There are some good reasons not to choose a Mac when you buy your next computer, though in the last few years one of those most often given for sticking with a PC – that Macs are simply too expensive – has been rather inaccurate.
Historically, of course, it was true that they were disproportionately expensive, but more recently the entire Mac lineup – in particular the portables and iMac lines – has come to represent at least 'good' value for money.
When folks looked to Apple's US pricing and cried "rip-off Britain", they usually forgot two things. First, the dollar prices quoted on Apple's American site didn't include any tax – in the US, tax is applied at the checkout, and varies from state to state – and second, the exchange rates you find on internet sites such as www.xe.com never actually represent the kind of currency ratios that the man on the street would get.
True, Apple remained one of the very few mainstream brands not to have a cheap, around £250, option at the bottom of its range, either as a budget choice for cash-strapped consumers or rather as a starting point for retailers – or, indeed, customers themselves – to upsell from.
But then Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, has hinted (and sometimes flat-out stated) that the company isn't interested in producing cheap machines. As he put it, "We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk, and our DNA won't let us ship that." (Reason to suspect, incidentally, that while Apple may indeed soon make a netbook in all but name, it's unlikely to have that most netbookian trait – a small price tag).
Out of step
And yet, with the latest round of upgrades to its consumer desktop machines, Apple seems to have been doing the tech equivalent of stuffing its fingers in its ears and loudly singing "la-la-la-la". It's not that they're bad machines: the Mac mini is just as cute as it ever was and packs a much bigger graphics punch than its ageing predecessor, while the iMac remains a remarkably beautiful, powerful all-in-one desktop. But the prices seem a little out of step with the rest of the market.
HIGH PRICE: Can the iMac's good looks still seduce in these difficult economic times?
We're sure that there are smart people at Apple who have done the sums to demonstrate that the market will support these prices – and indeed the jump in UK pricing specifically looks, at least on the surface, to be simply a case of harmonising prices with America in the face of the weakening pound – but again, they seem steep.
The entry-level Mac mini, for example, costs a not-extortionate £499, but you don't really get that much for your money. The processor's a 2GHz Core 2 Duo and it has a 120GB hard disk and a paltry gigabyte of RAM. While the current version of Mac OS X will run reasonably well with this spec – though you'll definitely start to feel the pinch of that RAM allocation if you want to run lots of apps at the same time – it looks like poor value next to bulkier, less charming boxes from, say, Dell. You could buy one of its Studio models for the same money with a 2.33GHz quad-core processor, 500GB hard disk and 3GB RAM.
MAC MINI: The smallest Mac on offer still comes with a big price tag
Your comments (19) Click to add a new comment
mrt731
July 11th 2009
19. kent909 the Mac you are referring too has only a 2.66 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor. The Dell has an Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 processor. The Dell is a more powerful PC.
Alert a moderator
kent909
June 26th 2009
18. B.S. A 24" iMac costs $1499 and a 24" Dell XPS All-in-One costs $1499.
Alert a moderator
mbb
June 26th 2009
17. I take the previous poster's point about being able to put together a higher-spec machine than the iMac for less money, but it's not really comparable.
Even ignoring the OS, I suspect lth's computer does not include an IPS panel display covered by glass and an all-in-one design created from a single, machine cut piece of aluminium.
Do you care/think this is significant? Perhaps not. Does it raise costs? Oh, you betcha.
Alert a moderator
lth
June 25th 2009
16. Having been forced to use a Mac at work, I don't really think that they are all that they are cracked up to be in terms of user interface. I think it's largely just what you're used to.
£950 for what you get is pretty steep considering that I've just put together the bits for a PC that absolutely spanks the cheapest iMac spec for a touch under £600.
As others say, it's a brand and a "lifestyle choice" but as with so many designer brands, you are mostly paying for the label, not the components or quality levels.
Alert a moderator
gandharva81
June 24th 2009
15. Since because Mac Operating System is not user friendly but attractive in shape only.
So this is much more expensive in place of Windows, Windows is user friendly and easy to operate.
Thanx
Alert a moderator
g24
June 23rd 2009
14. I have been using Windows PCs AND Apple Macs consistently for many years and when it comes to spending my own money and trusting my own data, it has to be a Mac.
Beneath the dubious eye candy and steamroller marketing, Windows is a *terrible* OS - it is stuffed with legacy code along with support for an almost infinite combination of hardware permutations, most of which it will never see. This makes for bloat, bugs and that persistent blight of security vulnerabilities.
Apple's OS X by comparison enjoys solid and secure Unix underpinnings with a slick and usable UI. The hardware is mostly very well designed and engineered, and OS X is actually designed for the hardware - this *does* make a difference. Somehow Macs manage to deliver a more productive and enjoyable user experience too.
By comparison, my slightly cheaper Windows notebooks either fall to bits or grind to a halt after about two years - I recently binned a failing 2.5yr old Acer and switched back to a MacBook - way, way better, in a different league. Macs seem to have a much longer and more useful life, another factor which should be taken into account when making price comparisons.
You do get what you pay for and all things considered, Macs are pretty good value for money when you take everything into account and disregard the pointless specs list. Cheap PCs, particularly notebooks, are just that, cheap and very nasty. Apple just doesn't operate in that market - for cheap and nasty, look elsewhere.
I don't get all this cynical ill-informed Apple-bashing bile. Of course there's an element of brand halo and marketing pixiedust which I actually dislike, but I'm afraid the products do pretty much live up to the hype. For most users who aren't interested in specs and just want something fast, solid, secure, good looking and great to use Macs are a pretty smart choice, on merit, not just hype.
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments