David Risley is the founder of PCMech.com. He is the brains, the thinker, the writer, the nerd.The “Mac versus PC” debate will rage until the end of time, but one constant argument I hear about the Mac is that it is overpriced. In fact, an anonymous employee of Psystar (the makers of the so-called Mac clone) was quoted as saying that Apple marks up their hardware as much as 80%.
Whether that is true or not, the notion that Apple overprices it’s machines is everywhere. Now, I do not have inside knowledge of Apple at all, but I am going to try to analyze this and give my impression on whether Apple is too expensive for what you get.
Mac Mini
The retail price for the Mac Mini is $599. For this, you get a tiny computer with a 1.83 GHz Core 2 Duo, 1 GB of RAM, Intel GMA 950 graphics processor, yada yada. If you want 2 GB of RAM, the price goes up to $799 (which also comes with a larger hard drive). Now, that is certainly pricey and you can get yourself a better equipped PC tower for about the same amount of money.
Obviously, you’re paying for the design of the Mini. The Mini is a niche computer that only certain people are going to want. A similar form factor PC might be the Aopen Mini PC. The MP965 series has very similar specs to the Mac Mini and retails at $455. Other options include the XPC X100 which is significantly more expensive. A look at Newegg’s barebone list for mini PCs also provides much higher prices than the Mac Mini. Asus is coming out with the Nova P20 which is set to retail at $888.
The Mini is an appliance computer which is designed for a specific purpose. When you consider the Mini form factor and the fact that it comes with OS X Leopard, it seems to me the Mini is pretty competitively priced. Most mini PCs seem to have higher prices. But, yes, pitting the Mini up against the typical PC, the Mini (as a computer and not an entertainment appliance) looks pricey.
IMAC
The all-in-one Imac starts at $1199 and for that price you will get a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo, 1 GB memory, 250 GB hard drive with an ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT w/ 128MB video memory. A direct spec comparison to PC towers would, of course, lead to PC winning in the price war. However, this is an all-in-one so we need to compare it to other PC all-in-ones.
The Dell XPS One is perhaps the best known alternative. It starts at $1,299 and has a 20″ display, 2 GB DDR2 memory, 250 GB hard drive, integrated video. It is also running the Core 2 Duo, but it is running the E4500 which means it is likely 2.2 GHz. The price tag puts it at $100 more than the IMAC. The major difference in specs is that it has one additional GB of memory and has perhaps a slightly faster processor. Aside from that, it has essentially the same specs. Price wise, we have a tie. If you go to the highest priced model of the Dell XPS One, you get Blu-Ray and a large hard drive. But, for a couple hundred more, you get an Imac with a 24″ screen, same size hard drive, same memory.
The Gateway One ZX190 retails at $1,499. It has a 19″ screen and a slower processor, however it does come with a significantly larger hard drive. Style-wise, it is just plain ugly. So, it is more expensive than the Imac and I don’t think you get as much for your money.
So, I would venture to say that Apple’s IMAC is not overpriced. In fact, it is quite competitive.
Mac Pro
The Mac Pro is Apple’s premiere workstation tower and it is likely the pricing of the Mac Pro which adds the most fuel to the debate about Macs being more expensive. The Mac Pro starts at a whopping $2,799. But, let’s look at the specs. It has 2 2.8 GHz quad core processors (for a total of 8 processor cores), 2 GB of fully buffered ECC ram, ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT, 320 GB hard drive, 16X Superdrive.
Now, the processor specs are impressive as hell. 2 GB of memory is pretty weak. It is good memory (ECC and buffered), but 2 GB isn’t much. And the 16X SuperDrive is slower than most optical drives you’d see in a PC.
So, let’s look at a comparable spec PC. I see the Dell Precision Workstation T7400 64-bit. If we configure this beast with 2 quad cores at 2.8 GHz, 2 GB of ECC memory, a 320 GB hard drive, we are now looking at a sticker price of $4,128. This is certainly a LOT more than the Mac Pro for comparable specs.
The Dell Workstations are often considered to be the best equivalents to the Mac Pro, but just for grins, let’s look at one of the HP workstations. Their site is not as friendly, but it seems as if the machines are more expensive and don’t even come with a second processor.
So, yes, the Mac Pro is expensive, but it is priced very competitively. In fact, it seems to almost blow away the competition when it comes to pricing for this level of machine.
MacBook and Macbook Pro
Apple’s notebook lineup is pretty popular. The MacBook starts at $1099 and the Macbook Pro starts at $1,999. Now, let’s look at the Macbook Pro. It comes with a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo, 2 GB memory, 200 GB hard drive and Nvidia graphics.
The comparable notebook to the Macbook Pro is, again, the Dell. The Dell Precision M4300, for instance, starts at $1,429 and comes with a Core 2 Duo processor, 1 GB RAM, 80 GB hard drive. If I configure it to match the specs of the Macbook Pro, the prices comes out at $2,031. It is just a tad more, but also consider that this is running Windows XP 32-bit whereas the Mac is fully 64-bit. To me, that’s more for the money.
If we take the highest priced Macbook Pro, it goes for $2,799 and comes with a 2.5 GHz processor, 2 GB memory, 250 GB drive, 512 MB Nvidia graphics and a 17-inch screen. With Dell, we go to the M6300 in order to get the 17-inch screen. When we customize this system to match the MacBook Pro, it comes out to $2,671. This is cheaper than the Macbook Pro. Again, though, it is running 32-bit Windows XP and not the 64-bit OS X.
An HP equivalent might be the 8510P. This unit starts at $1,533. When configured to match as closely as possible to the intro-level MacBook Pro, the price came out to $1.751. The screen is the same size, but doesn’t offer as large a resolution as the Macbook screen. And it is running Vista, an operating system that runs notably WORSE than OS X.
Regardless, you’ll find that when you pit the Macbooks up against comparable PCs, MacBook pricing is right in the mix where it should be.
Apple Versus Self-Built PCs
In this look at Apple pricing, I am comparing Apple products to equivalent retail systems. Apple is, of course, retail so we are dealing with pre-built systems here. Now, when you compare this to building your own computer, we’re talking apples and oranges.
You can build a nicely equipped PC for less than your typical Mac, but it is hard to compare the two because Apple has no mid-range tower. You could compare the typical PC tower to the Imac (Apple’s mid-range system), but the Imac is all-in-one and that really changes the way it is perceived.
But, let’s make two comparisons here. I’m going to look at the Imac and the Mac Pro and we’re going to spec out a comparable PC build using parts from Newegg. First, the IMAC:
| Hardware in IMAC | Price for Part from Newegg |
| 2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo | $203 |
| Motherboard (unknown) | ~$100 |
| 250 GB SATA 7200 RPM | $65 |
| 1 GB 667 MHz DDR2 memory | $20 |
| 8 X Superdrive | $30 |
| Ethernet | included on board |
| Wireless | $60 |
| Bluetooth | —- (unless you want USB adapter) |
| 20 inch monitor | $250 |
| Sound Card | $25 |
| Video Card | $20 |
| Firewire | $7 |
| Operating System | $120 (Win XP Media Center) |
| Mouse & Keyboard | $30 |
| Case (included on Imac) | ~$70 (depending on your taste) |
| TOTAL: $1199. | TOTAL: $1000 |
Some of these prices are ballpark. There are obviously a lot of options when you build your own PC, options that you don’t have when you buy the Imac. But, trying to spec it out as close as possible, we see that building an equivalent PC comes in cheaper. However, when you consider the all-in-one package and the fact that it is OS X, AND the fact that you don’t have to take the time to go get all the parts separately and build it, the price difference is small.
Now, if we look at the Mac Pro, let’s do the same thing.
| Hardware in Mac Pro | Price for Part from Newegg |
| 2 X 2.8 GHz quad core Xeon 5400 series | $1,440 |
| Motherboard (unknown) | ~$619 |
| 320 GB SATA 7200 RPM | $100 |
| 2 GB 800 MHz DDR2 memory | $40 (but not ECC) |
| 16 X Superdrive | $30 |
| Ethernet | included on board |
| Wireless | $60 |
| Bluetooth | —- (unless you want USB adapter) |
| Sound Card | included on board |
| Video Card | $50 |
| Firewire | included onboard |
| Operating System | $120 (Win XP Media Center) |
| Mouse & Keyboard | $30 |
| Case | $175 (for a good one) |
| TOTAL: $2,799 | TOTAL: $2,664 |
Again, some of these prices are ballpark, but I tried to make them average prices for a system in line with the Mac Pro. Again, the self-built model comes in a little cheaper, but the difference isn’t that much. You could cut costs by going with a crap case, but the Mac Pro enclosure is top notch and it would not be an even comparison otherwise. Also, the Mac Pro comes with fully buffered, ECC memory which increases stability.
So, when it comes to building a PC with roughly the same specs as a Mac, yes, you will come in a bit cheaper. But, is it enough to make a difference? Especially when you consider, again, that you’ll be running Windows rather than OS X (32-bit versus 64-bit). Also, as a guy who uses computers to work, I place a value on my time. When I consider that I would have to build the machine myself, consolidate all the parts myself, and at the end have no real warranty for the machine, it is a no-brainer: Apple wins.
The Final Verdict
NO
Macs are not overpriced. Pound for pound, if you compare a similarly equipped PC with a Mac, the Mac pricing comes in very competitively.
This debate will, though, rage forever. It is barely even a valid comparison considering the wide range of options available for PCs. Macs come with what they come with - case closed. PCs are very configurable. So, yes, you have a LOT more cheaper options available to you by sticking with PCs. But, this article goes to show that Macs are not overpriced when you look at what you’re actually getting.
One thing I think Apple really needs to do is release a mid-range tower. Something equivalent to the Imac but without the built-in screen. This would make Mac much more accessible to most, and provide a clearer part-by-part comparison with the majority of PCs on the market today.
And I couldn’t end this off without talking about what makes the Mac the Mac. OS X and design. The fact that you can run OS X rather than Windows is enticing to some. Now, I’m not going to get into the OS X versus Windows debate in this article, however simply comparing running Win XP 32-bit to a true blue 64-bit operating system (OS X) would come out with OS X the winner. 64-bit is more stable.
As for design, Apple does put a lot of thought into the design of their machines. You do pay for that design, but as this article shows, not much more (and in some cases less). The Mac Pro case, for instance, is a lesson in elegance.
This article was written by a guy who used to think Macs were overpriced. But, when you really start looking at it, they’re just not.
Subscribe To the PCMech Feed for more interesting posts and exclusive feed-only freebies. Our weekly newsletter will keep you up to date each week.
Rich Menga, a native New Englander residing in Tampa Bay Florida, 
4/24/2008 2:59 pm
Excellent analysis. The default software and hardware bundle always makes Mac a winner.
[Reply]
4/24/2008 3:21 pm
Another idea to consider is that outside of the working world, a Mac does become a little more expensive. They don’t typically include a gaming card in them, and are priced (if you come strictly from the PC viewpoint) as though they do. When you talk gaming, OS aside, dollar for dollar, a PC will end up serving the need better without the price tag.
It all hinges on application. If a Mac does what you need it to do and more, then the money becomes well spent. Swing the other way, however…
Good write up. Glad to see some more light shed on this topic.
[Reply]
4/24/2008 9:54 pm
Here is something that I have run across before Macs are overpriced. Don’t use dell when comparing the prices dell marks their system up like 6 to 1. Anyways what I was trying to say is that if you look at the price of an 8 year old Mac (ibook) in perfect condition it will run you around $400. This is for the reason that people say their overpriced only because they hold their value. That’s a hard price to pay for something that is outdated.
[Reply]
David Risley reply on April 24, 2008 10:19 pm:
Then don’t buy it. We’re looking at new machines here. Trying to use what somebody is willing to pay for a used Mac is hardly fuel to the debate about Mac pricing in general.
[Reply]
4/25/2008 4:07 am
Do not forget that you are talking about the US. For example in Europe the Dell Precision M4300 is at 1051 €(878 without taxes), but the first Mac Book Pro is priced 1800 € (1500 without taxes) .
So yes, if you are European, Mac ARE overpriced.
[Reply]
4/25/2008 4:45 am
I call shenanigans on this article, for one you compare it to Dell for the most part, which in my opinion are a bit pricey compared to other pre-built systems. Also with the Mac Book Pro, there are plenty of very good and equivalently specced motherboards that are under or around $225 dollars. You picked a Motherboard that’s over $600 dollars, which is more than any sane person would spend on a motherboard. Also considering some people like myself use Linux which is free,
I would say Yes when it comes to High end Computing the Macs are more expensive..
[Reply]
Trashy reply on April 25, 2008 4:46 am:
I meant Mac Pro, not Mac Book pro…
[Reply]
David Risley reply on April 25, 2008 7:05 am:
Trashy, you’re going to play hell finding a motherboard for ~$200 which supports TWO quad core Xeons on the same board.
[Reply]
Norn reply on April 25, 2008 10:20 am:
619$ for a motherboard. The only one that matches that price is The skulltrail. The board you picked as the motherboard is a nich, extreme gamer/ overclocker motherboard. It functions as a decent workstation board but it is way too overpriced for that. Reason: It supports both crossfire AND SLI thanks the the added nvidia PCIe controller, which the Macpro board doesn’t have. The Mac pro board only has a single 16x Pcie 2.0 slot where as the skulltrail has plenty for tri and quad SLI. There are plenty of workstation/server boards that uses the 5400 series chipset in the 320-480$ range that supports dual 45nm quadcore Xeons and matches the mac pro charactristics. So I’d say 350$ is much more appropriate for the motherboard price.
[Reply]
4/25/2008 6:21 am
I’m curious to how you put value into 64-bit, find two practical uses for consumers, and I’ll by it. I’m also wondering how you quantitized appearance, but that’s your issue.
[Reply]
David Risley reply on April 25, 2008 7:12 am:
Benefits to 64-bit versus 32-bit:
(1) Supports more memory.
(2) Much better stability when it comes to working with videos (such as when video editing).
(3) Better stability with multi-tasking.
[Reply]
4/25/2008 6:53 am
Mac are not overpriced vs a similar PC but mac doesn”t offer entry level solution. Pc is more flexible to a budget.
[Reply]
David Risley reply on April 25, 2008 7:12 am:
Definitely. I agree with you, Jeremie.
[Reply]
4/25/2008 6:59 am
$203 for a 2 ghz core2 ??? $20 for 1 gb ddr2 667??? Are you joking???
Newegg quad core 2.4 ghz currently $199;
2 gb ddr2 800 currently $39
Is Mac overpriced? Hell Yeah!!
[Reply]
David Risley reply on April 25, 2008 7:17 am:
Yee, you have to follow the analysis. I tried like hell to find equivalent parts to what is in the Mac. Sometimes that is hard to do given the variety of options for PC, but when you actually run the numbers, Mac doesn’t come in too high at all.
The hardware you list would put make the system not equal to the Imac. Realize that it would be touch to put a quad core into an Imac. Too hot.
[Reply]
Norn reply on April 25, 2008 10:40 am:
Then put in a E8400 wolfdale running at 3.0 ghz. It’ll fit in the imac’s thermal envelope TDP:65watts. It’s 200$ and much faster to boot.
Also where are you getting 203$ for a core 2? The only 2.0ghz core2’s I find are merom chips which are Low volt processors that are much more expensive with a TDP in the 30watt range. I think the Imac uses either conroe or allendale core2’s which are much cheaper ($110) for a core2 2.11ghz. since the Imac also supports core2 extreme running at 2.8ghz I think the Imac can use more higher TDP processors. Why are the merom chips more expensive? that’s because they are for laptop computers. The Imac can easily dissipate 70+ watts of thermal energy, and when idle even quad cores don’t produce that much heat.
[Reply]
Norn reply on April 25, 2008 10:46 am:
oops make that 184 not 110
4/25/2008 10:07 am
David, I’m sorry but i very much disagree with your analysis. You should not be looking at “equivalent parts” but be looking at “equivalent performance”. This is the crux. A PC can be made for a lot cheaper with more performance than a Mac. That is a fact. Don’t use 2 x quad core motherboards, inflated processor prices and Dell (also overpriced) costings to tell us that you love Macs. Why not just write an article about why Macs are good in your opinion? Rather than going on and on about why you think you’re so smart at fudging the numbers?
[Reply]
4/25/2008 11:02 am
250$ for a 20″ monitor?!?! you have got to be kidding me. A decent 8-bit screen costs less than 200$, where as a 6-bit screen is much much cheaper which newegg doesn’t even sell. Yes, 20″ Imac displays are 6-bit TN LCD panels which is why you get horrible viewing angles and you only get 262,144 colors instead of 16.7 million… which is very different from what’s advertised.
haven’t you been keeping up on the news? There are tons of articles on this, and apple previously settled with other plaintiffs about the same issue on the imac and mac book pro’s.
here is a link to an article.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/01/1710221
[Reply]
Norn reply on April 25, 2008 11:05 am:
The only 250$ 20″ screen is by NEC which is a TOP of the line screen for everyday use. that is no way an equivalent to the crap screen the Imac uses.
[Reply]
4/25/2008 11:11 am
eh sorry but that comparison is pure BS.
the HD costs 70$ not 100$.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136098
the MB (if you search in the server category, mind you) is less than half the price you quote.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813151163
wireless card 40$
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833124115
3 items and I just shave 350+$ of your price.
[Reply]
4/25/2008 11:44 am
In term of hardware if you want to buy something do not buy a mac, you’re wasting money.
But it seems that the autor of this article assume that Mac Os > Windows.
So, no real objectivity… more like a troll article.
[Reply]
4/25/2008 12:30 pm
lol @ this ‘analysis.’ Let’s compare mac prices with the most expensive component prices on Newegg. And you end up with a ‘well, yeah, you can spend as much as you would on a mac if you buy nothing but expensive components for your pc [overpriced processors, overpriced memory, overpriced {BY FAR} motherboards, overpriced CPUs, etc]. No duh!
PCs = more flexibility, and not tied into the ‘buy everything at once’ mode, which means that when 2 months from now the price of a 2.6 ghz is at the same prices as a current 2.4 ghz processor, I can get it instead of being tied down to the packaged mac’s.
Sigh. Use more legitimate comparisons next time, please.
[Reply]
4/25/2008 1:45 pm
The prices he listed for the components off of newegg are incorrect… a 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo is not $200. The e6550 which has a higher clock speed (2.33), and has a faster fsb, costs $155.
Macs are way overpriced… and comparing them to other companies like DELL isn’t really judging Apple’s pricing. Yes, DELL is overpriced too… The fact of the matter is that Apple rips off people with high hardware prices, regardless of whether or not DELL does it too (although not quite as severe).
For $1000 I would expect more than a gig of ram, a 2.0 GHz Conroe, and an hd2400xt…
[Reply]
4/25/2008 3:33 pm
Really think this comparison is ridiculous.
Firstly its only for the US, Europe is utterly different, Macs are much more overpriced here.
Secondly a comparison with Dell is silly, only corporations would buy from Dell, surely?
Home buyers will choose the parts they want from the likes of aria, ccl, dabs, etc and then either build themselves or pay a £40 build fee.
Thirdly making up an exact comparison system is silly as no-one buying a PC would chose that particular, insanely unbalanced, permutation of components. A big advantage of a PC over a Mac is that you can choose _precisely_ the set of components that is suitable for your needs. Why on earth would you pay $600 for a motherboard and couple it with a feeble $50 graphics card??? And only a 320G drive??? That makes no sense at all.
[Reply]
4/25/2008 4:53 pm
Guys, seriously, this is why this debate will go on forever. I can compare retail to retail all day long, but OF COURSE, when you look at the self-built models, you have TONS of options available to you that the Mac doesn’t have. That is a given.
I wasn’t trying to pick parts that made sense, I was trying to pick parts that were as close to what I think is in the Mac as possible. We’re talking tower versus an all-in-one, apples and oranges.
As for European buyers…I’m in the US, so I’m using US pricing. Deal with it.
[Reply]
Norn reply on April 25, 2008 6:14 pm:
But you aren’t picking components that are “close”. That’s the problem. You are picking a different part that you “think” is the same or similar but aren’t. In fact some of the components aren’t even close to whats on a mac pro or imac.
If you want to make an unbiased analysis you NEED to find out what the model number of each of the components are on the Mac computers. Fact of the matter is, since they stopped making the IBM based PowerPC processors, macs practically use the same components as the rest of the PC market does. Thus the only differences in hardware would be the case, and the motherboard which is modded to fit in the case. Even the macpro motherboard is just a slightly modded server board not a fancy skulltrail.
Problem is that you don’t have the required knowledge about apple hardware AND hardware in general to make an unbiased analysis. You don’t know what the exact model number is on each hardware on a mac, or even the details of each hardware. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that you can’t tell apart a 300$ server board from a $600+ gaming board, and you can’t tell a mobile processor from a desktop processor apart.
So, I’ll say it again… YOU don’t have the required knowledge to write an article like this.
[Reply]
4/25/2008 7:20 pm
Firstly, the lack of midrange models does, in many cases, make for an “over-priced” machine. After all, if I need a yugo, but have to buy a rolls, then I’ve paid too much.
I just went to HP’s site. I specced out their high end computers - not the workstations. The total was $2,135, and everything was far higher specced, except for the single processor. So, it’s no so straightforward.
[Reply]
4/27/2008 6:36 am
actually, u forgot system 76’s “Koala Mini” it uses 64-bit ubuntu too. It’s processor is only 1.5 Ghz. But everything else beats the Mac Mini. It’s pricing is much more competitive than the examples in the article. Ubuntu is also much more comparable to the OS X IMO.
http://system76.com/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=83
As for notebooks, the examples provided just don’t cut it for me. Companies like asus, lenovo(which has the x300 which is said to beat the macbook air), and perhaps acer have much more competitive prices.
When compared to self-made computers, I think the mac loses either way. Just a note: 64-bit Linux is free… Although not everyone wants to use linux.
[Reply]
4/27/2008 8:54 am
Agree with the detractors here. Having pricier components doesn’t necessarily mean better performance. Also, you need to look a little bit harder if you plan to do a decent comparison and not one that is so clearly skewed in favor of Apple. Why dont you look at Acer or Asus as an alternative to Dell/HP/Gateway? You do know that this is no longer 1995 right? As for your Core 2 Duo price, its ludicrous. The Core 2 Duo E6420 2.13GHz/1066 is $175 @ MWave right now.
Apple has made brand name mark-ups the name of the game in recent years. Think about the asinine ‘I’m a PC, I’m a Mac’ commercials. I have a custom built $1900 gaming PC that I can guarantee has higher quality components than any equivalently priced Mac (including 4GB of 1066 Mhz DDR3 RAM to the paltry 2GB you get with a Mac Pro). PCs are about choice. I think its hilarious that Apple who broke into the market with their famous ‘Think Different’ commercial deriding the masses of IBM following clones is now building its own army of unthinking, happily bleating sheep who will follow Jobs anywhere he leads them with his pan pipes (even if its over a precipice). The only difference is that the iSheep all wear black turtle necks and dont mind that they get mid-range components for high-end prices as long as they have a shiny Apple logo on them.
[Reply]
4/27/2008 1:09 pm
I think David did his homework and did a fair analysis. One could always pick out details that are off a bit. I do see one change in the future though. PCMech becomes…..MACMech!!
[Reply]
4/27/2008 10:42 pm
The definition of worth is what someone is willing to pay for something. Some are willing to pay for a Mac so for them, it is worth the price. For others, Macs are not worth the price. Worth, really depends on who you are.
Given Mac has somewhere around four to five percent of the personal computer market, for most people, Macs are not worth it.
[Reply]
5/1/2008 8:22 pm
Actually, Macs are 6-7% of the market globally, and have been gaining slightly less than a percentage point per year for the last 3 years. These figures are of course against overall increases in the total population of computer users to which end Apple has been out-pacing against an overall positive stream for all computer manufacturers.
Given the relative mono-culture of business environments due to windows over-saturation, Apple has done and continues to do rather well especially in these shaky economic times.
Nevertheless, I think it is important to ask ourselves what exactly have we benefitted from window’s dominance? If I were a PC user, I would much prefer more competition in the marketplace - the benefits should be obvious.
[Reply]