Making minor deities disappear in a puff of logic since 1972
Thu, 07 Aug 2008
I've covered the topic of the Mac vs. PC price myth before, but a couple of recent developments led me to redo the comparison.
First, on a mailing list I'm on, one reader remarked, "[I] can't find a way to justify the ultra premium price which I find to be approximately 4x what I can build a Linux box for".
Second, Tom's Hardware recently published an article on "The Apple Mac Cost Misconception", where they compared a $2000 laptop from Dell and Apple, and a $2780 Mac Pro vs. a comparable home-built PC. The results, unsurprising to me, is that the Mac Pro is about a latte's difference ($5.87) away from the PC, which you have to take the time to put together yourself and doesn't come with an integrated warranty.
The problem with Tom's comparison, however, is that they didn't look at the low end of the scale. Now, all comparisons can be assailed in some fashion, including mine. What's important to state first and foremost is the thesis of the comparison. Namely, what could you get for your money if you were thinking about spending $599 for an entry-level Mac Mini from Apple? To make the comparison as fair as possible, I tried to replicate the market segment of the Mac Mini, by selecting the mini-ATX PC form factor (17cm x 17cm), and as similar as possible hardware.
I long ago (in 1998) abandoned the PC market, so I don't claim to have used the cheapest PC components. Surely, some of these can be found cheaper, but I think it's still illustrative to the point of "is a Mac really more expensive?" Rather, I followed in Tom's footsteps, for better or worse, as much as I could, to get pricing for the components. (I, like them, used Newegg.com's pricing and chose the cheapest, but most comparable component they sold. If anyone is interested, I'll post the URLs of all the products separately.)
Without any further ado, here's the price comparison: (boldface indicates line item winner)
stiiky -- writes: International...?
Hi khan.org, I have been reading many, many of these fighting comparisons between folks, on which is the better option and one is more expensive than the other etc etc. What i find interesting is the narrow scope to which all of these comparisons adhere. I live in Australia, and i will say that the Mac price gap is far more extended here. The same spec'd mac mini here costs $849. Now, to my mind, the comparison becomes blurred at that point. I recently put together a system, on paper, comparable to the top end imac (from a hardware point of view) for under $1000 (including 24" samsumg monitor). When you start comparing things at a performance level ,where the niche factor of board size plays less role, it is more difficult to compare. I know that there is the argument, as ever, that the OS is what you pay for. But if you are the type of person to assemble your system yourself, you are likely to be able to manipulate your OS to get he most out of it. And even for the mac experience there are Linux flavours which offer (admittedly impersonated) features like the mac: eg dashboard and the windows/file manager layout/spotlight. I am not saying either way, i have both, just saying that it changes for individuals as well as for locations. Many wishes for your future Blogging. Stiiky
Khan -- writes: Response to stiiky
You make a good point, the price comparisons can vary from country to country, and product by product. I will say, however, that comparing to the "top end imac" which is an all in one form factor, may not be a fair comparison for some people... For those who care less if their CPU and display are separate units, your comparison will demonstrate the value of a PC. On the other hand, finding an enclosure that you can build a PC to the back of an LCD, well, that's custom work that will not be cost competitive to "build yourself"...
Stiiky -- writes: The points are never not valid
This will go back and forward forever. Of course, form factor will be a factor in it all, and the eye candy associated with things is the only feature to distinguish between anyone's "guns". If that was to be taken out of account, you could always set up a good, strong PC, hook it up to a decent projector and, for about the cost of the iMac, you have an ENORMOUS screen, form factor is not an issue and everything is hunky doory :p I don't often comment on these things, because there are so very many threads which do contest this exact point of view. I only chose to here, because i thought you presented a very well balanced and level headed argument. I want to say that, having read some of the other posts on here, i like the cut of your jib andi will concede that personal flavour and taste are the biggest factors between people. i look forward to reading many more posts in the future. regards, Stiiky PS a Vesa mounton the back of your lcd coul solve the form factor :p
Khan -- writes:
I think you made my point there, though. :) That is, if a PC costs the same as an iMac, you can hook the iMac up to the projector and voila... Enormous screen, and form factor is not an issue. In that case, then it simply comes down to user preference... If you ever want to run OS X (legally) you have to choose the Mac. If you want to run Windows or Linux, pick either the Mac or the PC, both will run either OS well enough.
stiiky -- writes:
just to clarify...i meant you could get the pc AND the projector(where i am at least) for the cost of the iMac. Bit of a difference there.