Macbook Pro premium price

I have been kicking around the idea of getting a Macbook Pro 15. I like Apple products (have an Iphone), the service is usually excellent, quality good. I noticed though that Apple notebooks carry a pretty healthy premium when compared to PCs. A MBP 15 when compared to an comparable IBM thinkpad is around 30% more expensive. Is it worth that? Is there something in the comparison I am missing?

 

Whether it's 'worth it' or not is subjective.

You could start off by describing what your needs are, financial situation, etc. With more information we could give a better description of whether a Macbook Pro is for you. On another hand, some positives that aren't found on all/most/some PC's are:

-Much better battery life (especially in OS X)
-OS X
-Outstanding build quality (both for productivity and aesthetics)
-Retains it's value better than most other PC's
-Good customer service
-Excellent track-pad

I'm quite sure there's more, but none come to mind now. Keep in mind that I am well aware of the fact that excellent battery life, quality customer service, and good build quality isn't solely found on the Macbook Pro, I'm just stating what's there that might/mostly wouldn't be found on PC's.

 

I'd like to see links to the MBP and Thinkpad you are comparing.

 

It is a good point about the battery life. I have a 3+ year old T 60 which can't do 2 hours with a new battery.

Subzero I am comparing the MBP 15 to the Thinkpad 510. It depends on the build, the start for that can be found at Lenovo - Laptop computers - ThinkPad T Series

 

Eh I think you need to post what you are doing with your laptop. First of all a Thinkpad is a business class laptop. If you are working in the IT department of some company, a Windows native machine might be better. Plus even though the macbook pro looks better, a think pad looks more "professional (at least to me). However that all depends on what kind of company you work for, by that I just meant that it is impossible to rub someone the wrong way with a thinkpad, but some people might think an apple computer is more for play then work and not "professional". Obviously some of those people are wrong, but its just the truth.

As far as stats go, I think the Quadro graphics card should be the same as the 330m gt, but if you get a worse one it won't be. But Quaddro is meant for professional graphics use, so obviously if you do that, then it would be better etc.

The other question is can you afford it and do you need it. From what I know a mac will perform better in a lot of "every day tasks". But say if you only use your computer 1-3 hours a week, but have some other hobby ~ say you play console games for 3 hours a day. If you could use the grand extra you spend on the MBP on a big flat screen TV or a nice surround set up you would probably be better off.

However for the thinkpad you are looking at you are really paying the same price if you get the same machine, so I don't even see a premium. It just depends on what you want.

 

As a Mac owner of many years, I have to say the only positive to owning a Mac is the battery life.

However, most PC manufacturers offer extended capacity batteries that equal or beat Apple's. I was getting 7 hours of my HP notebook for a long time before Apple introduced their 7 then 10 hour batteries.

Everything else is subjective.

Some people think OS X is better. I don't. You still need Windows for a lot of things. Want to watch HD movies or play blu-ray discs? You need Windows. Want to play a game? You need Windows. Want real MS Office compatibility? You need Windows. Want to watch high definition flash video? You need Windows. I could go on all day. The fact of the matter is that, unless you're willing to give up A LOT or you have never used Windows before, you have to dual boot a Mac. Virtual machines don't cut it. You will have install Windows unless you're willing to seriously compromise.

Some people think the build quality is better. That is certainly not the case. I've had a plastic HP notebook that has been through all sorts of things out live 2 plastic MacBooks that never left the desk. What happened to them? Notoriously bad build quality. Issues with cracking and yellowing from heat. The aluminum Macs have issues with denting and scratching that PC notebooks just don't have. Going back to the heat issue, Apple's cooling systems are the worst designed of all. Sure its quiet, but these things get HOT. I might hear my HP's fan all the time when it's plugged in, but it also runs anywhere from 10-40F cooler than my MacBook. In fact, under full load, my HP's temps will hover around 130F on the CPU, while the MacBook gets up to 180F.

Customer service with Apple is hit and miss. If you live near an Apple Store it can be good. If you're willing to put up with an Apple Store. If you're like most people and you don't, you have to mail your system in. And I can tell you from experience that their mail-in service is terrible. Your system can and will come back in worse shape than it went out in. I've had 2 systems replaced for that reason alone and a trip to an Apple Store to fix the mess the mail in center caused. No parts on a Mac are user serviceable. So let's say your DVD writer dies. And it will, thanks to the heat build up. You either have to mail it in or take it to an Apple Store and they'll mail it in for you. With the vast majority of PC notebooks, the company will send you a new DVD writer that requires you to just pop the battery out and loosen a screw to replace. You can swap the drive yourself even if you've never worked on PCs in less than a minute.

Honestly, the only reason to own a Mac is if you want to create iOS apps. If you're not going to then you don't need to own one. There are significantly more powerful PCs out there for less money. Much less. In terms of overall hardware power, the $2,000 MacBook Pro is overpriced by more than $1,000. There are true quad core Core i7 notebooks out there with more powerful GPUs for under $1,000. None of this dual core crap that Apple sticks with. And, again, speaking from experience, batteries charge significantly faster on PC notebooks. So even if you get one that "only" lasts for 4 or so hours, it'll be done charging within an hour and a half. Use it for a little bit, plug in for a a few minutes and you're good to go. Apple's batteries take forever to charge. I have the 2008 unibody MacBook that "only" lasts 5 hours, and it takes about 3 and a half hours to fully charge. If I run it down to 50% it still takes 2 hours. If I run my HP's 3.5 hour battery down to 50% it takes about 45 minutes to charge. If I run the double capacity battery for my HP down to 50% it takes about an hour and 15 minutes to charge back up fully.

And as far as every day use goes, Windows is just all around better. The window switching system is better because it doesn't require you to use multiple keyboard shortcuts to get to the window you desire. The little transparency effects that allow you to see whats going on in the windows you're looking for help a lot more than Expose in OS X. And certain things just run better. Thanks to Windows doing everything in hardware, like video acceleration and now Flash, modern websites run a lot smoother. Apple doesn't seem to care to optimize software in OS X. Their solution is to just toss more CPU cycles at the problem until it runs.

And it's pretty obvious that the Mac is taking a third back seat to the iPhone and iOS devices anyway. They don't care about the problems Snow Leopard has, which is why many people refer to it as Apple's "Windows ME". To them, the Mac has become nothing more than their personal ATM machine and they'll only do whats necessary to keep those profits up. And the fact that Apple sells a dual core Core i7 system with a 15" display, no blu-ray, and a mediocre GPU for $2,200 shows the contempt they have for their customers. They don't care about giving you the best value for your money. They care only about getting as much money out of you as possible.

 

SauronMOS, there's no way for me to improve on that. You hit it head on.

 

@SauronMOS- Do you use a Mac or PC then? If Mac, why? Surely after that you can't justify the extra £££ for battery life.... must be more significant reasons?... I know there are for me and a lot of others that use OS X and its associated apps.

 

Taking into past accounts, I don't think he has the current generation MBP's. Just an owner of previous Mac laptops.

 

That's exactly the type of comments that start arguments and get threads closed. Why is that you ask? Because it is filled with lies and bias with a couple of half truths to make it sound credible.

 

Users who had particularly bad experiences are going to be like that.

But as far as these things go, it really is subjective. It differs according to the needs of a user.

 

Yes some things are subjective but most of the comment was not about subjective things. Saying that you need Windows to watch something in high definition is an outright lie. Saying the only reason to buy a Mac is to develop iOS apps may be an opinion but far from fact. Saying you can plug in a PC battery for "a few minutes" and be good to go is a huge stretch. Saying that you need to use a bunch of keyboard shortcuts to change windows in OS X shows just how little he really knows about the system he is bashing. Saying Apple doesn't care to optimize their operating system also shows a lot of ignorance. The topper was the last paragraph.

Give me a break.

 

Indeed Jervis, there are a number of distortions because it is apparently based off old experience.

For instance, current Macbooks take under 2.5 hours to charge to full from depleted. Considering the capacity of the battery, that's pretty fast.

Proof?



Moreover, even though few PCs can match the Mac's incredible battery life, they do so at the expense of weight and either an underside slice or bulging battery pack. Mac does it all as a self contained unit. It's impressive, I have to admit.

They can't play Bluray? Nope, they can't. Don't understand why not. But then again, and this is by no means a defense of Apple, why would anyone watch an HD movie on anything less than 32" and in 7.1 surround on a couch? But if you must, there's bootcamp, Win7, an External BD ROM, and utilities available depending on where you live that can make it happen.

Anyway the overpriced argument is tiring. There's lots in the computing world that one can complain about being "overpriced." It's all relative.

 

Something tells me that since you bring it up there won't be an argument.

And the reason Apple does not implement things such as Blu-ray or USB 3.0 is because they back their own formats and choose not to support them. Whether or not that's something we want is a different story. I definitely want USB 3.0, sucks they don't implement it.

 

They'll implement USB 3.0 probably sometime next year. It's inevitable, considering.

As for Blu-ray, well, *shrug*. We're going digital and streaming everything. I wish Apple would drop the internal optical drive altogether, making an external standard/optional. Thinner and even lighter.

Speaking of which, They need to up the run-time of the Air. They probably will if they keep it in the line up. 4hrs+ is pretty good. 6hrs + would be even better and I might consider it then.

 

Actually, Apple is on the Blu-ray Disk Association's board of directors. I think they don't add them because it would only add to the cost of the system while it is debatable that people would actually use them(plus they compete with iTunes). I use the DVD drive to install programs but I don't watch DVDs on the system so I wouldn't use Blu-ray. You can always rent or purchase movies in HD with iTunes and play them on the Mac, Apple TV, iPod Touch, iPhone or hook your Mac up to a HDTV.

 

You can take this with a grain of salt as I don't have any reference.

But I've seen plenty of times people state that Apple doesn't include Blu-ray because they believe it is redundant, and that streaming is the future. In which case I back what 2.0 says when they might as well remove the super-drive. I sure as hell never use it.

 

the "Premiium Price" = trackpad, OS X, battery life, aesthetics

It's up to you if it's worth it.

 

Apple has claimed that Blu-ray hasn't gained enough traction for them to support it yet. USB 3.0 may come next year, or it could come in the form of LightPeak in a few years. Only time will tell for either of those things. Neither are crucial right now.

My parents have a Blu-ray drive in their laptop, yet they haven't used it a single time. It's just not very important to the Mac userbase. Hell, I don't even have an optical drive in my MBP anymore.

Yeah, that's pretty much what they have said so far. They think that DD is the future, but if that changes, they will go Blu-ray.

 

I disagree...I just rented a blu ray movie from red box for $1.50

I checked on the Itunes store. It was like $5+...Red box was a 4 minute drive from my house.

 

+1

I've owned 3 Macbooks in my life so far, the white plastic one from couple years ago (that I returned to Apple store and ate a 15% restocking fee, first time I willingly paid a restocking fee in my life), the last year's 13" MBP, and now the current 13" MBP. Yes the plastic Macbook's build quality was pretty bad, but all the unibody MBP's are far beyond any PC laptops I've owned, including Dell Latitudes and XPS and HP Envy. I've never been so impressed by a laptop's build quality like the unibody MBPs do. My wife has a ThinkPad T400 from work. I think it was nearly $2k which frankly I can't see why - it's all plastic (albeit pretty solid for plastic) so it feels pretty cheap, the keyboard and screen hinge is squeaky. More professional looking? If you call stodgy professional looking then I'm not going argue with that..

The current 13" MBP charges the battery incredibly fast, faster than even the XPS13 I had with the 90W adapter. You know which laptop charges miserably slow even with its enormous 135W charger? The HP Envy 15. And the battery life on the 13" MBP is truly impressive - >9hrs of surfing easily.

I prefer Windows myself. Certain things I'm used to doing I can't stand in OS X, but there are many little things that are very cleverly designed compared to Windows. I am slowly adapting to OS X and I find it very enjoyable. No I don't think I'll switch over to OS X completely, but when I need to consider adding another computer OS X will be on the list of choices depending on the role of that computer to be added.

 

Christ, teach me your secret. I've barely been able to achieve six and a half hours of surfing...

Just because I said Apple believes Blu-ray is redundant doesn't mean I support the belief. That post would be put to better use in Steve Jobs' inbox.

Love Red Box though.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post... don't know what had gotten into me.

 

Perhaps the SSD I've done nothing, the OS is all stock. BT is off, screen and keyboard backlighting are on auto brightness. One complaint I do have is that the keyboard lighting is almost always on even in a brightly lit room, like right now.

 

SSD's are magical but not 50% battery life magical e.e.

You can just manually turn off the k-lighting.

 

Things Apple say are all self-serving. Another words a lot of BS.

 

Yes I know hence the

Yes I know but I shouldn't have to. My Sony Z's light sensor works perfectly, only turning on the backlighting when necessary.

 

The premium price also means you'll enjoy a display that is significantly better than the vast majority of PCs. Take a wall through any large pc retailer and compare the screens to any Mac (even the lowest Macbook). Superior black levels, contrast, colour depth, etc.

I mean, it's what you're staring at the whole time you use a laptop. Makes sense to use high quality (expensive) panels.

 

Not really, large PC retailers usually only offer low end consumer PCs, where margins on those PCs are so low they'll give you cheapest screen they can find.

High end laptops like Thinkpads, Elitebooks, or Precisions offer displays as good or better than those found in the Macbooks Pros. However they often cost just as much as the Macs, but will offer quad cores, 8GBs of RAM, blueray readers and writers.

The Lenovo Thinkpad w701s has a slide out secondary display and build in digitizer for example, but none of these high end laptops can match the battery life or thinness of the Macbook.

People think Macbooks are "overpriced" because they only offer what $1000 consumer PCs offer, but at the price of the premium business models. The difference is the Macbook offers all of that in a 1inch thick package and 8 hours of battery life. The macbook line is also so simple a consumers don't have to choose between thousands of different types of PCs, they just buy a Mac, and more often or not are very Happy with them.

The HP Envy line is the closest to offering what the Macbook has, but you still take a hit on battery life. The macbook can' really be considered overpriced until a PC manufacturer can offer close to the exact same thing for much less.

 

All of Apple's laptop offerings I would consider in the high-end market. Apple does not create products for the low-end market because they spend way too much money on research and development to create a integrated design with near top of the line features (minus gaming applications, etc). In order for them to offer this same type of product to the lower end market, the volume of sales would have to be substantial - I don't think that is in Apple's business model at all.
Mac's are not super-expensive when you compare them to the market that they are competing in - namely, the high-end. True, spec for spec, component for component, you can get a laptop for less than a Mac, but that high-end market includes gaming laptops, etc. The mac is a unique laptop - and I think that Apple does not really care about receiving business from the lower-end market...

 

Hmmmm. Direct comparison here. I just ordered a new Sager NP5125 today with almost identical specs to the 15" Macbook Pro, the only differences being the screen I'm getting is a full 1080p LED panel and my GPU has 1 gig of dedicated GDDR3 but is still the 330M. The Sager came to $1022 and the Macbook $2207 before taxes. That's more than DOUBLE the price! My order also includes a 62.16Wh 6-cell battery due to ship in September which should offer amazing battery life with the Optimus switching within the system.

I guess I won't have a backlit keyboard but I don't know if that's worth almost $1200.

EDIT: Apparently Apple's profit margins on their computers is ludicrous, as well. I recall something like 30% and upwards.

 

Yes, when you put it that way, it's hard to see the justification on getting a mbp - $1200 is a crapton of money, I admit, when you can have the same specs for half the total price.

There is no other laptop out there that has the feel of the mbp though, the laptop is solid (aluminum, etc) has the best trackpad I've used, and has such a solid and stable operating system and integrated overall experience that it's hard to explain. It's really fun to use!

Yes speaking of profits margins, lol Apple is ridiculous. Remember when a couple hundred bucks was a lot of $$$ for a cell phone? Now Apple has us thinking that's the norm, spending anywhere from $200-$500 on an iphone. Geez.

Hope you like your new Sager.

 

Nice try but that is not a direct comparison.

Sager:

Size & Weight
5.73 LBs with Battery Pack
14.72" (w) x 9.8" (d) x .98"-1.46" (h)

MBP:

Size and weight

Height: 0.95 inch (2.41 cm)
Width: 14.35 inches (36.4 cm)
Depth: 9.82 inches (24.9 cm)
Weight: 5.6 pounds (2.54 kg)

Do we really need to keep rehashing the same old arguments.

PC person: Argument is price, specs, MS Office and gaming (for the most part)

Mac person: Argument is value, user experience, built quality, iLife, service and dimensions (for the most part)

 

Hahahaha great point! I didn't even think of the iphone! I'm sure you can find 'em for much more than that as well.

 

I think anyone paying a $1200 premium for that must be mentally ill. Also, does build quality include cooling? User experience is also subjective ... I really dislike OSX. I know it's to each their own but ... I just can't understand it.

 

Not for nothing, but you got one of Sager's budget systems. Their gaming systems can run $3000+. Quite noisy with almost no battery life to speak of.

For $3000, you can get a significantly more powerful desktop with premium components and an upgrade path.

I say that to say this, "so what?"

See what I mean?

Should we say that those who buy Sager/Clevo premium gaming systems over a desktop are "mentally ill?"

 

Macs cool well when you use SMCfancontrol. My laptop is running at 38 degrees Celsius right now.

Mentally ill? I find it ridiculous that people deal with the build quality that most laptops have. Why pay any amount of money for a piece of crap that will start creaking after a week?

 

Actually, kinda .. yeah! You could build 2-3 serious gaming rigs for $3000. I was thinking about this the other day and trying to think of scenarios in which I'd need something like that. I figured I'd just spend $800-1000 on a desktop and then sell the thing if/when I moved. Anyways, that's a conversation not meant for this thread.

 

So then you see it's all relative. Why disparage another's preferences?

Anyway, I'm closing this thread because... well... what's the point? If someone can afford it and they like it, they'll buy it. If they can't afford it, they'll find an alternative that's within their budget.

There's no such thing as "overpriced" if there's a market willing to pay the price. Economics 101. Elasticity of demand and all that stuff...

{Yet another thread closed}