What does it cost to make a Macbook ?

No one outside of apple would know that, although I'd really love to know too 😀.

Apple is notorious for overpricing their products. Think Toyota vs. Lexus. Same types of cars, grossly different prices.

The apple has quickly become a status symbol, and thus, you are paying dearly for that glowing fruit on the back of your screen. 😀

It's not just a status thing. Apple's business model is to offer the whole package - OS, hardware, software - in one package. You are not buying thier laptop from one company and licensing the OS and various software aps from others. For this, the consumer will see value and be willing to pay more.

Don't forget the differences between OSX and Windoze XP. I'd be willing to pay more for a laptop that didn't have driver conflicts, virus attacks, spywayre, etc.

There are some things that the windows machines will be better for (gaming comes to mind), but with BootCamp, your MacBook can do almost anything a windows machine can do.

Can that Dell machine you saw run Tiger? Just curious.

MacBook Ultimate Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Who really cares....The macbook is worth a million bucks to me!!!

Good designers aren´t cheap too.
So, Apple works with the bests, so that´s not cheap.

Do you ever compared Mac hardware vs PCs hardware in terms of quality and design?

Another thing to consider is the amount of computers sold by Dell vs Apple. Dell sell a lot of computers, but take a look at their notebooks. A friend of mine buyed one two weeks ago... Is like a desktop cpu with integrated display... is too heavy, too big.

Yeah Dell has never quite figured out how to make their laptops look non-ugly.

Well, if the recent iPod factory publicity (on living and working conditions) is anything to go by, it would seem that Apple's contracted-out factory workers in China are getting the 'going rate' - that is, about .25 an hour to assemble their products. Tack on the price of the actual hardware, made or purchased in bulk (so that's more cost saving) and the typical MacBook is probably being built for 10-15% of retail.

Given that factory towns like the one Apple uses (if not that exact same one) also build for Dell, Lenovo, HP, Compaq, et al - and you already note their considerable cost savings at retail over Apple - one wonders if The Stevo's mantra isn't that old Barnum quote, "There's a sucker born every minute."

Apple apologists will, of course, find all sorts of reasons why one should be paying a premium over the competition citing, most often, the OS rather than the hardware. Fair enough, but the OS (an oversexed UNIS OS with a pretty GUI) is simply not worth the near 50% markup as can be seen over some WinOS machines. Especially when Apple's 'form over function' ideals means their hardware is often badly designed and, most recently, trouble-prone.

Find oneself a notebook with a good build reputation and stick one of the better Linux distros into it and you've likely got as stable as machine as Apple produces. At a fraction of the cost. And it'll be doing the same as a MacBook with Boot Camp....

So why did I buy a MacBook? Well, I figured that when the MacBook kacks (as it most certainly will) I will be able to walk 10 minutes to my local Apple Store and nail somebody's sorry a** to the wall to get it fixed, rather than call a 1-800 number. But that is something not everyone can do - and still isn't a complete justification for the price premium.

Random thoughts are good, severn7x!

🙂

you are also paying fo the store that you find so convenient to exist, the research and development costs of coming out with new products

there are a lot of intangible aspects of product production and pricing that you indirectly pay for.

but you want to see real fleecing? check out the math on the pharmaceutical industry.

Can that Dell machine you saw run Tiger? Just
curious.

Actually, a Dell XPS system would run tiger very well. all the machine would need is the required firmware to run the operating system. just look at that illegal mac clone that looks like a generic PC. it has a hacked version of Mac OS running on it.

As for the cost of making macbooks, obviously its very low. 200 dollar adidas made out of kangaroo leather only cost under a dime per unit to produce.

Apple has absolute control over its hardware, OS and software, so we're paying for something that work really well for a long period. I still have my IIci, 840AV, PowerPC (G3) and G4 iMac working still. Do you think Apple's factory uses Dell components to make our MacBook and iMac?

Many components inside an Apple machine were designed and made specifically for that model, and they don’t necessary coming from Dell, HP or IBM parts. I know that because my German friend is one of those manufacturers made special components for the iPod and iPod nano.

Apple employs the best industrial designers to give us the most beautifully designed computers and mp3 players probably in the world, there is no secret about the huge investment Apple spends on talents in both software and hardware field, and in R&D.

I’m so glad there that is always an Apple around to give people a choice over WinXP (XP=Xtra Problem). Do you rather spend $1200 on a Dell and leave it dusty after 2 years due to poor support and built quality or you rather spend $1600 on a Mac and it’ll be still running in 2010?

nowadays my only real qualms with dells is windows. i may buy a dell for my gf and teach her to use Linux :-p. but yes apples generally stay rock solid for years, and because their operating system is so sublime it seems to age well right along with it, whereas an old windows machine will perform horribly without constant reformats and defragmenting. designs aside, the fact that apple develops both OS and hardware in symbiosis is why its so much more stable. anyone with problems with apple hardware will have no choice if they want to use the OS, since apple will never again allow its operating system to run legally on other computers, unless it wants to end up like IBM.

Can that Dell machine you saw run Tiger? Just
curious.

Actually, a Dell XPS system would run tiger very
well. all the machine would need is the required
firmware to run the operating system. just look at
that illegal mac clone that looks like a generic PC.
it has a hacked version of Mac OS running on it.

My point is that I'm not paying more for certain hardware (although there are some design features on the MB I'd be willing to pay more for). I'm paying more for functionality. In Windoze world, I sit at my PC trying to get the machine to recognize things or trying to figure out why this or that doesn't work today. On my MB, I just push the power button and start working. On my old Dell, I would push the power button, and I'd wait 4-5 minutes until Windoze finished loading all the crap it needs to get going.

Tiger is simply a much better OS than Windows, and, for that, I'm willing to pay more. If Apple isn't willing to license their OS to others, I can understand that. They have a winner, and why should they? They're in it to make money.



MacBook Ultimate Mac OS X (10.4.7)

Is it hardware, firmware or software that prevents us from running MacOS on another brand of notebook? Or is it simply that Apple hasn't released a retail box of their most current OS for Intel?

I suspect the last myself, if only because I saw - at a local computer store earlier this spring - the owner has loaded up a 'developer copy' of the OS onto his Asus notebook and it was running fine.

Apple (and their apologists) makes much of the fact that they are wholly responsible for every aspect of the computer - from design to OS to hardware - and that 'quality' is what you are paying for. But the slavish desire to design form over function (or engineering) results in a product that is often badly built - but it sure looks cool.

And Apple is often slow off the mark to take full responsiblity for their failures - so what favour are they doing, least of all to themselves and their shareholders, by having the OS only in their devices?

Fortunately for Apple, they have the iTunes store to keep them afloat - because if they relied on the home/SOHO computer market or badly built iPods, they would have tanked a couple of years ago...

😉

Mleb just summarized everything I was thinking
perfectly. Mind reader? 😮 The mark up for the OS is
what hurts the most. The extra cost to me is paying
for the luxury of getting local tech support
on a pretty version of Linux. And the criticism of MS
makes me laugh. I hate the OS as much as anyone else,
but where is the middle ground? Lower hardware cost
but crappy OS (MS) vs. High hardware cost and stable
OS (Mac). If ethics is the issue why am I being
charged extra for an OS that is stable? Simple. There
are no better alternatives. You have no where better
to go, and you will pay whatever cost they ask you
to. That is what has happened to the OS market. Just
look at the price of the macbook pro lol. It should
come with a bumper sticker that says Apple raped me
and I didnt even get a reach around. Yes I love macs,
I just think its a shame the way they run shop. I bet
the profit margin off apple laptops is ridiculous and
in the small chance that it is low; they are selling
so well it makes up for it. Anyways what I
really want to know is, if macs are running intel
procs, what is missing from a windows PC so that it
can run OS X ? Someone a few posts above me mentioned
firmware. I thought it would be hardware.

Discuss.

Reading your post, I wonder if you think Apple shouldn't charge what they do for having a total system that works. The market will bear what the market will bear. It is a fact that there are exponentially more windows users than Mac, so obviously, most people are willing to sacrifice performance for cost. In the case of Mac users, they tend to see a value in having a laptop that actually works, and they're willing to pay more for it. Why shouldn't Apple charge more for that?

Apple apologists will, of course, find all sorts of
reasons why one should be paying a premium over the
competition citing, most often, the OS rather than
the hardware. Fair enough, but the OS (an oversexed
UNIS OS with a pretty GUI) is simply not worth the
near 50% markup as can be seen over some WinOS
machines. Especially when Apple's 'form over
function' ideals means their hardware is often badly
designed and, most recently, trouble-prone.

Find oneself a notebook with a good build reputation
and stick one of the better Linux distros into it and
you've likely got as stable as machine as Apple
produces. At a fraction of the cost. And it'll be
doing the same as a MacBook with Boot Camp....

So why did I buy a MacBook? Well, I figured that when
the MacBook kacks (as it most certainly will) I will
be able to walk 10 minutes to my local Apple Store
and nail somebody's sorry a** to the wall to get it
fixed, rather than call a 1-800 number. But that is
something not everyone can do - and still isn't a
complete justification for the price premium.

Well, call me an Apple appologist, then. I've been a Windows user for years, and I just bought my first Apple laptop after finally getting fed up with slow performance, unexplainable system slow downs, viruses, etc., etc.

The fact is that we're not just talking about the OS here. Although that's certainly a BIG part of it. First of all, the OS is not just a pretty version of Linux. This is a Unix-based MacOS, and there's a difference. I've used tons of Linux distros over the years, and I can't remember one distro that didn't have some issue with some hardware compatibility somewhere in my machine. There are many good Linux distros out there, but I haven't been able to find one that worked as seamlessly with my machine as Tiger does with my MacBook.

And why? Obviously because Apple controls the whole game. Guess what -- I'm find with that because I'm not dealing with BS every time I power up my machine. I just sit down and start working. For that, I pay more, and I suppose that's why most Apple users do as well. In the past, I've been one who would sacrifice quality for price, but I've been "converted."

As far as local support, if you really feel a decent laptop with a really good Linux distro installed on it gives you all the benefits of Tiger with Bootcamp, why not just go that route? I would hardly think the price difference between that solution and a $1500 MB would is justified by nailing some poor Genius to the wall when you have a problem. Besides, go buy that system and add some peripherals to your machine who's software packages don't ship with your Linux distro, and let us know how that works out for you.

I think the real problem is that everyone who complains about Apple costs knows the real reason why they pay more. It is because at the end of the day, they know it's just better. I know because I'm one of those guys that finally broke down and jumped over.



MacBook Ultimate Mac OS X (10.4.7)