near as hard as I do either so maybe for you computers don't wear out near as often. If so then a cheaper computer may work fine for you.

        And I do still build my own servers although in that case I usually go with really high-end hardware so the Mac might actually be cheaper. (I have an AIX s

  • NOT 91% of the market. 9 out of every 10 dollars spent on computers over $1000 are spent on Apple computers. Plus, is this really big news? In the first paragraph of the article it says that this is up from 88% in May.
  • by SpectreBlofeld (886224) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @02:49PM (#28820473)

    These numbers only reference brick and mortar retail sales. 3 out of the last 4 machines I bought were purchased from the manufacturer's website, customized to my specs, and only one of those was under $1000. They wouldn't have been included in these sorts of 'selective statistics'

    As for $1000+ machines, it doesn't cover servers/workstations either (which you wouldn't buy over the counter anyway).

    What this says to me:

    1) Apple has a decent retail store presence
    2) Macs are frakkin' expensive :)
    3) By selectively applying filters to your stats, you can say whatever you want. Ladies, I have the biggest dick you'll ever see (in this room/of all males within a five foot radius/for the next five minutes).

  • by Tubal-Cain (1289912) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @02:53PM (#28820499) Journal
    People that are willing to put $1,000 into their PC probably don't want the limited choices offered by OEMs. They are going to build it from parts.
    • by cylcyl (144755)

      I agree! OEM's put very high premiums on any changes to standard config. So, if you want a better vid card or a mem upgrade (two easy ways to bring a PC over 1000$) It's cheaper to buy the components than to get it from the Dells or HPs pre-installed

  • by ducomputergeek (595742) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @02:55PM (#28820521)

    Both at work and at home. I don't have to reinstall my OS at least once a year, run defrag on a monthly basis, worry about anti-virus updates every week, or spend hours trying to find and compile drivers for some piece of hardware as I always seem to with Linux even today. It just works. That's what I want, and I'll pay the price difference upfront. I got a good 4 years out of my old PowerBook. It needs a new power adaptor (fell on a ceramic tile floor and busted). but should still work and my QuadCore PowerMac G5 is still going strong and it's 4.5 years old. Most I've done to it is add an extra 500GB internal to store video files for video editing. (before external drives came down in price).

    I now have a MacBook Pro provided by work. Does everything I want and can even boot into XP if I need too for testing (or to play an occasional old game from my PC collection).

    • by Cyberllama (113628) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @03:47PM (#28820949)

      And windows users don't have to do any of those things either. Every piece of anti-virus software under the sun updates itself, completely without any human intervention, at some god awful time of night so as to avoid doing it while you may be using your computer. Similarly, right out of the box windows runs a scheduled weekly disk degrag at something like 3 am every wednesday or some other silly time. These things happen and I do nothing to cause them, I didn't even set them up originally -- they were just pre-configured that way and if I don't like them I can change them.

      Nor do I have to reinstall windows yearly -- Vista on this machine has been installed for 18 months and everything is as snappy as the day I brought it home.

      Try to understand, when you buy a mac you're not choosing between OS 10.5 and Windows 95. There's really major selling point of Mac over Windows at this point other than simple preference.

      If you PREFER MacOS, by all means by a Mac -- but don't kid yourself into thinking you're getting something the rest of us aren't getting. We're all getting the OS of our choice and more or less the same feature set. Your preference costs more, but if you prefer it, and are willing to pay the money, then go for it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by tepples (727027)

        Every piece of anti-virus software under the sun updates itself

        Until the subscription runs out. Antivirus software with a better detection rate than ClamWin or Avast costs about $30 per year.

        completely without any human intervention, at some god awful time of night as to avoid doing it while you may be using your computer.

        I thought we were supposed to be green by turning off the PC at night. Does antivirus software boot the PC or wake the PC from hibernation to complete the update?

  • Apple seems to have the a premium (or premium priced) PCs. Though it has held Linux threat on the netbook side at bay, it did so by extending the life of XP, thus slowing down Vista adaptation. Now with hardware improvements, XP will run on a VirtualMachine as fast as it used to run on older machines. So one could imagine a Linux box running XP on a VM transferring the license from your old PC that you are replacing. That would let you have the security of a Linux machine with all your old programs and data
  • by Tony (765) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @03:10PM (#28820653) Journal

    The Macs I've owned over the past few years (starting with a Powerbook for my wife) have been excellent. The hardware and construction are top-notch. The design (worth a little bit, anyway) is superior to pretty much everything produced in the Wintel arena.

    Most important, though, the OS kicks ass.

    Using a Mac is not just a neutral experience. It is pleasurable. Combine the excellent hardware engineering, and the superior UI design of OS X, and you have a machine that is worth the extra money. (Which really isn't extra. As others have pointed out, a comparable Wintel machine is in the same price range.)

    Me, I still gravitate to Linux. When my wife ran MS-Windows, though, I had to either lock her machine down and manage it myself, or let her manage it, but re-install the OS every six months. With OS X, she can manage the machine herself, and I don't have to lock it down or re-install all the time.

    My sig still holds. MS-Windows (and the machines it typically runs on) is like Budweiser. Cheap, but not worth the price. Once you get used to the good stuff, it's hard to go back to the shit peddled as "The King of Computers."

  • A US-only thing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by loufoque (1400831) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @03:12PM (#28820669)

    As usual, this is a US-only thing.

    In Europe, 1,000 EUR (1,422 USD) and more computers are commonplace, and Apple is not any more expensive than the other computer manufacturers (on the contrary, for laptops, they probably offer the best deals at the moment).
    Yes, we are being exploited.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dunkelfalke (91624)

      WTF?
      Do you live in the same Europe I do?

      Most people want the cheapest solution availiable, that is why all those netbooks are huge in Europe and you've got lots of discount PCs for 250-300 Euros.

      Only crazy gamers pay more.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mdwh2 (535323)

      WTH? Even in so-called "rip-off" Britain, mainstream desktop PCs are below £500 (and in many cases far less), many laptops are also now also below £500 with netbooks even cheaper.

      But Macs? Nowhere to be seen. I believe the cheapest starts at £500, with a bottom of the range Mac Mini, featuring outdated laptop specs.

      Yes, prices may be more expensive here in Europe, but everything is inflated, including Apple.

  • Car comparison (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pascal Sartoretti (454385) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @03:14PM (#28820693)
    No, I won't compare Apple's market share to Mercedes' . But just think in absolute terms : even if Macs cost double more than an average PC, the difference is only a few hundredths of dollars, which is the extra price you pay to have a "luxury" item. Now think of cars : how many people spend thousands of dollars (or your favourite currency) to have a flashier car ?

    I spend much more time in front of my computer than driving my car. Hence, I am ready to spend a little more to have a luxury computer...
  • by drDugan (219551) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @03:18PM (#28820721) Homepage

    I've been using different GUI front ends for programming and work for over 10 years now - and Apple laptops for the last 5 years of so.

    Open office is now a fully acceptable spreadsheet and word processor. Gimp is fully functional for photos. Most other services are web based. VLC, media playing, etc are all working on Linux too. Issues that used to be common are now well supported in the open-source community with networking, video acceleration, disks, USB, drivers, etc.

    Apple with it's BSD-based kernel and more open culture than Microsoft, could openly embrace the open source community, however, it seems to be working actively to prevent open access to a large number of their software-hardware combinations, and refuses to embrace and support the console-using, computer-hacking crowd (like me). It is understandable from a short-term financial standpoint, but long term, I think this is a mistake for Apple. I think taking the position at the genius bar of "if you open Terminal, we won't help you" alienates the most dedicated and supportive users in the marketplace. It is that community that could rocket Apple forward with more contributions and functionality - but now they continue to be pushed to support Linux instead.

    It is disappointing to me that we live in a world where large companies like Apple still grow primarily based on marketing, selling and distributing physical things over digital products, or from monetizing the support and services (and maintaining a community) around increased productivity.

    The difference in price between all these products is small compared to the value of ones times spent dealing with issue that arise. Regardless of how one values their own time - after any major screw ups taking many, many hours to fix - you have already surpassed any difference in price between the systems. Reliability, functionality, and real security (and how much time you have to spend later to get those) are the real value of owning a laptop for several years, not just the initial price.

    But all in all, lack of Apple support for hacking means I'll be looking seriously at a Linux-based laptop (at 1/2 the price and more open standards) for my next laptop.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Budenny (888916)

      "Apple with it's BSD-based kernel and more open culture than Microsoft..."

      This is the image it has among some, but the reality is that it is far more closed and restrictive and controlling in its culture than Microsoft ever was. Its really mysterious where it gets this impression of openness from. The only analogy I can think of is that among the liberal establishment, Soviet Russia and Communism generally was somehow seen as more humane and decent than Fascism, while indulging in repeated genoicides seve

  • when surely the bigger question here is who was dumb enough to believe that fucking stupid and clearly made up statistic in the first place? I will eat my PCs if anyone can prove that Apple get anywhere even close to 91% of all PC sales over $1000. Remember folks, approximately 87.93% of statistics are made up on the spot.

    Nick

  • by Weedhopper (168515) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @03:59PM (#28821057)

    I've seen this comparison a number already here.

    Here comes a car analogy.

    For me, a premium car has nice interior materials and a good balance of comfort, performance, build quality and a few intangibles.

    If I just want pure perfomance, I could get a Mustang or a Civic and slam it out for much less than say, an M3 or an IS.ï

    My gaming computer is the equivalent of that Mustang or Civic. I use it run games with everything turned up to 11 but for everyday computing, I vastly prefer my Mac.

  • by zerofoo (262795) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @04:03PM (#28821091)

    I am an IT director for a small private school (public districts send us kids). We have adequate resources at our disposal, but I wouldn't call us a "rich" school.

    We have finally replaced every Dell desktop with a Mac as of this year. We are still solidly Windows in the server room, but every other machine in our two locations is a Mac.

    Yes, they were a bit more expensive than what we could have bought from Dell or HP, but the usefulness of Mac OS on robustly built hardware is worth the expense.

    Out of 100 or so iMacs and 200 or so MacBooks, we've had about 15 keyboard failures (the keys were popped/ripped off), 2 cracked laptop screens, and 2 hard drive failures - this has been over 3 years.

    Students are extremely hard on the machines, yet they keep right on working. Contrast this to the Dells we used to have. Keyboards and mice were constantly being replaced, USB ports and power switches routinely failed, many LCD screens were thrown away due to panel or backlight failure....etc.

    Now here's the clincher - only two Macs in three years had to be re-imaged due to "software" issues. Our windows machines were being regularly reimaged due to numerous software problems.

    Our switch to Macs has been a resounding success. I can't imagine that we are the only company in the world to realize the benefits of the Mac platform.

    -ted

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by j_sp_r (656354)

      You're comparing business class machines (MacBook pro) to consumer shit (Dell). Buy business notebooks (elitebook/thinkpad lines for example) and I think they are as solidly built as a Mac. You can also get a better resolution then 1440x900, but I don't think you would consider that a problem.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dkf (304284)

        You're comparing business class machines (MacBook pro) to consumer shit (Dell). Buy business notebooks (elitebook/thinkpad lines for example) and I think they are as solidly built as a Mac.

        I had a Dell laptop for many years. Corporate grade. It wasn't a bad machine, but it had rather a lot of quirks and there were a number of places where Dell's heritage as a cheap box shifter still shone through (the keyboard was a particular issue). So far, the MacbookPro that replaced it has held up much better, with the exception of two issues. (One was fixed in minutes after taking it in for service, and the other took around a week.)

        To summarize, Dell have a bit better quality control (or did at the tim

      • cen u reed? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Weedhopper (168515)

        Parent clearly states MacBooks and iMacs. The closest he comes to saying "pro" is when he says "pro"blem and "benefit."

Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it. -- Perlis's Programming Proverb #58, SIGPLAN Notices, Sept. 1982

Working...