Must not be my half.

Until apple can sell machines in bulk for sub £250, their OS can run all the current business software without the need for VMs or emulation, their OS and hardware can be managed in a controlled network environment (AD\GPO style etc) and they can be built to a very high spec for serious gaming or just to any spec by an enthusiast (either from scratch or upgrade) they just won't get a share of the market much beyond what they do now.

Dust off your arguments: apple is not expensive; MacMini, ever heard off? And no complaints about my network, 2 pc's (3 if you include my wife's, 4 if you include my daughter) and 2 macs. I don't play games (on a computer); they're all used for business. Including the Macs.

Apple not expensive?! Seriously? You used the MacMini as an example, however, the MacMini comes (like 99% of all the other Apple products) in a very limited configuration for the price. Using US dollars as the standard here; You can buy a MacMini *mostly* loaded (sans mouse, keyboard, software upgrades, and other nice to have items) for $1049.00 BEFORE taxes (directly from Apple). That price was also excluding AppleCare.

To further put it into prospective, Dell is offering a Studio XPS 9000 for the SAME price with a larger hard drive (640gb versus 500gb) and a faster processor along with in home service for 2 years and Windows 7 Home Professional 64-bit.

Please, tell me how Apple products are not more expensive.

Anyhow, the OP was clearly looking at the enterprise market and not the consumer market. Apple is seriously lacking when it comes to the enterprise market. Sub-standard support for enterprise architecture and management is just 2 of the various complaints when it comes to OS-X and Apple machines in general. Things that system administrators and also executives have been relying on for years to maximize productivity and reduce complexity are simply not present when it comes to Apple computers.

Probably nobody will read this, as the thread is a fight amongst fanboys from both camps.

But do the numbers yourselves. Using the average prices given by the author, and the revenue shares, a 2 minutes algebra exercise will show that in units sold 34% of all desktops sold are Macs, and 18% of all portables were also Macs. This is not a "niche" computer maker anymore!

That would be a market-share analysis, and you've got your math wrong. (At least according to *any* of the recent market-share numbers put out by folks who do this kind of thing for a living)

Sure they could all be wrong and you could be right....but what are the chances of that?

Hi there PC_Tool,

many thanks for taking the trouble to answer my comment. You do rise a good point: the analysis is very basic. That is because of the limited amount of data presented in this article. I only based the maths on the mean value and revenue. As you point out, this is most likely way of the mark. This not because of the maths, but because of the very limited data available.

Without knowing the shape of the distribution, or at least its spread and skewness, it is impossible to do it any better. For instance, it is very likely that the number of netbooks outweighs the number of expensive MS systems by a huge margin. This would give a skewed distribution, but given the difference in prices, the mean value would still be towards the higher price. If the author of the article would have included more data, for instance the mean, the standard deviation and the median values, the analysis could be done much better. In the absence of that, trusting the data provided by other sources is the only answer. I like questioning the information I found on the internet and see how far you can go playing with it.

Would you be able to please add a few links to the sources you mention with market share's actual data? I would like to look at that in more detail, to have a better picture of the real scenario.

Once again, thanks for your answer, and your time.

Best wishes
Luis

Here, let me google that for you:

http://www.google.com/se...q=f&oq=&aqi=g10

Pick and choose.... Being one of the hottest topics among the fanboys of both products, there's more than enough to go 'round. ;)

Thanks mate, but I googled that myself. And all the data related to Q3 and last month (which this article is about) are actually based on Net Applications analysis. And if you read carefully how Net Applications do their graphs, you'll see that that is Installed Base. Market share, as the proportion of computers SOLD in a quarter, is more difficult to find (at least for Q3). If you actually find that, please post the link.

Again thanks for your time and patience

"Market share, as the proportion of computers SOLD in a quarter"

...

That's not market share...market share *is* installed base (at least, as far as I have always read it).

I suppose it depends on how it is broken down... IE or IE6/7/8, etc... MacBook or AirBook, and so on...that'll muddle things a bit.

Really, depending on how far the muddle it, someone could probably get enough statistics to claim Apple is outselling PCs (of course, that'd be only one specific brand/model of PC and *all* models of Apple Mac. :P)

To be honest, I really don't care what the exact numbers are all that much as I use them both, but have never seen Apple go over ~!2%, and frankly don't see why they would. If they did, it would mean they weren't charging enough and were actually *losing* possible profits.

Well, that's my belief anyway. Apple could have entered the low-endian market and done quite well, IMO, but they never did, and have stated they never will. They don't care about market-share, and have stated this in the past. They care about ROI and revenue generation. So they sell to the high-end where they can make the most markup and try for that "sweet-spot" in market-share that provides them the highest return for the lowest cost. Least, that's how I explain it. ;) YMMV

OK, thanks. You are talking about one thing, I am talking about a different one. No point in arguing or discussing.

I am interested in the proportion of computers sold, not installed base, as you are.

Great talking to you. Have a good day.

It would be interesting to see the figures with regards to add on sales for software'

I still love it when a friend calls me and asks me how to play a particular game on their mac.

Buy a Windows license. ;) Next time they are likely to not spend so much on a machine (since it sounded like a cool idea).

Those statistics are insane, I never thought that Apple were so popular!

Perhaps the biggest single factor driving Apple's rapid $ share growth is the devastation wrought among Windows hardware vendors by the netbook scourge. These low cost products may be appealing to customers but they are killing the likes of Dell, HP and their kin.

It's not just the netbooks, it is PCs in general. With the amount of competition out there in the PC segment, the price of laptops and desktops have come way down. There is no competition in the OS-X market so they can charge a premium.

Hey guys guess how Apple made all of that profit...Are the wheels turning?.....Have you figured it out yet? They didn't make it off of themselves...Come on you can get it....THEY MADE IT OFF OF YOU! Apple truly does love their customers more than the rest. What is not to love about gullible people that will pay your seriously hiked up price for the SAME hardware that is in the cheaper PCs!

So Apple fans explain to me how is Apple making so much money if they are not overcharging? I will patiently await your most surely entertaining explanation of this.

The primary reason Apple sells so many computers is their proprietary OPERATING SYSTEM!!!
After a year my Vista PC has gotten slower and slower. My two year old Mac book Pro runs as fast as the day I bought it. Windows is still a crap OS because of all the flaws in the original DOS which is the foundation. People get tired of error messages and slowdowns and freeze ups. This is Apple's real advantage and without it all the marketing in the world would be moot.

"Windows is still a crap OS because of all the flaws in the original DOS which is the foundation."

Thanks for including that bit in your post. Always nice when the poster gives himself away as a troll by posting something in an attempt to sound like he knows what he's talking about and ends up actually proving his utter cluelessness.

FYI:
Vista is based on the NT kernel, trajan2448. Not DOS. It was developed completely separate from the DOS line of development in conjunction with IBM, of which the end results were OS/2 (for IBM) and Windows NT (Microsoft).

But do go on and tell us all how Mac OS never crashes, slows down, or gets error messages. We love hearing from fantasy-land here, and those of us actually *using* Windows and Mac OS X of course, know better.

Unfortunately your useless sputterings don't make Windows any better or Mac OSX any worse. If you really think they sell all those Apples because people are stupid you have the right attitude to work in the White House.

You may be able to make a case that Windows shortcomings arise from the limitations of earlier versions of Windows and the need for comparability. However, DOS has long since been flushed.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but your DOS comments are off base. Windows hasn't been based on DOS since Windows ME. It is however, bloated, slows down with use, requires constant attention and has a security barrier made of swiss cheese.

And Tool, you better check your facts about OS/2. NT has closer ties with VMS, as Doug Cutler from DEC was the primary architect of the NT kernel.

"Unfortunately your useless sputterings don't make Windows any better or Mac OSX any worse."

No, but they are effective at pointing out how clueless your statement was. Which, being the entire point of the comment, is a good thing.

Actually, ignoring the flaming, trajan2448 is mostly right --- OS X (mostly because of its BSD roots) has traditionally been far more reliable than Windows. I run all 3 OSs (Windows, Linux, OS X) at home for business purposes) so I'm not particularly biased but rather pragmatic. Now, I have a Windows 2003 Enterprise machine that runs as a VM and it has been running 24x7 for many weeks and I expect it to keep running well in the short term. On the other hand, my linux server has been running non-stop for several YEARS at this point. I have no expectation of Windows to last that long. The 5 Macs that are in my house have been running 24x7 for at least 6 months at this point and work just fine, more importantly requiring little in the way of nursing/maintenance.

Well agree --- as long as you're talking about the previous White House (grin)

How do these arguments descend into this "wah-wah" idiocy. Whether you like Apple or not it's clear that they are cleaning the clocks of the Wintel OEMs.

Market share? Seriously?

Guess what car company had the largest market share for most of the last 10 years while it was busy spiraling down the toilet? If you guessed GM, give yourself a cookie. Market share is irrelevant if you *aren't making jack* in terms of profit.

What school did some of you guys attend?

Call it a cult, call it marketing, call it stupidity...whatever you call it, don't forget to call it a major-league ass-whipping because that is exactly what Apple is giving every other computer maker on the planet.

@mattjumbo... If you are writing a new game and you want to make as much money as possible, who would you make your game first for: Xbox 360, the Playstation 3, or the Wii? One of the things you would look at is market share because you want to have the largest possible customer base to purchase your product. As a result, you would wind up developing for the Wii first since its market share of the game console market is larger than both Playstation 3 and Wii.

If 90% of the computers on the earth run Windows, would you rather write an awesome new piece of software to run in Windows, OS 7, Linux, or Sun? Where is the greatest profit potential? It's on the Windows platform because you have the best potential to turn a profit.

Why do you think the iPhone App store has so many Apps... because that is where the largest customer base is... its not because Apple makes the largest profit share. As a developer I could care less about how much Apple makes or loses. Even if Apples is losing money, I'm still going to develop apps for the iPhone because that is where the market is right now, not the Windows Mobile app store....

Nobody is arguing that Apple is making money. In fact Apple is making a killing off of every person that buys one. This is what we are bashing them for. They are raking you guys over the coals and you love every second of it. Apple is making lots of money because its' followers are idiots that will buy anything with an Apple symbol on it because it is "pretty."

Also you are missing the key competitor here which is Windows. There will always be hardware manufacturers to take the place of any one that fails. The true competitor to Apple is Windows 7 which is making a killing.

@ siryak:

That first paragraph summed it up fairly well.

But of course, most intelligent people who are able to think for themselves, able to allow more than clever and misleading marketing to influence their purchasing decisions, and are even remotely interested in having a near limitless choice of applications and hardware upgrade options to choose from to utilize their computer to its fullest potential, already knew that. ;)

@siryak:
"This is what we are bashing them for. They are raking you guys over the coals and you love every second of it. Apple is making lots of money because its' followers are idiots that will buy anything with an Apple symbol on it because it is "pretty.""

Do you also feel Mercedes owners are idiots? The fact that you think the reason someone buys an Apple product is because it's "pretty" shows you really have no idea what you are discussing. People are tired of having systems that crash at the drop of a hat. Computers are quite a bit like cars in the fact that people simply want them to work. Nobody buys a car expecting to have to become an auto mechanic just to drive it. They do not want to have to tweak the fuel injection systems, or rerun the electrical. It's the same thing with computers. The owners do not want to have to spend endless hours updating AVs, and fixing the registry, etc. They want to be able to get on the system, do what the have/want to do, and get off. Apple provides that.

You can buy a 15 yo Mercedes and it's still worth money unless it's really trashed out. I can keep an Apple computer a fews years longer than a similar condition PC and it will still be viable.

Along with the computer having less problems, and being useful longer, their customer service is heads and shoulders above MS. When was the last time you bought software from MS, and received free classes on how to best use that software? Apple not only puts out a better product, they do their best to make it as useful as possible to the end user.

It's simply a completely different attitude, and until you actually own one and see the difference, you really do not understand. That is why so many PC users blame it on the "Apple Kool-Aid".

I love it when people try to use car analogies with computers. The problem is you are not buying a Mercedes you are buying a Hyundai with a plastic Mercedes cover over it. Also don't give me this fixing the registry constantly BS. Most people never touch or even know what a registry is, and they damn sure are not going to be "fixing it." The most you will ever touch the registry is maybe running CCleaner over it to get rid of entries left behind by old programs, which is as simple as a few clicks. This is why I know that you are spewing a load of BS. If you mess up your registry you have been jacking with crap that you shouldn't have been in which case that is your fault not Windows. Updating AV? Takes me 2 seconds. Install MSE...Done.

"You can buy a 15 yo Mercedes and it's still worth money unless it's really trashed out. I can keep an Apple computer a fews years longer than a similar condition PC and it will still be viable."

Who gives a ****. In 2 years its time for another one anyway. I can upgrade my PC twice as much as an Apple, spend the same money, and be running the latest and greatest.

"their customer service is heads and shoulders above MS."

LMAO! Guess you missed that article above this one. Not to mention I have used Apple's support and it is no better than any other support on this planet. It sucks just as bad as the rest. Also who uses support for an OS anyway. Honestly how many people in this forum have actually used support to fix an issue with their OS? You don't you go to a forum and use people that are actually helpful.

"
It's simply a completely different attitude, and until you actually own one and see the difference, you really do not understand. That is why so many PC users blame it on the "Apple Kool-Aid"."

I have used one. NOT IMPRESSED. I prefer not being disappointed every time that cool new program comes out that is not compatible with my computer. I don't have any issues with Windows.

Exactly! I have a Dell and a Macbook Pro and over time, the Mac dominates, meaning for those eternal deniers out there, it works better.

What makes your preference on a machine the right preference for every other person out there? Isn't it a little narrowminded to think what is right is right for everyone else?

I used Windows from 3.1 to XP Pro before I switched to the Mac. Why, because I was fed up with it crashing. I was also into upgrading the hardware whenever something more powerful came out. In Win 3.1, I used to tinker with the config.sys and autoexec.bat files to make it run more smoothly and ensure the drivers loaded in the most efficient order. My initial experience with the Mac (OS 9) and then the start of OS X was not such a massive honeymoon but later iterations were improved up until the present.

My wife is not interested in computers or software at all. Her officer runs Windows, that's what she's used to so nothing will convince her of anything else (she's also 'as long as it has a wheel at each corner and gets from a to b, I don't care if it's a Benz or a Honda' type of woman), but she has not enjoyed Vista on her home machine. I have it installed via VMWare Fusion and am also not impressed. However, I recently helped her upgrade to Win 7. My initial impressions are good.

My take, whatever suits your work style. I think Win 7 may be up there with Mac OS X in terms of reliability and efficiency as long as Windows users maintain their software properly with antivirus, anti spyware etc. Not that Macs are exempt, but the reality is that Windows machines are the primary targets.

As for Win 7 copying Mac OS - there would be no progress in any sphere if what is efficient and useful was not accepted into the mainstream and currently Microsoft Windows is the mainstream. Why there is all this b****ing and defensiveness between both Mac and Windows users is beyond me. I'm not about to call my neighbour stupid for running a Subaru while I run a BMW (not that I can afford one).

We each like our own machines and OS because we work better with it and it suits us. I don't feel I have the right to call anyone's intelligence into question merely because they use something different. I certainly do not feel I love being 'ripped off' by Apple and my intelligence being called into question because I use the Mac. I personally find it has more finesse and is more suited to the way I work. It has certainly kept up speed without slowing down with multiple open windows, something Win could not do until fairly recently and Win 7 seems to have addressed the use of memory issue. I was also impressed with how upgrading from Vista to Win 7 maintained all the mainstream applications. Win 7 and OS X are both excellent environments.

Considering they use virtually the same hardware I should say the cult really does work.

For me a computer is a tool. Linux, OSX and Windows all offer tools for everyday use. To me it comes down to what I want to do, Windows offers me a view on business, OSX is for fun, and Linux is for serious hacking and learning.

I hate building computers so I only buy as custom building is just too tedious. For gaming I will use gaming systems and not worry about upgrading my pc for games.

The bottom line is that computer are tools and who cares what brand they carry as long as these do what you are looking for and you get what you pay for.

Most people continue to run Windows because:
- most users are given a PC with the OS already installed, especially in the business world
- most people (users and IT staff) are afraid of change
- Windows runs on the cheap hardware
Sure, Windows is on 95% of the computers out there, mostly by default instead of a choice. I have not found one person yet who after taking the time and effort to try OSX did not like it better - the most common reaction is "why have I put up with this Windows crap for so long?"

Count me as one. I had to purchase a mac to develop my iPhone app. I tried very hard to make the MAC my primary machine, but I just couldn't get into it. I went out and purchased Snow Leopard, but it was still taking me longer to do the same task in OSX then it would in Windows. Then Windows 7 came out, I installed in on my IMac and my MAC is now useful again. So I guess I all alone in the world as the one person who tried a mac and went back to Windows.

-most people use Windows in the business world because it is *far* easier to manage and configure on an enterprise level. There is no equivalent to AD or Group Policy in Mac OS X or Linux that even comes close.
-most people (users and IT staff) *love* change...when it's for the better, or marketed to them well.
-Windows runs on cheap, expensive, fast, slow, high-quality and low-quality hardware.

"I have not found one person yet who after taking the time and effort to try OSX did not like it better"

Hello. My name is Aaron. I have a several windows PC's, an iBook, and a 15" MacBook Pro. When given the option I use Windows. I won't go into why, there are a ton of reasons. I also support both Macs and Windows PCs.

You can now never post that sentence again. It's BS. But you already knew that...

Get a life, the HARDWARE IS THE SAME. The parts are interchangeable. Your friends are strange, my MaC friends are going back to Windows on average except for one who writes books and the software is what he needs and has nothing to do with APPLE. [they did not write the program]
Oh, remember what happended last year? Apple took the term Computer out of their craperate terminology'
Yes, I tried OSX and it sucks'

Well, PC_Tool since it's too much trouble for you to go into why you like Windows better I will have to guess - you are probably some little corporate computer geek trying to justify your meager little existence. You probably feel threatened by the Mac users in your company because most of them don't need your support. You have power and purpose in the Windows world but you only get in the way in the Mac world. Your whole reason for existing is BS, but you already knew that...

Don't you just love it PC when you get them down to where they have nothing left to say that is intelligent, so then you get a desperate post filled with personal attacks. Nothing like the smell of desperation in the morning.

@MacUser:

You guessed wrong, but then again, I didn't expect any better. After all, you did post a bunch of ignorant twaddle to support your ideal. So, yeah. When confronted with actual reasoned, informational responses to your point, I pretty much expected that reaction instead of any kind of actual response relevant to the topic or discussion.

It's amusing really, as I can speak from a good deal of experience on BOTH systems, watching people like you devolve into "internet ****wads" (Google it) when confronted with even the slightest bit of actual user experience that contradicts your ignorant (totally inexperienced) statements.

I mean, "- Windows runs on the cheap hardware"

Really? That's your grand intellectual argument? Windows works on nearly *all* hardware. Working on high and low end hardware is hardly a bad thing, friend.

As for "why I like Windows better"?

Well, gaming is a big one, and that'd be the personal one as well. That would be followed by a laundry list of Mac's complete inability to integrate, even remotely, into a corporate environment without editing configuration files in "vi" or purchasing a boat-load of expensive software. Want to automount an SMB share without having the finder window for it pop up every time you log in? Good luck with that. This is a capability damned near every other OS in the world has had for decades, but no: We have to buy DAVE, or ADmitMac... (over $100 per seat for 10 licenses)

I can install Ubuntu and have automounting SMB shares in seconds. Obviously, I can do it with Group Policy in Windows with no user-interaction whatsoever. Why can I not do this *at all* on a Mac without purchasing addtional, 3rd party software?

That is just the most recent of my frustrations with Mac OS X. If you'd like to get into mail.app, or managing hardware, we can do that as well as those are also recent issues I have had.

But you don't. See, when faced with knowledgeable responses to your absurd comments, you devolve. Chances are this comment will send you into a tantrum of childish nerd-rage you'll never recover from. Obviously, expecting intelligent, informative discussion from you was a little too much of a stretch. siryak was right...but I had to at least try. It's my curse.

"I have not found one person yet who after taking the time and effort to try OSX did not like it better..."

Apparently, everyone you know doesn't care about doing anything that Windows users are accustomed to... which is everything.

"You probably feel threatened by the Mac users in your company because most of them don't need your support."

That probably has a tiny bit of truth to it... if the Mac is a stand-alone workstation and not participating in a corporate / enterprise network (which, by the way, is utterly dominated by Microsoft Windows Server).

Perhaps Apple should look into that... that is, if they do indeed care about the "end user experience", and whether or not Macs "just work" in those environments. Windows Server has been around for how long... and Apple still hasn't gotten with the program? Typical.

I suppose Apple never intended their systems to integrate at that level. Even today, they seem destined to function almost exclusively as stand-alone workstations, hooked up to a USB or FireWire external hard drive for additional storage, instead of centralized application / file servers. I somehow have the feeling that even connectivity to an OS X Server still leaves quite a bit to be desired.

Believe what you want, but Mac users definitely need support in an enterprise environment... much more so than hassle-free Windows clients.

@UncleBill:
"Get a life, the HARDWARE IS THE SAME. The parts are interchangeable. Your friends are strange, my MaC friends are going back to Windows on average except for one who writes books and the software is what he needs and has nothing to do with APPLE. [they did not write the program]
Oh, remember what happended last year? Apple took the term Computer out of their craperate terminology'
Yes, I tried OSX and it sucks'"

Then why is Apple's market share rising so drastically?

@PC_TOOL

I've worked on network systems for years, and I still won't trade my Apple for a PC for anything. It's simply easier to do 90% of what I have to do, and as easy for the other 10%.

In a corporate environment though, the PC reigns for a couple reasons:

They're cheap. Reality is that corporations are in business to make money. They have the choice of spending $1200 on a computer that does everything, or $350 on a computer that does just what the person needs it to do. That isn't exactly rocket science which system will be chosen.

The second you already touched on, the difficulties of using an Apple in an integrated system. It works fine if the entire system is Apple though. This is actually something that Apple has admitted and is working on to try to gain more corporate customers. IT departments need to have almost complete control over the systems under it's care for a myriad of reasons. Apple isn't very attuned for that.

Have a happy Black Friday. My kids added to Apple's wallet (and mine since I'm a stock holder) by getting a couple of new iPods.

@ PC_Tool

apparently you have not done any setup of a mac in a corporate environment whatsoever. That pesky thing about an auto-mounted drive showing up in a finder window on start up... yah...
the link here is a screenshot of my system with "oh so simple" instructions on how to get rid of that pesky behavior, although it doesn't exist in the first place, with smb auto-mounted drives.

http://picasaweb.google....lKGAbOA?feat=directlink

Pure comic genius...

"apparently you have not done any setup of a mac in a corporate environment whatsoever."

Funny, I could have sworn that's exactly what I was doing...

"the link here is a screenshot of my system with "oh so simple" instructions on how to get rid of that pesky behavior"

This does not place an icon on the desktop, nor does it create a link in the finder window....you still get to dig for it. Of course, now with SL, I can connect to my domain server and create aliases on the desktop (Which is also much more painful a chore than it needs to be in SL...) The only problem there is it isn't connected by default, so you get to sit and wait while it "resolves alias...".

So, you got rid of the finder windows...thus having about the same effect of doing...nothing at all. Now, if you can figure out some way to actually *mount* the SMB shares (...and by mounting, I mean they appear on the desktop as every other "mounted" drive in SL appears by default) at login, I would actually be greatly appreciative. (As would rather large number of folks on teh intarwebz since *everyone* seems to be wondering why the hell this is so much harder than it should be)

So please, try again. Maybe you know something about SL I don't. I'm hoping someone out there does...

I dispute your point '- most people (users and IT staff) are afraid of change' by simply saying that Macs don't run or don't have the software that businesses use\need. The fact that most businesses run Windows is because they need to as there is no alternative.

well, there is also a large percentage of people who build their own computers and there are many more that have simply upgraded their motherboards.

the numbers in the story are indicative of new sales for the operating system and not so much on the hardware.

everyone knows that the number of windows in use in this country or across the world far exceed the mac.

Like many of the people posting here I spend several hours every day using a computer for both business and personal reasons. I have found that life is too short to put up with the hassles of using a poorly designed product whether it's a computer, car, TV, tennis racket or whatever regardless of the price. For me and a lot of my friends, using a Mac has resulted in a much more pleasant, reliable computing experience compared to using Windows based PCs. I'll take the Mac over the PC everytime regardless of price - I think most everyone would if money was not an object. The saying "once you Mac you never go back" is very true.

Guess I missed that saying :) I went back as fast as I could.

"The saying "once you Mac you never go back" is very true."

...except for all those folks who went back.

"The flaw in your argument is that most people don't need to spend over a $1,000 for their computer. "

True. Of course, most people don't NEED to spend over $15,000 for a car, either.

Neither fact is relevant in any way to the discussion.

Yes but usually when people spend more money for a car they are actually getting more. Unlike with Apple were you are getting less for more. I guess Apple could try using Charmin's motto: "Less is more!"

Your not necessarily getting more for a car... There are many overpriced vehicles out there.

It's very simple, People know quality from crap. That's why people that can afford a Mac 99.99% of the time chose a Mac. Those that cannot afford one get a second rate PC, you know that wonderful third world experience.

There was another article that was published not to long ago that stated Apple has just over 90% of the high end laptop market. Again those who can afford a Mac get a Mac and those who cannot simply do not and make lame excuses as to why the PC was a "better" choice. LOL. ?

Sorry, I don't consider my PC second rate and I'm using OpenSuse right now.

Those who want to pay twice the price for a PC/Laptop, buy a Mac, others by a PC and are very happy with it...

"people that can afford a Mac 99.99% of the time chose a Mac"

Source?

Ya...didn't think so.

Talk about a dumb statement, the parts come from the same suppliers, except for the cheap plastic cases'

I can afford a Mac, but instead just bought a PC with hardware that you won't find in a Mac for years. Macs are pretty, but weak.

You are sadly mistaken. Apple has 90% of the HIGH PRICED market not the high end market. The problem is most people don't haft to spend $1000+ on a PC because they already got all the horsepower they wanted for less than that, unlike with an Apple. With an Apple they get to spend over $2000 just to get quad core technology that came out several years ago. You want to know why. Because apparently spending over $1000 on a computer doesn't merit a quad core processor in your precious "fairly priced Apples." HP has a sale going today for a quad core laptop for $750. This includes a free Blu-Ray drive, 4GB of RAM, Core i7 processor, and 1GB discrete graphics. Have fun spending your $1000+ for outdated technology. I will have fun taking the money I saved to the bank.

"I will have fun taking the money I saved to the bank."

Or.. you could buy 2 HPs, put an Apple logo on one of them, and sell it to internetworld7 for twice the price.

He'll more than likely secretly install Windows 7 on it anyway. You're saving him the trouble. ;)

Very basically, while both are personal computers, they are NOT in the same market. WIN PC users and buyers for the most part have so POISONED by the WIN PC experience that having a computer is nearly more trouble than its worth LITERALLY so they want to pay as little as possible because obviously to function in society, you need the internet & email. Hence, WIN PC's are the ONLy technology sector where people are willing to pay less to get a smaller screen, slower processor, smaller HDD just to pay as little as possible!

Mac buyers on the other are generally pleased with their experience and find value in the price of Macs - most notably, Mac Mini's and MacBooks are NOT the best selling Macs, higher priced Macs are so it's not as though people wnt the mac experience but want to pay as little as possible.

NPD data supports this - at the retail level, macs have 91% of the $1k+ market share. Two takeaways from this. There are only 10% of PC users who are not poisoned by the experience and don;t just presume that shopping for PC means spending the absolute minimum. Also, in 10 years, WIN PC of the $1k market has fallen from 98% to 9%.

You just have to read through the PC users comments here where they do spec & price comparisons because EVERY WIN PC is like another WIN PC. If Walgreen's started selling a $199 PC, it would interest Pc users because to them, ALL PC's are the same and price is the ONLY factor after you compare specs. The PC Hunter ads by Ms confirm this (I want a PC with a screen,keyboard and under $700). Because the WIN PC experience is based solely on price after a few choices ... Buyers of Macs simply have a DIFFERENT value system based on their experience that PRICE is not the only major factor in choosing a computer.

This is why during the WORST GLOBAL recession since the 1930's when MS & Dell are claiming it's the economy while Apple sales are up 35% ... For many buyers, they equate WIN PC with a necessary purchase at the absolute minimal price and many of that group cannot fathom why Mac users would willingly pay more - because they simply dont know any better or cannot imagine there is a different computer experience. I'm sure they flat out do not believe that with 60 million OSX users, there are exactly ZERO viruses after 10 years while WIN OS versions running on as few as 500,000 machines can get a netbot infection ...

Macs hold their value more and are valued by most purchasers. It's not a right or a wrong - it's simply a fact. WIN PC users have been so poisoned by their experience that 90% flat out refuse to buy on any factor outsde of price. NOTHING WRONG or RIGHT. Just a fact of life.

The flaw in your argument is that most people don't need to spend over a $1,000 for their computer. Come on, do they really need a core i7 computer? The reason that Mac controls the $1,000+ market is that the majority of people don't need a computer that costs more than a $1000. With Apple, its hard to get a brand new Apple under $1k. With a PC, you can get a computer under $500 that meets your need.

It's not that they are poisoned, its just that many people don't see the need to spend much money on a computer if they are using it for basic purposes. If I can accomplish my task of checking my e-mail on a $500 computer that might cause me trouble every once in a while versus spending $1000 for a computer that rarely causes me trouble, a lot of people are going to save that $500 for a vacation or some other expenditure. They are willing to put up with the hassle.

It's no different in a lot of other industries. With air travel, its usually more expensive to fly direct between two cities than it is to have a connection someplace (DC to San Fran vs DC to Atlanta to San Fran). I'll take the connection if it saves me enough money even though it results in a longer day and a poorer flying experience.

> The flaw in your argument is that most people don't need to spend over a $1,000 for their computer.

True, but on the other hand $1,000 is peanuts, anyway, so why not spend it on nice stuff?

"$1,000 is peanuts"

Um, not for the majority of folks in the world. Try looking outside your ivory towers on occasion.

It may be peanuts to you, hell, it may even be peanuts to me....but that doesn't make us the rule and everyone else the exception.

I do spend it on nice stuff. I get more money for my $1000 then you get for yours. Why would I spend over $1000 for a dual core when I can get a quad core for under $1000? Please explain this one to me.

I just bought a PC that was more expensive than most Macs because it had superior hardware to any Mac. Your generalizations are ridiculous. While many buy cheap PCs to serve as Internet appliances, look up and you will see that the highest performance computers are also PCs. But, your Mac is real pretty.

@ece:
"The flaw in your argument is that most people don't need to spend over a $1,000 for their computer."

And most people don't need to spend $40K on a vehicle - but they do.

@siryak:
"Why would I spend over $1000 for a dual core when I can get a quad core for under $1000?"

Because it is a better integrated system. The OS works better with the hardware.

Is this the argument you are going to come back with? Really? Seriously? Does this supposed "better integration" magically make that dual-core a quad-core? Does it double the RAM too? Also I don't know if you have heard, but Windows 7 is amazing. No "working with the hardware" issues here. If you are going to bother responding at least give me something better than that.

Seriously you guys gotta stop with the car analogies because they just do not work at all with this argument.

Most people spend $40k on that car because they are actually getting more car/truck for their money. Can't say that about an Apple.

Actually, spending $40k on a brand new car is idiotic in most cases...

Comparing revenue share: interesting.

Comparing PROFIT share: Priceless!

How about it? Can you do it?

Good point!

Something looks suspicious in those numbers.

As I recall, Apple's market share was much higher for laptops than for desktop machines. Now, given that there's not much difference in either the Mac or PC prices for laptops or desktops (that is, the PC desktop is close in price to the PC laptop, and so on), wouldn't one expect Apple's dollar share to be much higher in laptops than in desktops? Instead, the opposite is true.

Still, that's a minor issue. It was always clear that Apple's dollar share had to be much higher than its unit market share.

How about I build my own Tower that has the same specs as either of the above for about $3000 or less. Both of your examples are over priced.

Add $1200 to upgrade to:
8-core: Two 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon.

Cost for the Mac Pro should be $5899.00

Sorry for the oversight.

Unless you're a 'major manufacturer' of computers, for our purposes here, you don't count. The 2% or so of Do-It-Yourselfers are, in most cases, going to be able to build their projects less expensively than major manufacturers...no overhead, don't you know.

Building your own computer has a price. It is a "cost". Doesn't matter that you "enjoy" doing it or not.

"Unless you're a 'major manufacturer' of computers, for our purposes here, you don't count. The 2% or so of Do-It-Yourselfers are, in most cases, going to be able to build their projects less expensively than major manufacturers...no overhead, don't you know."

Unfortunately, the majority of people here, if not all, fall into that 2%.

...and that's really the point I think most of them are making. We don't buy Dells for personal use. We don't buy HP's for personal use. We get them direct from TigerDirect or MicroCenter, or build them ourselves with NewEgg or MWave.

Part for part, we get a better deal with Windows PCs. As for businesses, the better deal still goes to Windows PCs...the larger the business the better the deals since they go for smack in the middle of lowest cost/best performance ratios....where Apple simply isn't a player.

I'm not arguing the facts in the article above, or even really arguing against your stance....just letting you know you're figuratively fighting a battle here from a completely different perspective of most of the people on this site.

Prime example is the workstations (towers). For graphics/Design, the obvious choice for most would be the Mac. On the other hand, in a business environment (AD, Enterprise) outside of the design department, the choice would very likely be a completely different workstation...likely with lower specs. The comparison isn't really valid because it's not a real-world use-case scenario, at least, not in my experience.

If you are a minor manufacturer of Operating Systems, you don't count. So Linux, Sun, Mac OS-X, you don't count because your not on that many computers.

You can find great deals on custom built computers (not do-it-yourself) that come at better prices and better specs than most of the major manufacturers. The only problem is that the average consumer doesn't know about them. They hardly get any coverage on your tech websites like cnet. When they have, they have received a lot of praise for what they offer.

Look at AvaDirect, you can choose every single component that you want and they build it for you. If you don't know anything about computers, choose on of their already configured models or tell them what your budget is and what you want and they will put together a recommended system.

After using Dell and HP for desktop computers, never going back after using AvaDirect.

Oh my god, this comment section smells like Windows fanboys! Can you guys at least agree that Apple has been a whole lot more successful that Microsoft in the past 7-8 years?! Come on!!! They must be doing something right, don't they?!

How do you define success? Some might define success by having their product in the hands of everyone. On that basis, Microsoft has had better success. Do you define it by increase in sales? Apple may have more success on that than Microsoft? Then again, this can be misleading. If you control 93% of the market, it is much harder to much your market share up and increase your sales versus a company who has 3% market share. Your potential customer market is much larger when you have a small market share.

Nobody is not arguing that Apple isn't do anything right. I don't think they are doing much right in the computer market. The numbers just don't show brilliance, not like the way Firefox has been a game changer in the browser market.

Apple has one brilliant item: the iPod. That alone has made Apple the household name, the hip company it is today. I'm waiting to see what happens with the iPhone. Apple developed a great product that has been somewhat of a game changer in the cell phone market, but did they completely screw themselves by limiting their phone to AT&T? Will this hurt them in the end? Time will tell us as other similar devices come out like the Droid that is available on multiple carriers.

Sure, selling it's called selling (as Joe Wilcox puts it) a Lifestyle...or in other words good marketing...and I don't mean this (most of the times, anyway) in a bad way ...

Apple's products are real pretty and their advertisements are cool (if not totally honest).

Will this myth over Apple's alleged 'overpriced hardware' never die? Apple's hardware is no more overpriced than Dell's, HP's, or Alienware's. Please, someone, find 2 similarly configured computers from Apple and another major manufacturer (not a DIYer like bigsexy) and show me the overpriced hardware.

How about this -

Apple 27" iMac:
3.06 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2560 x 1440 resolution
4 GB RAm (expandable to 16 GB)
1TB HD
8x Double-Layer SuperDrive (CD-RW/DVD-RW)
ATI Radeon HD 4670 graphics card with 256 MB GRAM
Backlit LCD Display
Wireless keyboard/mouse
WI-Fi/Bluetooth
Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard)
iLife (iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, and iWeb)
Can run Mac OS X, Windows (XP, Vista, 7), and Linux natively
$1699

Dell XPS One 24"
2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1900 x 1200 resolution
4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800Mhz - 2 DIMMs
320GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive
8X Slot load CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW)
Integrated Intel® GMA X4500HD Graphics
Vista Home Premium SP1
XPS One® Wireless Keyboard including trackpad and media controls
XPS One ® Wireless Mouse
Microsoft Works 9.0
WiFi/Bluetooth
$1499

So let's see - for an additional $200 (11.7%) you get a display thats 3" larger with a substantially higher resolution. RAM that's expandable. A hard drive that 3x larger. And a discreet video card. I won't even go into the software. I don't know about you, but the iMac certainly seems like a better value to me.

How about this:

Dell (Inspiron 545) with 24" LCD = $1100
The Dell specs kinda blow the iMac out of the water with the exception of the graphics card.

Intel® Core™ 2 Quad Q8200 (4MB L2, 2.33GHz, 1333FSB)
Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64bit, English
8GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz - 4 DIMMs
1TB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache™
ATI Radeon HD 4350 512MB
16X DVD+/-RW Drive
Dell 1525 Wireless-N PCIe Card
Can run Windows (XP, Vista, 7), and Linux natively
Can (but won't) run Mac OS X, but I think that's because Apple won't sell the OS seperately...
= $807.00
+ $300ish for a 24-26" LCD monitor
= $1107

Very nice, but the idea is to compare "like" computers. Compare All-In-One computers to other All-In-One computers. Laptops to other "like" laptops. And Towers to other "like" towers.

See my Towers post.

Wow "dd" you've really shown your ignorance. The Dell system you have sited is completely over priced,
Apple Mac mini Intel Core 2 Duo 2.26GHz
2GB RAM
160GB SATA
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M
SuperDrive
23" 1080p HD LCD Display with HDMI and Speakers
Mini DisplayPort VGA Adapter and
MacAlly iKey Slim Combo Keyboard and Mouse
$758
Can run Windows, Linux or Mac OS
http://www.macmall.com/p...pno~7991934~pdp.fjgddec

If you buy directly from the manufacturer you may have a point but with PCs there is endless amounts of places to buy them and they are considerably cheaper but it also depends on brand and type - a workstation is not something the average consumer would buy.

Cyberpower, Newegg, Tigerdirect all give you way more for the price.

There is no point in comparing either one of those because with only a C2D they are already obsolete! All-in-one desktops are a joke. If I am going to pay a premium to get hardware more compact why would I not go ahead and get a laptop so that it is actually portable. If I am getting a desktop I don't care how big it is.

Looking at desktop computer to desktop computer is no contest.
http://www.shopping.hp.c...rformance/e9210t_series

http://store.apple.com/u...239LL/A?mco=MTM3NTAxNDA

That one is not even a contest. Don't even try to come back with the argument that the Mac Mini is more compact either because NOBODY CARES. It is a fregin desktop.

Show me a Mac with a quad core for under $1000 and I will admit I am wrong right here and right now. Dual Core processors are yesterdays technology. I can get a laptop with a Quad Core nowadays for around or maybe even under $1000.

ROFL!!!! You tell him the Dell is overpriced and then post a desktop with a C2D, only 2GB of RAM, and a 160GB HDD in response for $758!!! Even with the monitor that is still terrible! Please please tell me that this post was sarcasm....

I would never touch a computer with specs as pathetic as that! WEAK!!!

since we all seem to be throwing out computer systems:

2.66 GHz Quard Core i7
6 GB of DDR3 1066 MHz
Radeon HD 4850 512 MB
150 GB WD VelociRaptor 10,000 RPM
640 GB WD Caviar Black 7200 RPM
22x DVD/RW
52-in-1 Card Reader
ATI TV WOnder HD 650 Combo TV/FM Tuner
3 year warranty

For $1600 11 months ago...

Best part, is that I can still add a couple of more hard drives if I choose so. Want another video card, can add that with Crossfire support. Have 3 open slots of RAM chips.

Yeah, I may not be able to legally run OS X on my computer, but that's Apple's choice to maintain complete control over their OS unlike every other OS out there. The closest Mac-Mini costs $1,147.00 as of today (2.66 GHz Intel Core Duo), cheaper than the 27" core i5 iMac ($1,999), and the $2,499 Mac Pro.

@ece:

So, how much is the 2560 x 1440 resolution monitor added to that to make the comparison?

@ bousozoku, the prices quoted above do not include a display for the mac-Mini or the Mac Pro. So between the two most similar systems, the difference in cost would remain the same. the core i5 Mac can't even be configured to match the hardware specs of either the Mac Pro or the Windows 7 system.

As stated below I didn't include a monitor on either one. Also who the hell is stupid enough to waste money on a resolution that high? Oh yah these Apple Fans that are going for that great "value." You guys just love paying for things that you don't even need don't yah.

@siryak:
"ROFL!!!! You tell him the Dell is overpriced and then post a desktop with a C2D, only 2GB of RAM, and a 160GB HDD in response for $758!!! Even with the monitor that is still terrible! Please please tell me that this post was sarcasm....

I would never touch a computer with specs as pathetic as that! WEAK!!!"

But you were just defending those same "weak" computers in your other posts....

Oh really? Where might that be?

Of course Apple is going to have a lot of revenue whenever the average price is almost 3 times of a PC! I feel sorry for the people that can't see how badly they are getting ripped of when they buy an Apple.

@siryak:
Of course Apple is going to have a lot of revenue whenever the average price is almost 3 times of a PC! I feel sorry for the people that can't see how badly they are getting ripped of when they buy an Apple.

and we feel sorry that you are unable to figure out the basics.

You're right km I am no match for your clearly superior intelligence. I mean the witty intellect that you displayed above. I just don't know how I could ever top that.
/sarcasm

Mac fanboys spend more cause they think they are getting more. Not more value but more style and flash. It doesnt take much thinking to conclude that as far as performance goes windows PC's are dollar for dollar a much better deal. One could argue the OS is of concurn and that fanboys believe OSX to be a better deal. Which is further from the truth. I build my pc and spend a truckload on it, cause i am a gamer. It looks like a powerhouse and it is a powerhouse. And it's filled with parts far more advanced then that of a apple computer. Why you may ask, cause apple doesnt even give it's customers the options of having the truely high end parts that are on the market. Yet they charge them like they do. Mac pro's start at 2499.00. You can max all the options and still it will never be as fast as my PC. But you will spend 2-3 times the amount of money. That's not fair to the apple consumer. You get what you pay for doesnt apply to apple products i guess.

i'm a mac and a pc... zzzz

QTT ;)

PC's hit every single price point, Apple PCs hit one price point, expensive, sure they command the expensive market, the only market they are in... ? how is this surprising, you buy Apple you really have just a few options, all of which on the expensive side

so, how exactly is it surprising that when people pay $2500, they go for an Apple PC? the careless with cash folks almost always would, you know the kind of folks one could sell clay bars to if you painted it gold, yes i'm being serious.

regardless, nice flamebait of an article, love it

and Joe, learn English plz kthx

Plus, they're disposable as well......

I'm guessing that means that some people buy Macs simply because they can afford it...

which actually makes sense, to some degree. Not to say that it's a blanket statement though

All of my friends who actually pay attention to computer specifications and performance go for Windows computers...

Apple computer sales are about the haves vs the have nots. During the recession, the haves could still afford to buy the expensive Apple computers while the have nots could not afford the higher cost PC turning instead to the cheaper netbooks and computers. Furthermore, because of the competition in the PC market, the cost of PCs are driven down while there is no competition in the Apple market resulting in a much more expensive computer. It's basic supply and demand economics.

A better number to look at is the number of PCs sold vs the number of MACs sold? With all this touting of Apple, Apple has yet to really move their market share more than a couple of percentage points. over the last decade even with the negativity surrounding Vista and the recession causing people to buy Netbooks over laptops.

@ece According to IDC, Apple ranks #7 in market share based on unit shipments. That's worldwide. Back in Apple's lowlier ranking days -- and that's going back less than a decade -- Macs barely could make top 5 in the United States. That #7 in the world shows how far Macs have come, even if Windows PCs combined command much more market share.

Something else: All these companies are in the business of making money. Profit share is much more valuable to them than market share.

Joe,

Great article. :-)

Forstly, thank you so much for doing some proper journalism. So much of what passes for reportage on the net nowadays is nothing like it.
Secondly, congratulations on a balanced article based upon what seems to be a genuinely interesting story - namely the percentage of *retail spend* in the market, rather than endless obsession with share of unit sales. As you rightly point out, revenue is - surely - at least one thing which cannot be hijacked by fanboys of *both sides* in the endless tedious war of words.

Apple is making an *awful* lot of money right now. Fact. And - as you rightly point out - this is after all what a corporation is meant to be doing? So by the normal definitions of a successful business, Apple is highly successful. Now surely that can't be refuted? Can it?

Calling computer users silly names - whether Windows or Mac users -or criticising their lifestyle/income bracket/intelligence/etc for their consumer choices is not simply infantile, it's entirely irrelevant to the business arguments. These customers are all making choices. The money they all use has *exactly the same value*. The corporations are in the market to sell to them. Corporations who make the most money thrive. Those that don't die. That's the story, children. Hardly rocket science, and certainly no need for playground fights.

Well put, Digsa! When asked whether they'd rather be the biggest company in the US or the most profitable in the US, 70% respond that they wanted to be the biggest!

Let me put it this way - Microsoft is a very large company. Their market capitalization, i.e. their value, is about $250 billion. Apple is a much smaller company (you could say 1/10 the size of Microsoft), but it's value will reach $200 billion by the end of 2010.

Regardless of the OS that you prefer there is a basis for discussion that makes sense. Mac Help points out that hardware that is similar has similar prices from both Apple as well as PC manufacturers. If you're a Windows user it's easy to paint Apple as "expensive" without taking an honest look at Apple's lineup. Realistically, Apple chooses not to make computers in certain niches of the market they deem unprofitable.

It's pretty easy to understand that the prices of netbooks must dictate that the manufacturers make a very tiny profit. Thus, Apple doesn't compete here. Also, desktops sub-1000 don't seem to make much profit either. So, Apple also doesn't make much of an attempt (excepting the Mini) to compete in this market either. Apple doesn't have a PC in every niche of the market as they choose not to compete as well as they have always maintained a smaller selection of hardware historically. It's more along the lines of doing whatever they do well rather than trying to have a horse in every race.

If you take a look at the rather limited amount of Apple models and just look at price you'll conclude they're "over-priced." But, if you actually look at PCs with similar specs you'll find their prices often competitive.

Another Apple gimmick is to add features to their computers that makes them unique in comparison to their competitors to make true "apples to apples" comparisons more difficult. Whether it's adding firewire/USB/DVD burners, integrating features, interesting designs, innovative peripherals, etc. they seek to add features before their competitors to enhance the "cool" factor. Macs moved to USB long before their PC brethren as an obvious example.

"But, if you actually look at PCs with similar specs you'll find their prices often competitive."

No I won't....Not even close. Apple is overpriced and there is no getting around this. I can EASILY get a PC for half the price with the same specs.

Well, I'd respond by saying that when a new Apple model is released they often have specs not widely available on the market. Their prices at release are often very competitive. Take a look at the new iMacs with the i7 and i9 processors. As their products get older in the product cycle they become increasingly uncompetitive. But, Apple jumps on new processors and releases them before other PC manufacturers.

Sometimes you're right. Their prices can be uncompetitive. Other times you're wrong. No blanket statement of they're always over-priced can be or is accurate.

http://store.apple.com/u...985LL/A?mco=MTM3NDczMDg
2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
320GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
MacBook Pro 15-inch Glossy Widescreen Display
Backlit Keyboard (English) / User's Guide
Total = $1,999.00

http://www.newegg.com/Pr...6834220605&Tpk=g51J
Brand ASUS
Series G Series
Model G51J-A1
General
Operating System Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
CPU Type Intel Core i7 720QM (1.6GHz)
Screen 15.6"
Memory Size 4GB DDR3
Hard Disk 640GB
Optical Drive DVD Super Multi
Graphics Card NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
Video Memory 1GB VRAM DDR3
Card slot 1 x Express Card
Dimensions 14.6" x 10.3" x 1.3-1.6"
Weight 7.26 lbs.
Other Features 30days Zero Bright Dot LCD
Carry Bag/Optical Mouse
CPU
CPU Type Intel Core i7
CPU Speed 720QM(1.60GHz)
Chipset
Chipset Intel PM55
Display
Screen Size 15.6"
Wide Screen Support Yes
Resolution 1920 x 1080
Operating Systems
Operating System Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Graphics
GPU/VPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260M
Video Memory 1GB VRAM DDR3
Graphic Type Dedicated Card
Hard Drive
HDD 640GB
HDD RPM 7200rpm
HDD Spec 2 x 320GB
Memory
Memory 4GB
Memory Type 204-Pin DDR3 SO-DIMM
Memory Slot (Total) 2
Optical Drive
Optical Drive Type DVD Super Multi
Optical Drive Interface Integrated
Communications
LAN 10/100/1000Mbps
WLAN 802.11 bgn
Bluetooth Yes
Ports
Card Slot 1 x Express Card
USB 4
IEEE 1394 1
Video Port 1 x VGA, 1 x HDMI
Other port 1 x E-SATA
Audio Ports Yes
Audio
Audio Integrated Sound card
Speaker Internal Speakers
Input Device
Touchpad Yes
Keyboard Standard
Supplemental Drive
Card Reader 8-in-1 card reader: MMC / SD / Mini-SD / XD / Memory Stick / MS Pro / MS-Duo / MS-Pro-Duo
Webcam 2.0MP
Total=$1,499.99

Same RAM Specs, more harddrive space(and at 7200RPM rather then 5400), better videocard, much better resolution, ExpressCard AND a Multicard read. More connections(USB, eSata, etc...), HDMI with ability to output audio. And the real kicker... It's a Mobility i7 chip. Not an Core 2 Duo from 3 years ago.
Far better machine, and $500 less and it comes with a two year warranty.. Ugh... Yeah, I think I'll go with the ASUS.

Get a clue guys.

@thinkingcrowd: I'm sorry, your argument just fails. First off, PC manufactuers have been carrying the i7 processor since it was released. Apple is just now getting around to it.

It's shown time and time again that PC's are just cheaper than Apple Computers and its because Apple goes after a whole different market.

10 months ago, for roughly $2,000 you could get a 2.66 GHz Intel Core i7, a 750 GB 7200 RPM Drive, a DVD Burner, 6 GB of 1066 MHz DDR3 SDRAM, 512 MB ATI Video Card, a 125 GB 10,000 RPM hard drive, a tv tuner, a Dell 24" HD monitor, a Samsung 24" HD monitor, etc...

So please tell me where the better value is based on hardware?

@ Digsa: your last paragraph is actually wrong. Lifestyle/income bracket/etc... are not irrelevant for the business model. Do you really think that Banana Republic does not consider income bracket in deciding where they build their stores? No point building a store in the area of the country where the majority of the population will not be able to afford their clothes? Do you think Toyota doesn't take into account lifestyle on how they manage the inventory on their lots? No point putting too many Toyota Prius on lot in truck country not putting many trucks on the lot at a dealership in downtown D.C. Lifestyle, income bracket, etc... do dictate the business and marketing model so that the company can make the most money possible.

@Joe: rankings can be misleading. If the #1 person on the list has 90% of the market share, than does that really say much about companies #2 and so on? Unless Apple changes their business plan, it will not dominate the computer market based on market share. They may have one of the highest profit margins.

You are right in that all these companies are in the business of making money. However, in the computer market, Apple is not in great position to defend themselves because they are behind, way behind in the terms of market share. Because they have such a small market share, it makes them much more vulnerable to swings in the market than Microsoft/PC's.

We saw this a few years ago in the Video Game segment. Because Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft were splitting the market share with no one have a huge dominance, when Nintendo released the Wii, it turned the gaming console market upside down and it especially hurt Sony.

Apple is not on safe grounds as Microsoft/PC's. Even after Vista and Apple's gains, Windows still dominates the market. In reality, how much of Apple's gains in the computer market is because of the iPod/iPhone and not because of the computer.

Hi ece,

I think you're absolutely right that companies *target* their products to market sectors, so your point that this affects the business *model* I wholly agree with. However, that's not quite what I was talking about in the last paragraph, which concerned the business *arguments* for any corporate strategy. This concerns the final bottom-line outcomes of the execution of any business model: that is, whether it has worked to increase shareholder profit. In Apple's case, it certainly has.

So, yes, Apple most certainly has its own idea of a target user. As do Microsoft, Ford, or anyone else. These users will be analysed by corporations in terms of class, income, and a thousand other things. But there is an important point to be made here. Such internal strategies are ultimately of no consequence to the market itself. No matter how clever these profiles are, we as customers have the final vote. We either buy, or we don't. Now there are plenty of products out there that I would never buy! Whether newspapers, clothing, cars, computers or anything else. Many products are clearly designed and sold for a very different user than myself. But the key point is that I don't feel that this is any comment on those people who *do* choose to buy them. I don't feel that my *opinion* on those other users' choices has any ultimate value. To do as many seem to do, and invest the choices of others with a whole lot of prejudice, spite and personal affront serves only to display an over-emotional attachment to the value our *own* purchasing choices. This is not just silly - I think it also demonstrates a failure to maintain a degree of customer discernment, which, ironically, cedes greater power to corporations in the marketplace.

Put more simply - I think *all* corporations would like us to blindly and emotionally defend our purchases of their products, and condemn all users of competing products. Why? Because then we would be doing their job for them. We would care less for the quality of products, and waste endless hours abusing others for the temerity to choose differently. But I would urge anyone not to let corporations off so lightly! Don't defend *any* company which doesn't make a "better mousetrap". They are there to serve you by making bigger profits through *better products* - not by propaganda. That's why the final profit figure is so important. It shows the final customer vote. And it's the only vote that counts.

There is progress being made here, because we've gone from the usual Winboy "market share" obsession (Paul Thurrott is particularly strong on that one) to revenue share, and we can perhaps progress to "profit share".

Last time I looked, companies existed to make profits, not to sell millions of low to zero margin netbooks.

If you look at market capitalization, Apple is now 7 times larger than Dell, and considerably larger than ANY of the PC harder manufacturers.

Apple and Google are at essentially the same value, around $185B, while Microsoft is at about $240B.

The trend line doesn't look good for Microsoft, while it looks very good for Apple.

So, the propellor-head numbers about how cheaply you can build a PC in your parents basement may give comfort to some, but the market forces tell a story that Joe and others want to ignore.

http://www.wolframalpha....sus+microsoft+marketcap

@ece
> Unless Apple changes their business plan, it will not dominate the computer market based on market share.

Why people have this obsession of market dominance? Few people say that Mercedes-Benz (or Daimler) failed because it does't dominate the car market. If Mercedes had 90% market share it would loose its aura. Call me snob, but I kinda like it that everyone is not driving a Mac.

@ece Gap owns Banana Republic and takes what you're saying farther by offering clothing to three different demographic segments through Old Navy, Gap and Banana Republic. There are also different lifestyles associated with each of the different brands. You make a good point.

@kisap, I think most PC users would agree with you. Can you imagine having more MAC users around?

Thanks to the people who make the pc at the price of around $300.00, else I would not sitting post this message. besides, without the dirt cheap pc, i don't think our inovation get this far. if no pc, but only mac, our world may be 20 years behind where we are now!

@justinlinh, if the $300 pc is what you want, no problem. There's not a lot of satisfaction associated with this price range of computer (lowest hardware reliability rates, warranty is the shortest, have to work with typical Windows unreliability). But, if that's all you can afford it is what it is. If price is truly the prime determinant of a person's computer experience I'd suggest Ubuntu as a way to reduce your costs.

Apple is just another computer hardware company from which you can choose. If you don't choose it there's nothing bad denoted by that. Just another choice at the electronics store that may (or may not) meet your computing needs. Certainly no reason for people to get emotional about their likes (or dislikes) of Apple. It's simply a company that's quite profitable. End of story.

@ kisap: It depends what the goal of the creator of a product is. Some manufacturers are not as concerned about profit. Some are more concerned about creating a product so desirable that everyone would like, but only the extremely rich can afford. Personally, I would like one of those ships that the Saudi Prince or Paule Allan have, yet those companies don't have the profit margin that Apple does, but do we say that particular company is not successful?

In 2006, United Airlines was the 2nd most profitable corporation according to Forbes, but in 2006, would you have said that they are successful company? Success is more than just profit margin, its also market share, and many other factors.

Microsoft is a successful company, and you can't deny it. They are more profitable than Apple, they dominate the computer market both on the corporate and consumer level, and they are a major player in the game console business. To say that Microsoft is not successful, is just plain idiotic. I don't think they have been successful as of late in the phone market and have yet to truly succeed in the in

And why do we obsess over market share? Because its about profits. Nintendo is a case study in this. A lot of the 3rd party companies like EA would not spend a lot of time making games for the GameCube because it had a small market share. EA spent more time making games for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 because that was where the profits were. With the release of the Wii, that has changed, and now these 3rd party developers are turning out games because Wii sales for the most part have been greater than the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 combined.

If that doesn't convince you, then look at Television. TV show ratings are extremely important. The more people that watch the show, the more money advertisers are willing to pay for a time slot. Why do think that ad spots during the Super Bowl are so high, because its one of the highest watched events in the world.

Market share is what hurts Linux, there is no incentive for hardware companies to create drivers for Linux when there is very little profit to be gained for it especially when the market share is 1%.

My wife is the Mac user in my house and she has made me a believer. While she used her G4 for 5 years with nary a problem, I burned through 3 PCs, dealt with numerous virus and worm attacks, lost performance, screens freezing at the worst possible moment, etc. When she upgraded to a 27" iMac ($1999 at the time), we sold the G4 for $400. We would have had to PAY to recycle a 5 year old PC.

So if you factor in the money you save on anti-virus protection, trade in value and if your time is worth say $10 an hour, the total cost of owning a Mac over 5 years is quite reasonable. And although I cannot prove it, it seemed like my PC hardware was prone to breaking down a lot. At least 3 power supplies, a graphics card and two mother boards over the 10 years that wifeys Mac never broke down. Is it possible that PCs built to hit a price point are in fact NOT as good as a premium priced Mac. Again, your mileage may vary.

A PC is an appliance. A Mac is an instrument. How is it "stupid" to pay a little more for something you spend 100s of hours using, if you enjoy it more? Currently using an iMac with XP Professional in VMware when windows is needed to test websites in IE, but not much else.

My everyday pc is an Asus netbook with Ubuntu, so if cost is your problem, consider < $300 for a new PC and free software.

You have no idea how much time you spend fiddling with Windows and how liberating is not not to, until you wean yourself away from it. I really don't care was OS you favor or what you think a computer ought to cost or who has what market share or who is going to win some silly fanboy flame war.

That said, I think that if people were willing to pull the trigger and incur the initial expense of a Mac or were willing to invest the time to learn Linux, they would be loath to return to Windows. If Windows did not already exists on billions of PCs, I doubt anyone would invent it.

@Heero:
"Far better machine, and $500 less and it comes with a two year warranty.. Ugh... Yeah, I think I'll go with the ASUS.

Get a clue guys."

So why are you busy bi7ching about Apple? Just do it and stop whining. I find it amazing that so many folks feel the need to question why people buy Apple products. Unless you are a share holder (in which case you want them buying Apple products), what do you care and why are you nagging so many people?

@kmsimpson: no different than all those Apple users questioning Windows users why the continue to use Microsoft products. Fact is, on here that both sides are hypocritical in that they both try to act like the better person, but in the end, they use the same arguments, make the same accusations, when in the end, it really doesn't matter one bit because it just comes down to personal preference. It's like deciding between Pepsi or Coke... most people become a fan of one or the other early in life and never switch.

@scootnyinzer: A PC is as much as an instrument and an appliance as a Mac is. First off, anti-virus is essentially free anymore. So that cost os out the window.

If your time is worth $10, Ubuntu will wind up costing a lot more than $300 on that Asus you bought trying to learn Linux. Oh and, I'm going to lose lots of time to figure out how to use OS-X and getting use to not having both mouse buttons.

The point is, that many enjoy windows, many have no issues with Windows. And guess what, all that fiddling I do with windows is because I choose to fiddle with Windows like I do with Linux (although many times it leads to reinstalling Linux). Other than the fiddling I choose to, I don't have to mess with Windows.

@ ece

The two mouse button thing has been moot since OS X 10.0 all those years ago... in point of fact the mighty mouse (last gen of apple mouse) had four buttons... but if you wanted why not just grab any usb or bluetooth mouse and use that... they all work on a mac anyway.. why not hook a standard windows usb keyboard up and use that... those work too. amazing! it all just works.

Who says I was complaining. I posted that when people were going back and forth with prices between Apple Macs, and PCs. I didn't say anything about the OS. The simple fact was that a better machine, with more power and more hardware options is indeed cheaper. Thats it thats all. If you want to buy a Mac, go ahead... I'll buy the ASUS.

Typing this on an ASUS G50V on Ubuntu 9.10.

To each their own. If you want to spend more money on your computer, thats your call. If you feel the look, the prestige, the OS, or whatever is worth the extra coin, then more power to you. At the end of the day, if your happy with what you bought, then what does it matter what the person next to you is using. I've got three people around me using Macbook Pros(Actually, one of them using a Powerbook), and they are all happy with their purchases, and I'm happy with my ASUS.

Thanks for the info. Still, I don't usually cart around a mouse with my laptop though nor an extra keyboard.

you can also place two fingers on the pad and click for a right click... or on the newer units set a section of the track surface to act as a right click button.
i carry around a bluetooth mouse but only when i am using it on a table or desk say in a coffee shop or my office never when i am out and about.

"you can also place two fingers on the pad and click for a right click"

Admittedly, I actually enjoy this functionality. It may simply be the novelty of it, but there's never a chance of clicking the wrong button... :)

It's shocking to see that Apple has such a stong hold on the pc market. Who would of thunk?