• On GameSpot: $299 PS3 Slim and price cut announced!
October 25, 2009 4:00 AM PDT

Apple punts on lower-cost MacBook

by Brooke Crothers
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 279 comments

By not coughing up a low-cost MacBook, as some had expected, Apple has ceded a potentially huge market to PC makers. But is this just all part of Apple's marketing genius?

$999 is as low as Apple will go.

$999 is as low as Apple will go.

(Credit: Apple)

The announcement Tuesday of the $999 white polycarbonate MacBook was pretty ho-hum as product refreshes go (same price, same color as before) but the implication was important: Apple is surrendering a large, emerging laptop market to Microsoft and its coterie of PC makers.

Not that it's necessarily a bad strategy. Market researcher Gartner said recently that Apple's shipments in the U.S. grew year-over-year by 6.8 percent to total 1.57 million during the third quarter, putting it right behind Hewlett-Packard, Dell, and Acer. Comparatively, overall PC shipments in the U.S. grew by 3.5 percent from a year earlier.

But among those unimpressive overall PC numbers (HP's third-quarter shipments grew only 2.7 percent), was an impressive statistic for Acer: buoyed by Netbooks, Acer's shipments grew by 61.4 percent year-over-year, and it blew past Dell to become the No. 2 PC maker worldwide based on this growth.

Granted, Netbooks are a relatively low-profit segment (i.e., profit on a $400 Netbook is going to be a lot less than that on a $999 laptop). Nevertheless, they're a hot market. Intel CEO Paul Otellini has stated numerous times that Intel was able to create a market that grew faster than either the iPhone or Nintendo Wii. Case in point: Windows 7-based Acer Netbooks are now big on the Home Shopping Network--which claims to have sold more than 5,000 in one segment on Saturday.

And that's not the only market Apple is punting on. A new category of inexpensive, thin laptops has emerged with the roll-out of Windows 7 on Thursday. Like Netbooks, these laptops are light (typically 4 pounds) and don't include an optical drive. But they are relatively powerful and full featured. The 15.6-inch Acer Aspire Timeline, for example, with a 320GB hard disk drive and dual-core Intel processor is fairly well-endowed at only $500.

Apple is not receiving a lot kudos in the mainstream business press by sticking to its $999 guns. The Wall Street Journal said that users can get roughly equivalent laptops for a lot less at Dell and HP. And other publications have said that Apple is not just ignoring new market realities but, in fact, ignoring the Mac lineup as a whole in favor of the iPhone.

So, do consumers lose by not getting the chance to buy a competitive low-cost Apple MacBook? The short answer to that rhetorical questions is yes--because Apple offers no alternative to, for example, a thin, light $650 HP Pavilion dm3 laptop.

But an apples-to-apples (pun not intended) comparison shows that while Apple skimps on a couple of white MacBook features, it's not an egregiously bad deal for $999. Let's do a quick side-by-side of the cheapest MacBook with a mainstream HP laptop.

• For $999, you get white polycarbonate wrapped around a 13.3-inch 1280-by-800 LED-backlit glossy widescreen display, a 2.26GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 2GB of memory, a 250GB (5400RPM) hard disk drive, an optical drive, and the standard wireless features. All in a 4.7-pound package.

• For $997, HP will sell you (online) an HP Pavilion dv3t series with a 13.3-inch 1280-by-800 LED-backlit glossy widescreen display, 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 4GB of memory, a 500GB (5400RPM) hard disk drive, an optical drive, and the standard wireless features. Also, in 4.7-pound package.

Apple beats the HP by a hair in the processor category and loses in the memory and storage departments. If polycarbonate is, in fact, better than the plastics HP uses, then that aspect of the design would be a win for Apple.

The real win, though, is for Apple the company. It avoids the cut-throat sub-$900 laptop market and still sells--quite profitably--a lot of laptops. But will Apple be able to snub this growing market of inexpensive Windows 7 laptops indefinitely? We should know in about six months when Gartner reports first-quarter 2010 numbers.

Brooke Crothers has served as an editor at large at CNET News, an editor at Dow Jones' Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, and a senior editor at InfoWorld. His CNET blog covers chip technology and computer systems, and how they define the computing experience. He also contributes to The New York Times' Bits and Technology sections. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. Follow Brooke on Twitter @mbrookec.
Recent posts from Nanotech - The Circuits Blog
Will the 'smartbook' be a better Netbook?
Firefox: Heat and the CPU usage problem
AMD upgraded as 'Fusion,' 16-core chip future looms
Dell's 'Mr. A' is a key figure in Intel defense
AMD unveils 'world's fastest' graphics card
Intel an investor in storage firm for Apple users
Chip designer ARM leads Android alliance
Intel unveils supercomputer chip, NEC partnership
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 6 pages (279 Comments)
by D3wizl October 25, 2009 4:08 AM PDT
this is just a theory; but IF the mythical tablet were real this $999 price point leaves them a fair bit of room to play with between the polycarb Macbook and iPhone/iPod touch (mind you an iPhone seems to be more expensive than the polycarb Macbook, overall).

and even if that rumour is false, look at Nintendo they are yet to drop the price of the Wii and still aren't having trouble selling them. I realise the Wii is cheaper than the rest, but the point is desirability. Apple clearly don't feel they have lost that yet.
Reply to this comment
by toddbernhard October 25, 2009 4:53 AM PDT
Um, Nintendo DID drop the price of the Wii.

From $249 to $199.
by slickuser October 25, 2009 9:49 AM PDT
show me a windoze laptop that can provide 7 hrs battery life at this form factor
1 person likes this comment
by EvanSei October 25, 2009 11:55 AM PDT
@slickuser
acer timeline 15.6" LED backlit screen full HD, less that 1" thick, with optical drive, 320GB hard drive standard, 3GB memory, 8+ hours of battery life, aluminum skin, dual core intel processor, about 4 pounds, has all the wireless options you could ask for, HD sound output, HD webcam, all of this standard for under $500. Oh and it runs windows 7.
by topgunb2 October 25, 2009 2:43 PM PDT
@stinkuser, again without facts?
by slickuser October 25, 2009 2:59 PM PDT
@evansei, topgunb2

you id(&s. Acer runs Intel's CULV processor where MacBook runs on full Core2!
by slickuser October 25, 2009 3:02 PM PDT
EvanSei, topgunb2

no wireless N, Acer is not 13". (highly portable get it?)
[CNET editor's note: Offensive language deleted.]
by Software_Lover October 25, 2009 4:00 PM PDT
@ slickuser

Less than 1" thick IS highly portable. You asked a question that you thought you already knew the answer to and got an answer you didn't want to hear from someone who knows more than you. Face it. You lose.
by StevieD377 October 25, 2009 7:46 PM PDT
@slickuser
"show me a windoze laptop that can provide 7 hrs battery life at this form factor "

umm..Acer Timeline 13". Smaller form factor and can provide 7 hours of battery life. End of discussion.
by hafenbrack October 25, 2009 8:08 PM PDT
Take a look at the new Sony, Lenovo, and Asus laptops, yes all running Core 2, rated with up to 8 hours of battery life.
by SpiritWater October 25, 2009 11:13 PM PDT
@StevieD377 I look at that Acer Timeline. That's a sweat laptop. Only complaint is the integrated graphic chip.

Apple has a run for their money with Windows 7 and the new crop of hardware that goes with it. They cannot punt for long. Eventually their growth will halt and by that time it may be too late to turn it around again.

Snow Leopard is nice but so is Windows 7 (I have both) so it'll come down to OS preference and if you want to pay the Apple tax.
See more comment replies
by johnnydfred October 25, 2009 4:31 AM PDT
Your assumption in comparing apples to apples is that the OSs are equal. They are far from it. I've said it before: I don't buy my laptops based on the wrapper (of course, I want the wrapper to stand up to my abuses). The user experience is the most important. And Windows (yes, even 7) pales in comparison to OS X. We need to stop using the hardware as the primary element by which we measure PCs, and start looking at what the overall experience will do for us.
Reply to this comment
by Jerrelbroo2 October 25, 2009 4:55 AM PDT
Johnnydfred, you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT! I switched to Apple products after I finally got sick and tired of all those dang viruses and popups on windows. I've NEVER regretted it. My friends are still plagued by PCs that continue to lock up, slow down, and frustrate. The hardware is important sure.. but I'd give $500 to eliminate the Windows shortcomings. I still think you gotta wonder.. you buy a shiny new computer with your new OS and before you can go on the internet you're warned that you need to buy additional software that will slow your new PC down just to protect yourself from viruses first. I do believe that the Mac OS is worth $ more on that note alone. Sure it's not immune, but after surfing the web for 6 years without a single problem and no virus protection, I'll take my mac over a PC at any price.
by cs2cdfan October 25, 2009 5:54 AM PDT
I purchased a HP Mini 311 with Windows 7 rocking full 1080p Blu-ray level video and plays Street Fighter IV for $399.

I would'nt trade this hot computer for anything Apple makes.

You guys are running in circles chasing your tails if you really think Apple has a chance against Windows 7.

Your crazy.
by Perry_Clease October 25, 2009 6:09 AM PDT
"...plays Street Fighter IV..."

Wow! :)
by Renderman2009 October 25, 2009 6:45 AM PDT
That's right - you don't judge a person's intellect or personality by their brain size.

People should compare Mac and PC based on the OS (the mind) not the hardware (the brain).
by Lawlbrawl October 25, 2009 7:00 AM PDT
Solution: Buy a PC and install OSX on it
by Spartan_458 October 25, 2009 8:05 AM PDT
But hardware is still important. Maybe not as much to Apple users, as Apple pretty much locks down the configuration, but more memory, a faster processor and a bigger hard drive equal better performance, no matter how you look at it. Windows 7 is the best operating system I've ever used, and , while it works just fine on minimal hardware, it works even better on better hardware. I can't believe that people just look at hardware, either. Obviously most people don't have a problem with Windows, as 9 out of 10 people choose it (going by market share there).

I've really never seen 1. what the big hype about getting viruses is, because if you take care of your computer and run antivirus and antispyware (the best of which you can get for FREE, Jerrelbroo2), you shouldn't get them, and 2. what the big deal is with Macs and OS X. They're not anything special. OS X is vastly overmatched by Windows in the software department, and the hardware might be pretty, but it's also nothing special.

The bottom line is: Apple isn't going to get close to Microsoft in the OS market, just as Microsoft will never get close to Apple in the PMP market.
by Random_Walk October 25, 2009 8:11 AM PDT
"rocking full 1080p Blu-ray level video "

You may want to look up "downsampling", because that's what your laptop has to do (and will do until that screen gets built with a much higher rez. The best you can hope for is 720p). FWIW, the MacBooks work the same way, and can play the same files. :)

You can keep Street Fighter IV - I prefer rendering CG stills and movies on my gear, and having an audio suite that's actually worth a damn. :)

==

"Solution: Buy a PC and install OSX on it"

Funny, I'm typing this on one. :)
by cs2cdfan October 25, 2009 8:57 AM PDT
@Random_Walk

Actually when you connect a HDMI cable from a machine such as the HP Mini 311 to a LCD, it automatically switched to 1920X1080 when you turn the computer monitor off using the nifty Projector Utility in Windows 7.

1080p playing from a 13GB file and DTS digital all coming through an HDMI cable.

Sure quicktime didnt choke when I tried to play the same file on my iMac. Quicktime on a iMac with Core2 Duo just could not handle it. A $399 NETBOOK with a dual core ATOM did.
by abcd9009 October 25, 2009 9:06 AM PDT
@johnnydfred & @Jerrelbroo2

Both of you'll are absolutely right. Mac OS is far superior than Windows. No question about it. However, it's not the OS or the hardware that's the biggest selling point to anyone (with the exception of limited people). The only 2 selling points for everyone (especially businesses) is price and software compatibility.

Anything and everything works on Windows (including Mac softwares which you can run through emulators - not popular but available). How many Windows softwares & games do you think work on a Mac. Yes, the number is big, but NOT EVERY SOFTWARE which is a key difference.

In terms of price point, yes, PC is much more attractive than Mac since it's cheaper. However, the way I look at it is, with a PC you are not stuck with one company. YOU HAVE A CHOICE between HP, Dell, Acer, Toshiba, Sony, and even a Mac can run Windows. So unlike a Mac, windows is not limited to a specific hardware platform. And that drives competition, always an advantage for consumers.

When it comes to businesses, the hardware is not a priority. What's important is the price point and even more importantly backward compatibility. And 99% of Enterprise software is designed for Windows. Of course all new software is Web based, but even that a lot of software are designed exclusively for IE. On the other hand the Server side is still for Windows or UNIX. Yes. OS X is sort of a UNIX flavor but again coming back to the price point, why would I spend so much on a server which only does the number crunching when I can get the same thing on Linux where the OS is FREE and I am only paying for service contracts and it's 100% Open source - customizable specific to each enterprise requirements.

Anybody who has ever used a computer has used Windows at some point in their lives, either at work or home or both. How many people have ever even touched a Mac? Less than a billion (saying this based on the fact that Mac has less than 10% of the world computer market - with 7B population). I am not saying Mac is not as good. Mac definitely has it's users. I just find it interesting when people try to compare Mac to PC. It's not comparing apples-to-apples. Because it's not just the hardware you are buying. You are also buying the Operating System that comes along with that hardware which makes them completely different and no price can ever compare than.

In the end I see both have their plus and minuses. For a Mac, yes it's a great computer providing awesome experience but unreachable for an Avg joe due to the price point and unappealing due to limited enterprise penetration. Windows on the other hand, reaches everyone including the people who can barely make ends meet. it's widely used in Enterprise market which makes it even more appealing.

Just my personal opinion - Morally speaking I would rather have a cheap PC with a decent running OS. This way everyone in the world including people in poor countries in Asia and Africa can afford it rather than making an expensive computer with the best OS that is unreachable to the mass audience. And that's the difference between Microsoft and Apple.
by professionaladventurer October 25, 2009 9:29 AM PDT
I have my 3 year old13" MacBook hooked up to my 37 inch LCD and other then some sleep issues it runs through HDMI fine at 1900x whatever, with 1 gig of RAM and 1T firewire drive for movie storage.

WOW windows 7 does this? I have been running OS X Frontrow and Hulu desktop like this for over a year. WOW, M$ is really in the lead. My, like everyone's mac has a remote that comes with it. Should we talk about the built in webcam and iCat?
See more comment replies
by spinoza2 October 25, 2009 5:15 AM PDT
All Mr. Crothers has to do to answer his own question is to look at the graveyard of articles written again and again over the past several years echoing the exact sentiments he's written here. Between CNET, WSJ, Fortune, and all the other business-oriented rags, one could set up an "Apple-Business-Model-Can't-Work" hall of fame. Geez, this really does sound like a broken record. What's really bizarre, in terms of the knuckle-dragging media, is that articles like this can be written right after Apple releases record-breaking quarterly financials: "Oh gosh, Apple is doing so good, why don't they expend a lot of corporate energy putting out a zero-margin netbook? Boy is Apple ever dumb!"

One would get better information from the 18-year old student who buys a MacBook over Dell and all the others. Unbiased by commodity-driven, 'How cheap can we get?' business models and marketing hype, she listens to all her happy Mac-owning friends and recognizes a better value when she sees one. Fortunately Apple follows such customers rather than CNET or the Wall Street Journal in developing its products.
Reply to this comment
by protagonistic--2008 October 25, 2009 7:25 AM PDT
You have to remember, some people just can't wrap their heads around the idea that Steve Jobs doesn't care if he dominates the OS market. He prefers to put out the product he envisions not what the industry pundits think he should put out. The press would have him chasing every new idea coming out and that is just not his style.
by ikramerica--2008 October 25, 2009 10:32 AM PDT
Some people also can't grasp that if Apple offers a $699 laptop, they KILL their business model. Their margins will be lower, people will flock to this model as an entry level, it will be underpowered and under-featured in comparison to all other Macs, and people will call it "slow" or "cheap" or "clunky" the way cheap laptops and netbooks are often described. This will damage Apple, not help them.
by Earl Benzar October 25, 2009 2:19 PM PDT
All Cnet cares about is page views, and they know all they need to do is to post a crappy, meaningless, anti-Apple or anti-MS story, and then the fanboi's will go crazy bashing each other. Meanwhile, anyone looking for solid information on anything in the tech space, has come to expect little in that regards from Cnet, although they do occasionally pull it together still.
by baconstang October 25, 2009 5:57 PM PDT
Yeah, if you're looking for intelligent discourse, avoid any article that includes any of the words "Mac, Apple, Microsoft or Windows". Articles with those in the headline usually degenerate into a adolescent circle jerk.
by jusben1369 October 26, 2009 8:32 AM PDT
I think though Spinoza you've hit the nail on the head. The biggest opportunity cost I see is that the sub $600 PC market is disproportionately made up of students and people under the age of 25 say - ie the most price sensitive.

AAPL's strategy today is to get them to buy an Touch or iPhone and get drawn into the Mac world via iTunes etc. Then, when they're not so price sensitive they'll migrate from a PC to an Apple. I think this strategy has driven much of AAPL's recent sales growth. However, I still find it a risky strategy to let your competition own the segment that is where tomorrow's customers begin......
by Btalis October 25, 2009 5:52 AM PDT
There are several missing points to this comparison.

1. Applecare ($249) and the HP warranty ($299) both 3 year warranties
2. One machine will come with Vista and tons of trial software with warnings of expiration
3. One will have Apple Care and one will have HP Customer Care(this is Laughable)
4. One will come with a good OS and one will come with Vista or Vista finished (7)
5. One will come with real software (ILife) and IWork($49.00) and one will come with Microsoft Works

When it is all done both machines will cost 1300.00 dollars.

The bottom line there is no comparison. I have been a windows users for 15 years now. There is no comparison. Apple is wining this argument.
Reply to this comment
by protagonistic--2008 October 25, 2009 7:28 AM PDT
Apple is winning only if you argue the case on its own merits. :-)
by Renegade Knight October 25, 2009 9:48 AM PDT
1) Apple care extends a crappy Apple Support warranty. Last time I looked HP had a better basic warranty. This is a valid comparison if you always buy the extended warranty. Apple us up 49 bucks.
2) Rather a moot point. Uninstall or do a clean install. My Mac Came with iTunes crapware. Still it's a fair point if it's worth not taking the time to uninstall it. I think companies charge about 50 bucks or less. Point to Apple 50 bucks.
3) Same as #1.
4) Both OS's are good. Some prefer one, some the other. No point to either.
5) I tried to figure out how to write a paper on a native Mac and failed. I don't like works but I can write a paper on it. Point to Windoze.

So your 699 HP is now a 1050 machine and your MacBook is now a 1250 machine. (Assuming you didn't pay apple to remove quicktime and itunes from infesting it like I do the PC side of the world).

HP still wins.

Of course I didn't buy my MacBook for those reasons. When you say there is no comparison, the realiy is, that there is. They can be compaired. For my use OS X is annoying, but I'm working with it to try and see if I can learn the shortcuts and such that may make it seem like a productive OS.
by Renegade Knight October 25, 2009 9:52 AM PDT
I't's worth noting that the MacBook is as close to a good deal as Apple does. The apple tax isn't as noticable on it.
by thelastknight October 25, 2009 10:16 AM PDT
Wow btalis you don't ever look at custom computers do you. A custom sony laptop still blows a factory made or even custom mac out of the water for the same quality and better hardware, for THE SAME PRICE IF NOT LESS....and it comes with software too, but i just like sony computers, toshiba and others do the same too..

and besides, most computers come with windows 7 now and if your like me (gaming, video, multi-tasking) then you would love Window 7.
by cbscowards October 25, 2009 11:07 AM PDT
@Renegade_Knight: I found David Pogue's "OS X Leopard: The Missing Manual" to be very useful in learning shortcuts. I know it's been updated for Snow Leopard too. Spending a couple of days with it boosted my productivity immensely to the point that I prefer using SL instead of XP.
by Seaspray0 October 25, 2009 11:42 AM PDT
Regardless of what arguement you choose to voice, it's the individual choice that matters. The consumer will decide which one wins for them. Each one will decide for themselves what they think is "superior" or provides the best value. Overall, windows wins 9 to 1. Since it's an individual choice, they are all winners since they get what they want. End of arguement.
by miquonranger03 October 25, 2009 1:34 PM PDT
The HP warranty for 300 dollars more covers a lot more than the Applecare does. +1 HP
The machines come with Windows 7, and yeah, there's trial stuff. +1 Apple.
3. Same point as the first. -1 for you
4. This is a stupid argument. -1 for you
5. They don't include Microsoft Works, and iWork isn't free. iLife is equivalent to Windows Live Essentials, which it comes with. All the new iLife features were stolen from Live. -1 for you
So it's a tie, and you're a loser.
Yes. Apple is whining this argument.
by kirks2 October 25, 2009 2:21 PM PDT
Renegade Knight - Why don't you offer some facts that reflect your thorough reading of HPs Warranty vs Apple's?
miquonranger03 - The features that Apple has copied from MS in Garageband are?

I do not know anything about HPs warranties. I do know that when I have gone to get my macs serviced, the techs will often go beyond the minimum requirement to fix my MacBooks under the Extended Warranty. The store is a 10 minute drive from my house. When repairs are done, I often get it back w/in 24hours.
Where do you bring your HP to get repaired? Also, the idea that you buy a brand new computer and have to wipe the drive to do a clean install is no bother is flat out dumb unless you are a hobbyist and want to spend your time that way. Also, calling iTunes crapware is certainly your right. I find it great and it has changed the music business forever. If the the motion picture industry would just let Apple have their catalogs to sell and rent, it would be just great

The links below show the results of research on whether owners are happy with their pcs. Apple does well as you will notice.

Info on Customer Satisfaction with Apple:
http://theacsio.nexcess.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=157&c=Apple
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10222213-37.html
by Random_Walk October 25, 2009 3:06 PM PDT
"Still it's a fair point if it's worth not taking the time to uninstall it."

To uninstall a typical app (e.g. iTunes) on a Mac:

1) Go to Applications.
2) drag the application icon from that window to the Trash Can icon down on your dock.
3) done.

To uninstall a typical app on Windows:

1) Start -> Control Panel
2) If it's XP, "Add/Remove Programs". If it's Vista/7, "Programs" -> "Uninstall a program" (unless you're in classic view, in which case IIRC it lurks in "Programs and Features").
3) If it's a 3rd-party app, it should (well, maybe) show up in the list that pops up. Otherwise, if it's a Windows component, you have to click "Turn Windows features on or off" in the left-hand pane. If you want to ditch an update, select "View Installed Updates" in the left-hand pane. We'll stick with 3rd-party apps so that this list doesn't become a tree, so...
4) select the program, then click the "Uninstall" button that shows up above the list once you select an app.
5) Click "Yes" on the popup that comes up (no, it doesn't make sense, but...)
6) wait for the app's uninstall function to finish (and usually click "finish" in that popup window when it's done)
7) run a registry cleaner to get rid of the detritus that most apps leave behind in it.
8) note that this will probably not uninstall the crapware (e.g. Ask.com toolbar) that often comes with a lot of apps these days, so you may have to go back, get those, then clean up the registry again just to be sure.
9) Check to make sure the app you just uninstalled didn't leave behind file extension associations pointing to it. Now that it's gone, clicking on a file that is associated to it will bring a popup that asks you what else you want to open the file with.

"I tried to figure out how to write a paper on a native Mac and failed."

Open the app named "Text Edit" (it's in Applications, which by default can be opened from the dock). Save as .doc or .pdf, your pick. Same basic controls as "Works".
by mattumanu October 25, 2009 4:11 PM PDT
"I often get it back w/in 24hours. "

Dog! How "often" is it in the shop?
See more comment replies
by DarwinsRadioDNA October 25, 2009 6:10 AM PDT
Your PC price does not include M.S. Office. Pick your flavor and add the street price to to the PC you're using to compare with Apple's product (whose OS includes a complete office suite). hmmmmmm...
Reply to this comment
by protagonistic--2008 October 25, 2009 7:29 AM PDT
iWorks is not included in the price. That will cost you about $50 extra, but it is well worth the price.
by professionaladventurer October 25, 2009 11:39 AM PDT
Open office make M$ office free
by tm_anon October 25, 2009 1:40 PM PDT
@professionaladventurer

OpenOffice is available for OS X as well.
by tipoo_ October 25, 2009 6:08 PM PDT
@tm_anon

Yes, but the point he was making was that you dont need to pay for an office suite for Windows, even though it doesnt come with one like Macintosh.
by rllaw October 25, 2009 8:01 PM PDT
and have you ever actually tried to do anything other than simple typing (without many special characters) and printing (without much page formatting) in iWorks? It's like going back to the MS (doesn't) Works that was came in my Win95 box. Awful.
by Maclover1 October 25, 2009 10:03 PM PDT
rllaw I use iWork 09 every day at work. Its just as good as MS Office for 99% of users. If you use one of the MS Office apps to the extreme (Word or Excel) MS Office does have some features that iWork does not. Again I dont know to many people that do that, none actually, but I am sure there are some serious bean counters that push Excel.

Keynote > Powerpoint all day long.

A family pack of 5, iWork 09 is $84 on Amazon.
by baconstang October 25, 2009 10:38 PM PDT
I use Numbers to open, modify and return Excel spreadsheets to clients. I can send them as Numbers, Excel or PDFs. Works fine and is easy to use.
by abcd9009 October 26, 2009 7:50 AM PDT
@Maclover1

I am assuming you are using Numbers as a novice user. Learn to use to the true potentials of Excel and you will realize Numbers is just 1% as good as Excel. The biggest feature of Excel which is NOT available in Numbers is MACROS. In case you don't know what that is, if you are doing something repeatedly created Macros allows you to automate that task. Try finding that in Numbers.
Secondly, connected to Databases & OLAP applications (essential for Enterprise). Try connecting Numbers to SAP or Oracle Apps (the two largest Enterprise application vendors in the world).

For childs play yes Numbers does pretty much what a kid would do in Excel. Move over to the big league and you will see there's no use for Numbers.

There are tons of 3rd party apps for Excel. How many do you think are available for Numbers? Excel didn't just become the #1 enterprise tool for spreadsheet and data mining. Speak with anyone in Finance (any company) and I bet 90% of them use Excel for number crunching.

And here's the biggest example. Apple knows Numbers is nothing compared to Excel which is why they had to provide an option to "Save As Excel". If Numbers was that good, I wonder why Apple would provide that option. Do you see any option in iTunes to save as WMV?
by solitare_pax October 26, 2009 4:15 PM PDT
And then, there's OpenOffice.org.

For the PC or Mac.

FREE!
by mavfan2 October 28, 2009 1:51 PM PDT
openoffice's spreadsheet, like Numbers, falls woefully short of what Excel can do. I have a Macbook Pro and I do have iWork, but I also have Office 2008 because when I want to work on a pivot table handling 250,000 records with 250 columns Numbers and openoffice choke and say "er, I have to go look pretty or free" and Excel breezes through pivot tables without a problem.
by cs2cdfan October 25, 2009 6:15 AM PDT
Here are some major differences to all you Apple drones blinded from reality:

Pavilion dv3t

1) 5-in-1 integrated Digital Media Reader
2) HDMI
3) eSATA port

You guys are ikidding right? How do you connect a Macbook to your HDTV? No card readers or eSata port but you want me to spend $999 for what?

Apple had it's chance with Vista, but Windows 7 domanance will be bigger than Windows XP.

You guys never mention GAMING and APPLICATIONS. Why you APple zeolots never mention these IMPORTANT areas of computing that drive sales. What do you Apple guys do all day? Just check email, and make a couple of documents iLife?

Maybe your uses for a computer are so simple it just doent warrent that you need real computing power of a Windows 7 machine?

Please share with us what are you actually getting done on your Mac SL that Windows 7 can't blow through without thinking. It sure isn't using a simple Paint program I tell you that.. oh what, I know, as a Mac user I should be using $400 Photoshop because Mac users are all rich.

FIND ME A MAC PAINT APP TP SIMPLY EDIT PICTURES? You guys don't even have that out the box.
Reply to this comment
by cs2cdfan October 25, 2009 6:22 AM PDT
I bet the only comback you have is there are typos in my comment.. lol. Sorry I am typing from a Mini 311 using a mobile card in a moving car. I know you Mac people only car about such little things that no one gets paid from.
by nickh2 October 25, 2009 6:24 AM PDT
"FIND ME A MAC PAINT APP TP SIMPLY EDIT PICTURES?"

http://www.versiontracker.com/php/qs.php?mode=basic&action=search&str=paint&srchArea=macosx&submit=Go

3 pages of them right there. Take your pick.

iPhoto and Preview are included with the Mac and provide various editing functions too.
by cs2cdfan October 25, 2009 6:34 AM PDT
@nickh2

My point is is this fair? Why should a new user of this uber expensive computer have to go looking for a simple Paint application. I bring this up becasue my Wife owns am iMac and the other day wanted to comp some simple ideas for a project she is working on. So she says "wheres the simple paint application in this Mac?". Her only otpion was to hog up time on my PC to get this task done. Sure Apple could make a killer stock Paint application, but their focus has always been too smug to provide what users need instead of what they want.
by Renderman2009 October 25, 2009 6:41 AM PDT
One significant feature of OSX is Spotlight search - I can easily find info I want from thousands of pdf by using a few keywords. It is a very important function for a writer, researcher or any students.

I just can't understand why even today Windows still can't index pdf.
by gwailo247 October 25, 2009 6:54 AM PDT
A big reason I never switched to using a Mac is that there never were any games for it. Occasionally, years after a PC release there would be a buzz of a game getting ported over to a Mac format, but for the most part there was nothing. Dark Castle was fun and all, but there was a ton of games I would never be able to play on a Mac.

Yeah, these days they put out more games for the Mac, but still, during my formative years a preference was made.

And these comparisons to Dells and HPs are moot. Most power users build their own PCs with the components they choose, from a wide variety of vendors. This was also something missing in the 80s and 90s. Shopping for Mac accessories was like a Soviet ballot. Take it or leave it, but don't ask for choice. And when that one accessory cost half as much as a comparable "PC" accessory, it got really annoying. And mind you, I remembered the vaunted Big Brother commercial, so this sales approach vexed me a lot during my idealistic college years.
by johnkestner October 25, 2009 7:13 AM PDT
HDTV: get a Mini Displayport > HDMI adaptor.

You seem to be using 10-year-old arguments. Instead of naming an application (Paint? Really, you use that?) that you could've googled and seen plenty of free Mac equivalents (or if you're just touching up photos, the included iPhoto), how about pointing out some actual Windows software that has no equivalent on the Mac? It's possible, but not as easy anymore. And it's not like you can't run Windows software natively on a Mac if you really want to.

As an above poster points out, software actually makes the Mac a good deal. There's no equivalent to iPhoto or iMovie, which come free with new Macs, and several of Apple's productivity apps are cheaper and better than the Office equivalents.
by AppleProLeo October 25, 2009 7:18 AM PDT
The MacBook has a DisplayPort the NEW digital video connector standard that is also designed to replace HDMI, you can easily fund a Mini DisplayPort to HDMI adapter from eBay for a few £/$. Yes you do need need an adapter, but that's the price you pay for being at the cutting edge to the latest and best technology - now you're not really gonna fault Apple for that are you?

eSata? for the market this MacBook is aimed at an eSata is pointless, FireWire makes more sense and Apple even chose to avoid that. FireWire is (mostly) for hard drives eSata is for hard drives - consumers buy USB hard drives.

Card reader - yes it lacks a card reader but come, really? I wouldn't really lose sleep over that. It's nice on the new iMacs and MacBook Pros but again would really care if it didn't come with one.

Now there are specs you'll find on the Macbook like DD3 RAM and 9400 GeForce that you won't get on the HP and it works both ways, but the biggest difference one if not the killer feature for a Notebook is battery - and the MacBook wins on this hands down.

So trust me Mac users are not as blind as you seem to think - but you're too BLIND to see that.
by cbscowards October 25, 2009 7:24 AM PDT
I've never had the desire to connect my PC to my HDTV. But if I did, I would use the DVI out on my MBP.

I think that most people would agree that if you want to do hard-core gaming, buy a Windows PC. I'm not a gamer, so that doesn't interest me.

WRT APPLICATIONS I truly believe that you can accomplish virtually any task on either Windows or OS X. There will always be some specialized programs specific to each platform, but you can get an equivalent on the other platform. You are correct that OS X doesn't come with a low-end Paint equivalent. However, if you compare the software on a new WIndows machine with a new Mac, I think you'll find that Apple provides a much more feature-rich set of applications. When that is pointed out, the Windows fanboys always jump in with "download Winamp or <fill in the great program name here>", but you are unwilling to download a single program for your wife's Mac?

And, no, I don't just "check email, and make a couple of documents iLife" <sic> on my Mac. I develop code for enterprise-class web sites. Depending on the customer I do the same thing using Windows XP (using their PC). I use the same software packages on both platforms because they are mostly open source and free. No, I do not have Windows installed on my Mac; I never found a need for it. Don't have MS Office either. I do have MS Office on an old XP box I have, since one of my clients occasionally wants MS Access work done. I prefer to develop on the Mac; it seems much more responsive to me than my customer's Windows box, even though they are roughly equivalent in terms of processor, member and drive speed.
by AppleProLeo October 25, 2009 7:25 AM PDT
Oh...

Regarding games, not everyone is a gamer or have a console for that. If you like desktop/notebook gaming then sure Windows is the best platform for that. But you have to remember, I said Windows platform NOT Wintel platform because you can install Windows on your Mac for gaming should you choose to do so.

Paint? Your argument is Paint! Are you for real. Believe me if you want to talk about PC's strength over the Mac, bundled software is NOT where you want to go.
by dennis_the_bug October 25, 2009 7:31 AM PDT
@ Renderman2009 October 25, 2009 6:41 AM PDT
Windows 7 does it. I can look for search strings inside any file. Windows 7 is awesome. Just try it for 30 days.
See more comment replies
by nicmart October 25, 2009 6:26 AM PDT
Apple has been able to make handsome profits on low-end iPods. The company's brand prestige has actually risen with lower prices for iPods and iPhones. It isn't for lack of ability or profit that Apple doesn't produce a $600 laptop. The reason is inscrutable.
Reply to this comment
by cs2cdfan October 25, 2009 6:38 AM PDT
Exactly!

Love my iTouch, now this is a genius device.

Why are they holding on to this old smug troll mindset when it comes to anything with OSX on it? The iPhyone and iTouch has sold 17X more volume than actual Mac computers. A $600 laptop from Apple would gain a ton of ground. Now with Win7 out, they will have to eventually provide this machine or risk a total weipeout.
by SactoGuy018 October 25, 2009 8:04 AM PDT
Of course, it helps on the iPod nano and iPod classic that Apple has patented the Click Wheel interface, so no other competitor can come close in terms of simplicity on the physical controls on a portable media player (Microsoft came close with their previous-generation Zune models, but now they've gone to a real touchscreen interface with the Zune HD....).
by Renegade Knight October 25, 2009 9:50 AM PDT
Apple charges a lot for their low end iPods. Keeping things priced high and not playing to the mass market is a marketing decision. It means Apple won't grow like some, but it also means Apple should remain with a high return on equity.
by k-tut October 25, 2009 6:46 AM PDT
Here is another argument: If every owner of any of these new sub $700 PCs calls the manufacturer for help just once, that will mean a loss of about $50 for that manufacturer. Already low margins will at that point become almost nil. There is a very good reason why Apple works so hard to achieve the highest customer satisfaction. (Besides, costumers looking for the cheapest deal on everything are often the ones who complain the most.)

In other words: It is not worth the effort for Apple to sell cheap computers - the profit is minuscule. If the likes of Dell and HP want to sell PCs at a $40 profit it is their business. Apple will rather use its profits to innovate and look to open some other segment where there is a better profit to be made.

Now, as a consumer, I would like a free computer ($0). At the same time I know that will not happen. So, what is the best deal for me? To me it is the computer system that saves me the most time overall, since I value my time. (Just ask yourself, how much is 10 houres of your time worth to you? If you could save that, how much cheaper would that computer now be to you?)
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight October 25, 2009 9:51 AM PDT
Good post. I find I don't save time with OS X. However unlike my Dell my MacBook is still working. Time spent fighting Dell to honor their own warranty is not fun. It's well worth switching brands to about anyone else.
by camp88 October 25, 2009 7:09 AM PDT
cs2cdfan: My point is is this fair? Why should a new user of this uber expensive computer have to go looking for a simple Paint application.

@cs2cdfan,

What do you mean, "go looking"? Preview and iPhoto are preinstalled on all Macs. One only has to open an image file and the options appear in the menu bar. It really can't get much easier.
Reply to this comment
by cs2cdfan October 25, 2009 7:14 AM PDT
but none of them allow you to cut and paste parts, annotate and type text.

These little corny things are what people need to do many times over.
by protagonistic--2008 October 25, 2009 7:51 AM PDT
You actually expect him to look at the Dock? Come on, a computer this expensive should read his mind and automatically open the right program and then make his coffee for him. I guess plugging in his camera and having iPhoto automatically open was just too complicated for him.
by protagonistic--2008 October 25, 2009 8:02 AM PDT
@ cs2cdfan

Can you do all that with the software that comes with Windows? I ask because I am curious. But to answer your comment, have you never used Graphics Converter? I believe they still even offer a free version but the commercial version is only $35. I actually use it more than I do Adobe Photoshop Elements which costs more than twice as much. I seriously doubt you can do anything in Windows that I can't also do on my Mac. And the software I use on my Mac is usually quite a bit less expensive than the Windows based counterpart.
by midiexpert October 25, 2009 7:12 AM PDT
Apple won't, and should not, come out with a "cheap" laptop, or any other product, for that matter. Their image and reputation, whether deserved or not, is akin to high-end products such as Mercedes or BMW, etc. Why would Mercedes come up with a cheap econobox type vehicle, when it does fine selling what they market as a high-end alternative for a discerning customer base. They keep brand loyalty this way, which is something you don't hear from us PC-owners. You hear horror stories from PC owners who swear that "I'd never buy another HP, only Dell," and of course you hear the exact opposite story from others switching the brand names around. As long as their market increases and keeps them profitable, they have no incentive to chase after the low-end market; people who buy Macs don't care how cheap or expensive it is, they are buying what they perceive as a desired product. Just like the iPhone vs. Blackberry, for example; people put up with AT&T in order to own an iPhone vs. the Blackberry on Verizon, for example. You can get a Storm cheap these days (especially as they close out the current model) but they are difficult to learn how to use, so IPhones outsell them. Yes, Apple has the iPod shuffle, but this seems different to me; it is still perceived as a good product, but is relatively feature-barren. I think Apple's success basically answers the question--once they have problems selling their Macs they will change their strategy; until then, it's status quo all the way.
Reply to this comment
by cs2cdfan October 25, 2009 7:17 AM PDT
Even Benz has the C class.
by cbscowards October 25, 2009 7:34 AM PDT
How does the C class compare with a Kia or Hyundai on price? You can get two low-end Kia's for the price of one C class? You just proved his point.

Apple has made it clear that they are not interested in the "race to the bottom". Even MS is hurt by this. How much is Acer paying them for W7 on the the $300 netbook? It's got to be less than the full-featured computer. If you don't want to spend more than $400 for a laptop, then don't buy an Apple. They won't shed any tears.
by protagonistic--2008 October 25, 2009 8:04 AM PDT
@cs2cdfan

So does Apple. It is called a MacBook and it sells for $999 and the MacMini that sells for $600. :-)
by GatesOfHell October 25, 2009 12:53 PM PDT
$33,000 for a C class hardly buys you a netbook-quality car, even if it's at Mercedes' low end.
by The_happy_switcher October 25, 2009 2:52 PM PDT
Agreed. Let Dell et al. build crap. I'll stick to the BMW of computers: Mac.
by thisargumentisridiculous October 25, 2009 5:37 PM PDT
I think the BMW of computers would be Falcon Northwest...Or voodoo. The debate is divided because some people hate macs and will never change their mind(me) and others swear by them with some grounded(bundled software) but mostly ungrounded(mac means I never get viruses) claims.

JUST CHILL PEOPLE. Windows 7 is pretty legit. MAC OSX is great, but I still feel like I'm paying 500 dollars for a paint job.
by raymoundm October 27, 2009 4:47 PM PDT
Comparing Apple to luxury car makers is idiotic. If you havn't realized just yet these companies aren't doing as well as they once were. The smaller cars are now starting to dominate the market. Most people can't afford luxury cars so they buy the more economical choice. BMW released the 1 series which is aimed at college students and the car has been selling quite well.
by jscott418 October 25, 2009 7:42 AM PDT
Why reach down to the lower profit margin price zone when Apple can make nice profits on what they sell.
After all Apple does not compete with others like PC maker's do. What PC makers need to do is stop with the low price margin computers like $300 netbooks and the same for desktops and go back to making computers that function well not barely. For the most part Apple Mac user's like their Mac's because their performance experience is good. Its not that they are really that much better in hardware. After all Mac's are almost the same as PC when it comes to hardware suppliers. My wife uses a higher end Dell laptop and it performs as well in experience as my MacBook. People need to realize that Apple has it good. It has great marketing, bottomless pocket consumers and no direct competition. Dell on the other hand has good hardware and unlimited choices in third party software and hardware. But it has steep competition which is bad for them. But great for consumers.
Reply to this comment
by cvaldes1831 October 25, 2009 8:59 AM PDT
As a *very* satified AAPL shareholder, I prefer that Apple continue to increase marketshare WITHOUT sacrificing their high margins.

I'm not sure that the current PC components will let manufacturers create an inexpensive notebook with decent performance: perhaps in a year or two as Intel Atom improves. We have seen this in netbooks: strong sales yet extremely high return rates as customers are not satified with their purchases.

Thanks again to the Apple management team for increasing shareholder value and not mindlessly chasing all your competitors. If/when/where you are ready to fight, please continue to kick the sh*t out of your competitors.
by myles taylor October 25, 2009 7:44 AM PDT
Until we start to see Apple's sales fall in the PC and laptop category, why should they lower the price? Their PC sales are growing like crazy year over year. Why should they lower the prices? They don't need to dominate the market. People compare them to Microsoft too much. Apple is not a software company. They are a hardware company and when you compare them to the other hardware companies, they are doing very well.
Reply to this comment
by sadiq815 October 25, 2009 8:14 AM PDT
Apple is a hardware company? Pray tell me, what hardware does Apple make? All parts, in a Mac are generic parts made by other companies (NVIDIA, Intel, Seagate/Western Digital); you are paying for the software as in OSX, not the hardware. You will find that the parts used in Macs are equivalent to PCs made by HP, Dell and Acer. You know why the iPhone and the iPod touch are so popular? Yep, the software.

BTW, Microsoft is also a software company.
by Stupendoussteve October 25, 2009 8:59 AM PDT
Apple is a software and hardware company. They design good computers, even if individual components are made by other companies. They design good software that plays nicely with their good hardware, but it is silly to think the software is where they make their money. Apple certainly proved this with the $29 Snow Leopard - where's my $29 Windows 7? Oh yeah, Microsoft could not do it.

In terms of their other devices, except for the iPod Touch they don't even charge for the software, even though it is generally considered better than the competition.
by cvaldes1831 October 25, 2009 9:03 AM PDT
Apple is considered a hardware company because its basic business model is to use software, content and services (e.g., App Store, iTunes Store, and MobileMe) to drive sales of its high-margin hardware (Macs, iPhones, iPods). Go look at their financials and SEC filings.

Apple has an advantage over many of their competitors in that they control much of the ecosystem (product design, operating system, software packages such as iLife, content delivery system), but they are definitely a hardware company.
by Seaspray0 October 25, 2009 12:06 PM PDT
Apple is just playing to its strengths, and the midrange and netbook markets are not their strengths.
by miquonranger03 October 25, 2009 1:38 PM PDT
Tell me how Snow Leopard is anything more than a service pack.
by dragonsky1 October 25, 2009 3:28 PM PDT
Tell me how Windows 7 is also anything more than a service pack?
by JFerrari427 October 25, 2009 7:49 AM PDT
Yes, but the C class starts at $40,000, at a dealership sticker price is in the mid 40's + . Premium products command premium prices.
Reply to this comment
by cs2cdfan October 25, 2009 8:47 AM PDT
Exactly, it's $100,000 less than a S600..

If Apple can deliver a $400 laptop, $1000 less than a MBP then they win.

The problem is that with things like the NVIDIA ION, what Apple delivers in $1400 MBP are delivered in $300 netbooks/nettops now (with an HDMI port and 5-1 card readers).
by Stupendoussteve October 25, 2009 9:04 AM PDT
@cs2cdfan

I think your point is made. Replying to every single comment in the thread tends to make you lose face.
by miquonranger03 October 25, 2009 1:39 PM PDT
Yes. The engine in a C-class is superior to a Hyundai Accent. But the processor in a MacBook is the same exact processor you'll find in any Windows laptop.
by Perry_Clease October 25, 2009 2:07 PM PDT
" miquonranger03 October 25, 2009 1:39 PM PDT
Yes. The engine in a C-class is superior to a Hyundai Accent. But the processor in a MacBook is the same exact processor you'll find in any Windows laptop."

There is more in there than just the processor, not to mention that the PC uses that horrid Windows OS.
by brent516 October 25, 2009 7:59 AM PDT
Just as there are people who pay $4000 for a bottle of wine [or more] there are people who buy the $1,000, $2,000 and $3,000 Mac. In both categories for the guys who can tell the difference (or have the money) it works--for mainstream America it does not, however.

When the cell phone first arrived I paid nearly $600 for a Motorola "Brick". Now cell phones are given away to everyone with a service agreement. I see the same thing happening to laptops.

The expectation, now, is that laptops are a necessary tool just like cell phones and that, going forward, they will be cheap . Since the average laptop life is only 3-4 years I don't know why anyone would pay double, triple or quadruple for a Mac--except to say they own one. These are probably the same people who claim to tell the difference between Chateau Le Pin Pomerol 1999 and a bottle of Corbet Canyon. I, for one, can not.
Reply to this comment
by cbscowards October 25, 2009 8:30 AM PDT
Then, enjoy your PC.
by Stupendoussteve October 25, 2009 9:05 AM PDT
You're right, it's not like Apple's market share is growing or their sales are up during an economic downturn. Nobody buys a Mac, they want a cheap PC.
by jprescott October 25, 2009 4:20 PM PDT
Because my PowerBook G3 lasted me eight years before I fried it (not the computer's fault, I screwed it up trying to replace the hard drive), under some pretty arduous conditions, especially going with my son to college. My Powerbook G4 is still running strong after six years, and my new MacBook should last equally long. Both the G3 (started with Mac OS 9) and G4 were/are running Leopard (can't run Snow Leopard due to being PPC). I've had both Lenovo and Dell laptops provided by work, and I've only been able to get about 2-3 good years before something started to go. All were comparably equipped and comparably priced (the Lenovo and Dell were NOT low-end laptops). That's why I buy a Mac. The higher price, for me, has been worth it because I get more useful life from the equipment.
by SactoGuy018 October 25, 2009 8:01 AM PDT
I'll stick with the HP for these reasons: more RAM and more hard disk storage space. Unless you're running a multimedia editing program, the performance difference between the 2.26 GHz Core 2 Duo on the Macbook and the 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo on the HP Paviliion dv3t is not significant.
Reply to this comment
by ikramerica--2008 October 25, 2009 10:23 PM PDT
Don't buy the author's misinformation about the HP and price.

If you equip both computers roughly the same, including upping the memory and HD on the Mac at Apple's high prices, it is CHEAPER than the HP.

The author failed to make them equal:

Stuck with windows HOME, which is not equivalent to OS X.
DIdn't include Wireless-N or bluetooth (only wireless G).
Didn't include little things like DVD restore disks.
And of course, didn't upgrade the processor to 2.26 1066FSB even though it was an option at HP. The 2.0G 800FSB is slower.

He also failed to mention that the RAM and HD were the free upgrades, which are TEMPORARY at HP and Dell, and could disappear tomorrow. They are based simply on what surplus parts HP has on hand at the time (in other words, they are low on 1GB sticks, so they offer "free" upgrade to 2GB until they get their shipment in). Yes it benefits the consumer, but it's basically comparing a limited sale price to an MSRP on the Apple. You can get similar discounts on the Apple with upgraded HD and RAM by going through a third party, so if the author actually wants to be fair (ha), he'd note that.

Go to a company like Expercom, configure the Mac like the HP he lists, include the 3-year warranty, and the Mac comes out LESS, despite the HP free discounts and $150 "instant rebate" which also goes away at random.

That's reality. There is no Apple tax on the MacBook, only poor journalism and lazy people. ;)
by morton101 October 25, 2009 8:18 AM PDT
The reason why Macs will never drop their prices and have no reason to, is because the computers are designed to be capable of editing music, photos, and videos, with ease, every time. Unfortunately there are minimum hardware requirements for this and dropping to a lower price and lowering hardware specs would compromise this ability.
Reply to this comment
by mathcreative October 25, 2009 12:01 PM PDT
I disagree unless you forgot the /s tag. Computers below 999 or below 600 for that matter.dollars have the hardware required to edit music, photos and videos with ease
by grtgrfx October 26, 2009 6:03 PM PDT
Beg pardon, but a $600 Toshiba laptop, for example, doesn't nave the processor power to edit movies because the built-in graphics and CPU won't render more than 10-12 frames per second. iMovie on a Mac will give you full-motion 30-fps video editing and in most cases, real-time playback. Sure it costs more, but you get a workable product.
by Oso_Grande October 25, 2009 8:33 AM PDT
@ Brooke

First thing you left out--RAM type. HP's are all using old DDR2 while all Macs are using DDR3. There's another reason for the price difference.

Second, video card. Mac is using Nvidia 9400M. What is the HP using--A 512MB NVIDIA GeForce G 105M? The 105M is basically a shrunk, glorified 8400GS....the 9400M (integrated) is faster despite being integrated. No surprise Apple stuck w/ the 9400M.

Third, battery, and battery life. The Mac will go 7 hours and doesn't need a new battery for up to 5 years. .

There's your differences in a nutshell.
Reply to this comment
by cs2cdfan October 25, 2009 8:43 AM PDT
But when it's time to change that battery how do you do it? You go to the Mac store and wait in line for 3 hours only to be told that you have to pay $300 because your apple care ran out?

I will stick with buying a $40 battery and changing it myself thanks.
by Stupendoussteve October 25, 2009 9:07 AM PDT
It's actually $129 to $179. Over the life of this battery you're probably spending more on traditional batteries, especially if you are getting the same amount of run time out of it.
by CanadianKat October 25, 2009 9:43 AM PDT
@cs2cdfan : What are you talking about? The batteries come out with a coin twist mechanism. No one in their right mind would need Apple Care to change a frikkin' battery. (And, if you really want them, there are third party batteries out there, even for the Mac. I bought one for my last laptop, it was decent enough.)
by lazycat202 October 25, 2009 10:00 AM PDT
my $550 HP DV9730US.is almost 2 years old and i'm happy with it. I didn't buy 3 years HP Warranty 'cause it's cheap to buy replacement parts and I know how to take care my baby. It takes whatever I put in it: from win to linux, games to apps. I'll let it retires within 2 years so I could buy a another new laptop that meets future technology demands.

just use what you like it! period!! I don't give a damn! peace with you guys!

PS: to the guy who said HP only uses DDR2 and 105M. they've DDR3 and ATI HD cards. 7 hours straight? try to run multplei apps and moving your mousepad around and you'll see!
by mathcreative October 25, 2009 12:02 PM PDT
@cs2cdfan but the mac's battery lasts much longer.
by miquonranger03 October 25, 2009 1:41 PM PDT
Okay, well here's this. I got a 17" HP with 4GB of RAM, 500GB HD, Blu-ray, 1440p screen, and a 2.2GHz processor for $700. When the Mac needs a new battery, you can't replace it yourself. I can see the battery on this.
by stubbyns October 25, 2009 8:34 AM PDT
What's the point of this article?
Reply to this comment
by Perry_Clease October 25, 2009 8:41 AM PDT
Page hits
by mattyc09 October 27, 2009 3:23 PM PDT
To allow us to watch dumb people argue about what operating system other people should use. Because it somehow has an impact on them.
by EricJM001 October 25, 2009 8:36 AM PDT
The computer industry puts too much emphasis on the number of units shipped. I think a better metric would be: revenue / number of units shipped. That number would be a better indication of a company's performance and efficiency. I absolutely love Apple's current market strategy, The high margins they enjoy allow for Research and Development of new innovations that set the pace for the entire computer industry (yes even for the PC and Windows).
Reply to this comment
by rsfinn October 25, 2009 8:39 AM PDT
"The Wall Street Journal said that users can get roughly equivalent laptops for a lot less at Dell and HP."

Correction: if you follow the link the exact quote is: "You can pay much less for laptops and desktops from competitors like Dell (DELL) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ)." Nothing about "roughly equivalent". As noted previously, a roughly equivalent notebook from HP is about the same price as the MacBook.
Reply to this comment
by Renegade Knight October 25, 2009 10:00 AM PDT
The article is accurate on this point. Even a MacBook which has the least apple tax of the laptops costs more than a comprably equipped PC. However in a point to Apple I'm not aware of a Windows Laptop that's comprable in both Quality and Price. The MacBook is better than the HP and Dell Machines they are comparing it too.
Showing 1 of 6 pages (279 Comments)
advertisement

The 411 on early-termination fees

Verizon Wireless has doubled its early-termination fees for smartphones, but what does it mean for the rest of the industry?

Google has its own plan for Netbooks

No, the search giant isn't saying it will build a Netbook. But it sure knows what it would like one running Chrome OS to resemble, and that's a little different from the Netbook of today.
• Screenshot tour of Chrome OS

advertisement

About Nanotech - The Circuits Blog

Brooke Crothers has served as an editor at large at CNET News, an editor at Dow Jones' Asian Wall Street Journal Weekly, and a senior editor at InfoWorld. His CNET blog covers chip technology and computer systems, and how they define the computing experience. He also contributes to The New York Times' Bits and Technology sections. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Nanotech - The Circuits Blog topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right