can someone direct me to a web link where there is a quality comparison and not a price comparison. i know money can be a factor when you are shopping, but for me, quality is much more ideal. thanks to anyone who can help….

[...] The Mac Night Owl ? Mac and PC Price Comparisons Revisited: Eight …Mac and PC Price Comparisons Revisited: Eight Cylinder Versus Four Cylinder. August 30th, 2007. You know it makes an awful lot of sense. … [...]

[...] The Mac Night Owl ? Mac and PC Price Comparisons Revisited: Eight …Pocket PC & Windows CE Website for Handheld PCs, Palm-size PCs Pocket PCs. … Telnet, Infrared, Wireless, Printing and comparisons, screen shots, and pictures. [...]

That shows my main argument, that these comparisons are being done backwards. We shouldn’t add the cost of unneeded features to low-cost machine, but rather ignore their presence on the high-price machine. If you need Firewire, by all means figure its price into your cheap Dell. If you don’t need it, ignore its presence on the Mac Mini.

While one can upgrade a Dell to compare with a Mini and its features, there is no way to upgrade the Mini to compete with the Dell. The Dell comes with a larger, faster hard drive and it has PCI slots. The Mini can only use laptop drives internally, and it’s a slotless wonder.

The Mini is far too limited for me to consider, and the Mac towers are too darned expensive. How about a new Mac that’s somewhere in the middle? Naw, that’s too sensible.

Apple seems pretty profitable to me … they must be doing something right.

“I would imagine that Apple would spend about as much maintaining different assembly lines and warehousing different configurations to have models with and without Bluetooth, Ethernet, Airport, and such as it costs to include them. So I don’t see Apple or the customers benefiting from those choices financially.” Steve’s observation is interesting. Not being a production engineer, I have no idea if it’s true. Presumably he’s right to point out that adding/subtracting options entails certain expenses, and you can save that money (hopefully passing on the savings to the consumer) by putting the same features in every unit you make. But I still like Gene’s point that although the amount you can shave off the unit price by eliminating these kinds of thing seems like a trifle to the individual consumer, when you apply some huge multiplier (as a purchaser for a large corporation or school district would do) they aren’t trifling at all, and might very well be decisive for his final decision. One the other hand, when you consider the “digital lifestyle” binge that Apple is currently on, with its stress on marketing to individual users, one wonders how much they keep in mind the perspective and needs of that kind of large organizational purchaser. It would be a huge mistake to lose sight of him, a mistake Dell certainly doesn’t make.

Andrew, this is not a “shopping” exercise. This is a price comparison. To make the most accurate comparison, you have to have the most similar products. It is not a matter of, “Do I need 6 or 8 cylinders?” It is, “Which of these 6-cylinder trucks costs more when they have the same features?”

I think you and Gene are simply looking at this from two perspectives, and both of you are right in the contexts that you are speaking from, but they are still different arguments.

Gene,

Clearly we still disagree on this one (with a fellow Virgo no less, imagine that). Looking to your 4 or 6 cylinder example, the differences are dramatic on the two models you mentioned. It isn’t always so, such as with the AMD and Intel processors.

I bought a new pickup truck some months ago and had the choice between a V6 and a pair of V8s. The price differential was about the same at each step, from the 6 to the small 8 and from the small 8 to the large one. What was not similar, however, was the performance difference. The V6 was only about 20 horsepower shy of the small V8, and also very close in torque. Performance on the road is similar, with the six actually a bit better off the line (more low-end torque) and the 8 better for passing (more high-RPM power). Fuel economy is within 1 MPG. In all, no significant trade-offs in either direction. Move to the larger V8 and the difference, like in your Honda Accord example, is dramatic. I bought the V6 truck.

Some people do buy on price, and others on features, but NOBODY adds features they don’t need to the price when they are shopping. Put another way, Compare that Honda Accord to a different car, say a Chevy Impala, a car available ONLY with a V6. If I didn’t have any want or need for extra power, I certainly wouldn’t add the expense of Honda’s V6 when shopping the Accord against the Chevy, I would compare the model that I actually was thinking about buying.

.
What attracted me to Andrew’s comment was his statement, “NOBODY adds features they don’t need to the price when they are shopping.”
.
Apparently, Andrew has had the amazingly good fortunte to always find the exact vehicle options permutation (including color) right on the Dealership’s Lot.
.

Unlike Andrew, a lot of folks have bought from the Lot, which requires making a different decision: to buy not quite exactly what they want but have it now (and maybe with a cash discount) – - versus – - special order the car they want but have to wait for it. That’s an apples-oranges tradeoff decision.
.
The bottom line, however, is that we all frequently try to make multi-dimensional decisions, which can be quickly overwhelming. This is where the approach of “same exact engine” for A vs. B comes in, for it simplifies the complex to something less complex. It doesn’t matter if we later choose to ‘downgrade’ for our final selection, because by making the comparison, we gain insight into the different trade-off dimensions and thus, are able to make a *more informed* final decision.
.
This is an “all other factors being equal” approach that has been fundimental to Applied Science for centuries and can be clearly seen in high school Physics, Chemistry and Math books for the past 50 years. That organizations such as CNET can’t be bothered to use objective scientific principles merely reveals their unprofessionalistic disregard for objectivity, which is what I, as a consumer, am interested in.
.
.
-hh

Then again, some auto makers do not sell stripped models. They provide a basic level of standard equipment, and it’s up to you to decide if that’s the way you want it or not. You can’t, for example, order one without a specific option or one that’s of lesser quality. Sort of reminds you of Apple, right?

Peace,
Gene

Gene,

Clearly we still disagree on this one (with a fellow Virgo no less, imagine that). Looking to your 4 or 6 cylinder example, the differences are dramatic on the two models you mentioned. It isn’t always so, such as with the AMD and Intel processors.

I bought a new pickup truck some months ago and had the choice between a V6 and a pair of V8s. The price differential was about the same at each step, from the 6 to the small 8 and from the small 8 to the large one. What was not similar, however, was the performance difference. The V6 was only about 20 horsepower shy of the small V8, and also very close in torque. Performance on the road is similar, with the six actually a bit better off the line (more low-end torque) and the 8 better for passing (more high-RPM power). Fuel economy is within 1 MPG. In all, no significant trade-offs in either direction. Move to the larger V8 and the difference, like in your Honda Accord example, is dramatic. I bought the V6 truck.

Some people do buy on price, and others on features, but NOBODY adds features they don’t need to the price when they are shopping. Put another way, Compare that Honda Accord to a different car, say a Chevy Impala, a car available ONLY with a V6. If I didn’t have any want or need for extra power, I certainly wouldn’t add the expense of Honda’s V6 when shopping the Accord against the Chevy, I would compare the model that I actually was thinking about buying.

Everything you say is dead right, Gene. There’s something else–Apple may be a bit gun-shy about putting out too many models in too many configurations because that was one of the big faults of Apple in the dark days before Steve came back. They had so many models (and sometimes essentially the same models offered to different markets under different names) that their own sales force couldn’t keep them straight. They had so many different assembly lines tied up making so many models that if any particular one started selling very well they couldn’t put out enough to satisfy customer demand. The simple truth may be that, unlike, say, Dell, Apple has never figured out how to make the multi-configuration Macs you’d like to see, without getting tangled up in its own feet. So Steve ruthlessly applied the KISS principle, and this was one of the big reforms that helped him turn the company around.

Then again, there’s something to be said about having too many different versions of a product with the very same name, such as the Power Mac G4. And I challenge almost anyone to figure out which is which without cheating.

That’s the wrong way for simplification. Maybe they could use the car maker’s method. The 2008 Mac Pro, the 2008-1/2 Mac Pro, etc.

Oh well, I’ll talk about this in more detail some other time.

Peace,
Gene

I would imagine that Apple would spend about as much maintaining different assembly lines and warehousing different configurations to have models with and without Bluetooth, Ethernet, Airport, and such as it costs to include them. So I don’t see Apple or the customers benefiting from those choices financially.

Everything you say is dead right, Gene. There’s something else–Apple may be a bit gun-shy about putting out too many models in too many configurations because that was one of the big faults of Apple in the dark days before Steve came back. They had so many models (and sometimes essentially the same models offered to different markets under different names) that their own sales force couldn’t keep them straight. They had so many different assembly lines tied up making so many models that if any particular one started selling very well they couldn’t put out enough to satisfy customer demand. The simple truth may be that, unlike, say, Dell, Apple has never figured out how to make the multi-configuration Macs you’d like to see, without getting tangled up in its own feet. So Steve ruthlessly applied the KISS principle, and this was one of the big reforms that helped him turn the company around.