Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple, Macbook Pro, MacBook
Macs still cheaper when you look at TCO
With all of the iPhone news lately, some of you may have worried that we're forgetting what got us here: Apple computers, not the other gadgets and doohickeys they sell. But worry not -- we're still Mac-crazy, which is why we'll still link to a Grade A smackdown on the old argument that Macs are more expensive than PCs. After a few analysts question whether or not Macs are worth it (as if buying a powerful and easy-to-use computer was ever not worth it), MacsimumNews' Dennis Sellers pulls out the big guns, and shows that report after report will make it clear that when you compare the quality vs. cost that you get with an Apple to what you get with a PC, the Mac will almost always win.
Sure, if you compare a new MacBook Pro with the bargain laptops you'll find on the shelves at Best Buy, you'll be seeing a smaller charge on your credit card. But when you compare the total cost of ownership due to what's actually in those laptops (and the experience you'll have with each computer), the Mac is cheaper than ever.
[via MacBytes]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Fernando said 11:10AM on 3-13-2009
I get into an argument about this almost every week. But people just don't listen and never compare Apple's to Apple's :p they always compare MBP to hp paperweight and iMac's to Dell entry level POC and Mac Pro's to a XPS. But in the end all they see is the $$$ and not the actual value behind the whole thing.
Reply
Patriks7 said 11:20AM on 3-13-2009
I so agree with that.
I always conclude the argument telling them to keep on using their 600$ Dell that they have to replace every year due to problems and let them have their head explode on the OS side.
Randy said 11:54AM on 3-13-2009
When they ask me for advice on what to buy, I Just point them to dell/hp and tell them to buy and use what they like. I don't get into the Mac vs. PC arguments.
When they ask me for help for a problem, I tell them, Sorry I use a mac and I've never seen this problem they're having with Vista/XP. And point them to google or MS' KB website.
I tend to follow Dave Chappelle's example: "If customers come in with a PC disk, tell them we use Macs. If they have a Mac disk, tell them we use PCs. If they have both, tell them we use Linux. and if they have that, tell them the Computers are down."
I'm a Unix SA by trade, and I've been burdened (and burned) with being tech support for my family, so I don't do it anymore, and I don't offer.
balls said 1:58PM on 3-13-2009
@Randy: "They should be anyway!"
Quine said 4:00PM on 3-13-2009
Definitely. My friend who is an aspiring photographer and not very tech savvy got a new pc laptop recently solely because it was $400 cheaper than a macbook. The macbook of course, was much better.
Case in point: he just lost all his photos due to data corruption, which vista gleefully copied over his backups with its automatic backup thing without asking him or notifying him. So now they're all gone.
Greenie said 11:22AM on 3-13-2009
I remember when I used to try and argue this out. But for the last few years my rule has been, "If it's not going to make me money or free up my time, then I don't even bring it up."
My other rule is, "If someone asks me what computer to get, I suggest Mac. If they still choose a Windows machine then they've lost their right to tech support from me."
My other rule is "never grab the whole bag of Fritos and the whole can of Fritos bean dip because I know I won't be able to stop myself. " But that has nothing to do with this post.
Reply
Richard Lai said 11:22AM on 3-13-2009
Before I say anything, I am also a MacBook user (the lovely unibody entry model).
It is true that "the Mac is cheaper than ever", but isn't that because technology is always getting cheaper? In other words: the Dell, the ASUS, the Toshiba, etc. are also/should also be cheaper than ever.
PS: I had student discount on my MacBook. :)
Reply
msingletary said 11:25AM on 3-13-2009
While I have to admit that I'm a Windows user migrating to a Mac machine at work and at home, I can honestly say that this cost of ownership thing is all relative.
A couple of years back, I bought a Sony VAIO machine with the exact same hardware specs as the base MacBook. The only difference other than the way the machines looked was that mine was about $400 less than the MacBook. I've never had to have any repairs on it, never been infected by any viruses, etc... I paid about $700 for the Sony machine with the exact same hardware as the MacBook, and nothing more.
Sure, there are some low quality PCs out there that would likely need maintenance or just replacement sooner than a Mac, but there's also plenty out there that don't.
Depending on what you're looking for in a computer, it can definitely be said that the Macs justify the extra expense. For my needs, however (web browsing, email, some browser-based work, and playing WoW) a cheaper PC can definitely be justified. With that said, I'm still switching to a Mac soon, and will happily pay the Apple Tax to get away from Windows. :)
Reply
Hawke said 11:36AM on 3-13-2009
Well the scientist in me tells me that studies like this must hold true, unfortunately I've had some much anecdotal evidence of high Apple failure rates that I can't bring myself to buy another. After two failed macbooks after a year that cost me $300-400 to fix ($75 for a similar one on a 3 year old HP) and other hp/dell computers with no failures, I'm a skeptic.
My brother is a Genius and both him and I own PCs for both initial cost and late maintenance costs. Sure, he gets crap at work for not owning a Mac... but I'll stick with my PCs for now.
Reply
Neil said 11:33AM on 3-13-2009
I am sick of hearing Mac fanboys pretending that they got good value for money.
Yes, there was a time a few years ago when a Mac would give you fewer hassles and would be rock solid and a Windows machine would slip up on viruses, malware and spyware.
That time has passed. People on the Mac side who say that Windows is "insecure" or "unreliable" simply haven't used the latest versions. XP is now far, far more stable than Leopard in my opinion - I can't tell you how many times I've seen that stupid beach ball thing and had to force quit a program on my Mac. It's almost like the inverse of what it used to be like when I had continual program crashes on Windows.
Windows 7 is coming and is looking even better than XP SP3. And the best part is you don't have to pay for a fancy aluminium enclosure or an arty farty mouse that doesn't even work to be able to use it. When I see new iMacs running for well in excess of £1500 I just cannot believe that people are willing to pay this money for these machines any more and I cannot believe that these "analysts" are doing their jobs properly.
Reply
samu said 11:45AM on 3-13-2009
Odd site to frequent, then, perhaps?
Joe said 12:03PM on 3-13-2009
you are clearly not in business
Yago Bal said 12:59PM on 3-13-2009
Did you even read the article before commenting?
Fernando said 1:12PM on 3-13-2009
Dude you're smoking I am a network admin on 500+ PC's and every single day people have problems with XP with spyware and malware and they are on the latest version of Norton's and Spybot/Adware. I had my Mac for going on 2 years now and the performance on that machine has not degraded one bit. I have been a Windows/MS admin for going on 20 years now. So get your facts straight, you can go ahead and say well those people are not doing "right' things on their PC's. Well guess what I don't have to worry about whether or not I can click on a link on my Mac because.... you know what I don't even know why I'm feeding the troll.
Tariq said 1:55PM on 3-13-2009
You're in the UK, macs are notoriously more expensive over there because of the miniscule adoption rate. We're taking about here in the US, where macs are a much better buy for your money.
Sam said 2:01PM on 3-13-2009
@Tariq
It isn't to do with adoption rate, everything in the UK is priced high, generally remove the dollar sign and replace with the pound sign. So, while Macs are priced higher, so are other PCs.
For one of the worst examples, check out Adobe UK prices.
Evilhomer said 3:39PM on 3-13-2009
When oh when will PC users on a budget quit whining about the price of Mac's and trying to convince us Mac users that Windows OS is superior to OS X when we know better?
And yep. Windows 7 is on the way to fix all your Vista garbage woes... maybe. In the meantime, well before Vista 7 hits, we'll have Snow Leopard which will dance circles around anything MS can slap together.
Keith said 11:34AM on 3-13-2009
The smackdown you cite is referencing a now two-year-old comparison between the dell XPS series and MBP. Their comparison shows that the XPS was $650 more... realistically an almost identical model (CPU/RAM/HDD/Screen/Optical drive) weighs in at $1499 (I didn't bother to check everything spec-by-spec). Factor in up to $80/yr for three years of security software and even $500 for a service call and the TCO for the Dell is significantly less (~$500) than the MBP.
Apple stuff is expensive. I've had my mac for the past three years and I absolutely love it. That said, 99% of what I do with the Mac could be done just as simply on Windows or even on Ubuntu. I'm having a very hard time justifying to myself the increased cost of replacing my 13" macbook with another 13" macbook.
Reply
samu said 11:41AM on 3-13-2009
The problem with finding PCs with equivalent spec to Macs is that it assumes the Mac range offers something ideal for you, and that all its features are relevant. It's a highly artificial comparison which sets the rules in Apple's favour. The way people actually choose their machines is from a few specific priorities - "I don't know, I guess I want a pretty basic laptop... Oh, but it needs a big screen..." BOOM! That means a MacBook Pro, on the Apple side, compared with any number of bigger-screened laptops running Windows and costing vastly less. Sure, the MacBook Pro will be a superior machine, but largely in ways that aren't relevant to that particular consumer. Similarly, if you want a small, highly portable notebook, that could mean an eeePC on one hand and a MacBook or Air on the other.
My other problem with these studies is that they seem heavily weighted towards business use (in which sphere the EDA has a strong commercial interest in promoting Macs, incidentally). With decent security software available free for personal use, AV and so on never cost me a penny on Windows, and many of the other considerations can only be valued highly subjectively. Purely anecdotally, there's no doubt at all that my MBP has cost me more than my previous laptop, in spite of a lower initial outlay; I was more often able to find freeware for the PC, while on the Mac, I've ended up buying a lot of software. This is fine: it's completely worth it. But it's not cheaper.
Reply
JC said 12:43PM on 3-13-2009
I would simply compare the experience of calling Dell vs. walking into the Apple store with a machine that is under warranty. I've done both, and the Apple experience was vastly better.
Reply