Are Macs Really More Expensive than PCs?

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
From our front-page news:
The Mac vs. PC debate has been going on for about as long as... well, as long as both platforms have been available. For the most part though, it's usually the users of each platform that are involved in the debate, but in recent years, it's been the companies themselves. Apple arguably started it all when they began releasing their Mac vs. PC TV commercials, and while they were humorous, I'm not quite sure how successful they were in turning people away from the PC.

It took quite a while for Microsoft to decide to take action and actually defend themselves, but we began to see the fruits of that a few months ago, with a huge ad campaign entitled "I'm a PC", which showcased normal everyday people who love their Windows PCs... not some smarmy dude. Now, Microsoft is taking things one step further... by poking at Apple's pricing.

The mediums Microsoft has chosen for this is both the TV and Internet, and it's no surprise that this has come about, as just a few weeks ago, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer made the rather blunt comment that given the recession, not too many people are interested in paying $500 for a badge. For the sake of not turning a simple news post into an article, I won't express personal opinions here, as I've made them enough in the past.

Regardless of what I think though, the ads are quite straight-forward. Their test subjects are given a certain amount of money, say $1000, and are told to go purchase a PC. On the Mac side, that's difficult, given the lowest-end MacBook is $999. Rather, one lady ends up buying an HP notebook, valued at $699, and picks up a printer and other accessories as well... and still has $100 to pocket. You can read the link below for more on this, and then put your two cents down in our comment thread.

microsoft_vs_mac_lauren_033009.jpg

David Webster, a general manager in Microsoft's central marketing unit, said that while some people are enticed by lower prices alone, some like to think of value in terms of what else they could spend that money on. In the online campaign, Microsoft tries to play up those things. Webster said Microsoft is also trying to play up the variety of the PC marketplace, saying a customer is likely to get "a better fit" with Windows.


Source: Beyond Binary
 

Relayer

E.M.I.
It's a good campaign, IMO. I would have had 3 or 4 test subjects and given them varying amounts. The person mentioned, a young "gamer" type, a business man who uses a computer in his daily job, an accountant, etc... Instruct them to look at both Mac and PC and choose for themselves. I'm sure that, just as in real life, most people would choose a PC.
 

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
From what I understand, there were a few different test subjects, each receiving a different sum of case (I think it was $700 - $1500), so I'd expect to see follow-up TV spots like this one. I agree, I also think it's a good campaign, but there's always more than one side to the story. PCs cost less, but people who use Apples tend to value the OS much more highly than Windows, which in their minds makes it worth it. Then on the PC side, there are few people who don't pick up anti-virus software, so that tacks more onto the price-tag. Anti-virus software isn't near as important for Macs, although that's sure to change eventually.
 

Rory Buszka

Partition Master
One thing it's important not to forget in all of this is that many people who purchase Macs aren't looking for a 'less expensive' computer, and they perceive value in a different way than typical consumers. I, for one, think Microsoft is misdirecting their efforts whenever they talk about how PCs are cheaper, rather than encouraging PC makers to produce more luxurious and tightly-integrated hardware to compete with the user experience that a lot of Mac hardware offers. As far as I know, no PC laptops have LED-backlit displays, or keys that illuminate only when the light is low.
 

Ben

Site Developer
The retail sector is almost built entirely on price alone. I would be surprised to find out if the most popular Mac at Apple stores isn't the cheapest one in the place. That being said, its hard for people to justify the difference when they really don't know WHY its better in the first place. Most consumers don't know the difference between a web page and a desktop application. Yes, this is true for most people as hard as it can be to believe. Thus, trying to get them to pay $500 more for a machine they hardly understand can be a challenge. When you look at the bottom line price, yes Macs are more expensive and for most people thats all that matters.
 

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
Rory Buszka said:
I, for one, think Microsoft is misdirecting their efforts whenever they talk about how PCs are cheaper, rather than encouraging PC makers to produce more luxurious and tightly-integrated hardware to compete with the user experience that a lot of Mac hardware offers.

I agree for the most part, but Apple did the same thing, or even worse. They pointed out issues about Vista that really were no longer issues. I use Vista a fair bit and I sure don't experience half of the issues they point out on their commercials. I guess it's fair game that Microsoft give them a taste of their own medicine for once.

Value -is- something that's different for each person, but the commercial is true... you cannot get an decent Apple notebook for $1,000 or less. And even if they were the exact same price-point, I have a feeling that the Apple machine would have the lesser hardware (at least this has always been the case whenever I've looked).

Most consumers don't know the difference between a web page and a desktop application. Yes, this is true for most people as hard as it can be to believe.

That's so true. I think that's why Apples will never "take off" in the sense that they will always be worthy of consideration for most people. If a PC notebook costs $1000 and the Apple costs $1500, but they appear to do the same thing, then it's going to be an awful hard sell. Apples today seem to cater to two different types of people. The crowd who are technically savvy, and the crowd who consider MacBooks to be a fashion symbol.
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
rather than encouraging PC makers to produce more luxurious and tightly-integrated hardware to compete with the user experience that a lot of Mac hardware offers.

Okay, I'll bite on this one! As far as I'm concerned Apple uses off the shelf PC hardware, they just package it more nicely and use a different OS. Ignoring accessories, what at the hardware-level has Apple modified?

As far as I know, no PC laptops have LED-backlit displays, or keys that illuminate only when the light is low.

Rory, that's been out for a long while and isn't an Apple exclusive. Dell has quite a few LED laptops, and various people have LED netbooks as well. In fact Dell published a bit of marketing last September that they plan to use nothing but LEDs in their laptops starting sometime in 2010. Some quick Googling shows that HP launched LED laptops around the same point Apple did in 2007. Link Link2 (Acer Aspire, MSI Wind, some Eee models etc...)

The boutique system builders (HP owned Voodoo's Envy 133 just to name one) have offered LED backlit keyboards on their laptops since sometime last year. Dell has been offering backlit keyboards on a few of their models since the latter half of last year (Dell Studio 15 is one model, starts at $599). I believe their are more that do as well.
 
Last edited:

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
I'll double post as I had completely forgotten about the Dell Studio 16. This laptop is new in that it uses RGB LEDs, and in doing so achieves 118% on the Gamutvision AdobeRGB scale test. Well known monitors like the 2408WFP, 2707WFP, 3007WFP scored a 104%, 95%, and 75% respectively.

Rather ironically for all the impressive results its still only a TN panel, so there's room for improvement on some of the other panel specs. Still, for a 16" notebook with 1920x1080 display it is targeting the same price bracket as a Macbook Pro, and Dell seems to be making an effort with it.
 

Ben

Site Developer
I saw the review of that Dell Studio 16 on AnandTech as well and it looks pretty sweet. The only thing thats really holding it back is the battery life. The Mac notebooks have way more battery life that any of the PC's. I would hope all the notebook vendors could pressure Microsoft to start optimizing for notebooks a bit more so we can fix this.
 

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
Hmm, to be honest, I think that Dell notebook is ugly as sin, but I definitely appreciate the high-definition panel, and the high gamut makes it one heck of a nice notebook for those who care about rich colors (photographers, namely). Glad my 2408WFP is over 100%, I guess I can be happy with that.

Ben: What exactly are the differences seen in battery-life on the MacBook? I'd like to see a head-to-head comparison of a MacBook Pro and then another makers notebook and see who comes out on top. Both would need to have similar hardware, of course.

I do think the OS has a fair amount to do with battery-drain, but I'd still be interested to know exactly what Apple does to increase battery-life on their notebooks. This is the first time I've heard that Apple's offerings offer better battery-life than the competition.
 

Ben

Site Developer
Rob it was on this page here that they discuss the battery life and they go into a bit of detail on the Mac's as well.

EDIT: I should add, the main part I took from the article is this:
Note that testing a MacBook with Vista using Boot Camp also cut the Apple battery life roughly in half.

Which lead to me to naturally assume its some OS difference that causes the battery life issues.
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
I saw the review of that Dell Studio 16 on AnandTech as well and it looks pretty sweet. The only thing thats really holding it back is the battery life. The Mac notebooks have way more battery life that any of the PC's. I would hope all the notebook vendors could pressure Microsoft to start optimizing for notebooks a bit more so we can fix this.

Yeah, I would expect anything with Vista to have sucky battery life. It has been well documented Vista has almost exactly half the battery life of OS X when performing identical tasks on the exact same MacBook Pro.

Hmm, to be honest, I think that Dell notebook is ugly as sin, but I definitely appreciate the high-definition panel, and the high gamut makes it one heck of a nice notebook for those who care about rich colors (photographers, namely). Glad my 2408WFP is over 100%, I guess I can be happy with that.

I don't understand if this is a different test or what, but according to their test the laptop outscored the 2408WFP. It only reached 104%. Link to chart Considering that only red, green, and blue LEDs are used it stands to reason the laptop would best anything on the market in color reproduction.

Ben: What exactly are the differences seen in battery-life on the MacBook? I'd like to see a head-to-head comparison of a MacBook Pro and then another makers notebook and see who comes out on top. Both would need to have similar hardware, of course.

I do think the OS has a fair amount to do with battery-drain, but I'd still be interested to know exactly what Apple does to increase battery-life on their notebooks. This is the first time I've heard that Apple's offerings offer better battery-life than the competition.

I've harped on this exact subject in my Vista ranting/complaints! You're making me find the links again... I recall this one, he tried both a MacBook Air and a MacBook Pro: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3435&p=13

I have seen results very similar to Anandtech's in that Vista gets significantly less up to half the battery life performing any medicore task. The only possible explanation is Vista is lacking ultra-deep level power saving drivers... but that doesn't change the fact that the underlying hardware power saving features should be regulated by bootcamp and not the OS. It shouldn't make an appreciable difference, and certainly not be cutting battery life in half if it did.

I don't recall what site, but one outright rejected the power level drivers as an explanation and pretty much ruled out the rest. Their conclusion was it was a combination of Vista constantly running background processes keeping the CPU, chipset, and memory system mostly active along with the hard drive. Not to mention I have seen tests where Aero Glass causes the GPU to draw slightly more power than GDI+ does running the same display on the CPU, so there is that to factor in as well. Keeping all that in mind, that amounts to pretty much the entire laptop itself. The links are out there but I'm not going to hunt for them again just now.
 
Last edited:

Rob Williams

Editor-in-Chief
Staff member
Moderator
Still, half the battery-power? That seems a little ridiculous. I mean, with a notebook on Windows XP, it doesn't last twice as long as if it had Vista, and the same goes for Linux. I'll just have to believe that OS X is much bettery for battery-life. Hopefully Windows 7 will fix things for mobiles (and given their focus on netbooks, I'm led to believe it will be).
 

Kougar

Techgage Staff
Staff member
Still, half the battery-power? That seems a little ridiculous. I mean, with a notebook on Windows XP, it doesn't last twice as long as if it had Vista, and the same goes for Linux. I'll just have to believe that OS X is much bettery for battery-life. Hopefully Windows 7 will fix things for mobiles (and given their focus on netbooks, I'm led to believe it will be).

Well, just look at the minutes per watt hour results: here

I don't think it can get more definitive than that?

I guess I gotta give credit where credit is due, Apple did a nice job with those unibody laptops with their excellent battery life. Still, for the price difference anyone can afford a bunch of batteries to make up for it. :D
 
Last edited:
Top