$ Apple / HP laptop price comparison | Hacker News Reader

$$ Apple / HP laptop price comparison

7 pointshankejh17 comments

I love my macs (MBP13, Pro tower) and my HP Envy 17, but $1,255 more for a MBP is insane.

http://bit.ly/ffnFJ7

There are two features of Apple laptops that, for me, close any price gap. Both features are aimed at improving usability: the large, flush, glass trackpad and the command key.

The command key is so wonderfully consistent and logical across the vast majority of apps that I can't believe Google didn't clone it in ChromeOS - it's a design decision that'll haunt them for years.

Long term macbook users trying to use a PC laptop is like trying to sleep in a crib after years of sleeping on a king size bed.

I think there's a lot of value in comparing spec to spec heads up and I $1,255 price difference is a lot so kudos to HP for creating a similar laptop at a much lower price. Here's the intangibles that are hard to quantify and differ based on personal preference:

1) Status symbol - Let's be honest, probably doesn't factor in for HN audience but to the larger general public, status symbols are part of their lives and identities. Using an Apple product conveys outward that this is a person who can afford an Apple product, is perhaps appreciative of design, and is part of a more "elite/creative" crowd. Not my personal opinion fully but I don't think I'm wrong with this generalization.

2) Operating system - OS X vs Win 7. I'm not even going to start this discussion but it's a preference thing and to many, using the Mac OS is worth $x more.

3) Design - The HP Envy looks nice but it's missing the roundness and sleekness of the unibody MBP. What is .21" of extra thinness worth to a user?

4) Battery life - Can you add this since it's a big deal to a lot of users, especially when traveling.

I might have glossed over this, but how about the value of Thunderbolt?

What's even more amazing is that HP can produce a machine like that while paying a very heavy Microsoft tax to include Windows. Apple can bundle it in pretty much at no cost to themselves.

Wouldn't that only be true if the cost of developing osx was 0? Isn't it possible that HP pays less per license than what it costs Apple to developer, support, ... osx? Isn't that one of the points of outsourcing?

Apple can allocate money to OS X development independently of hardware sales, but HP is committed to paying Microsoft a fixed fee per unit sold. That's the difference. It's possible that HP is actually paying Microsoft more money than Apple spends on pure OS X development.

I've heard that companies like HP spend more than $600M a year on Windows licenses, and that's at OEM wholesale prices, simply because of volume. From every bargain-bin netbook to high-end server, they get taxed.

Although Apple doesn't disclose their budget for developing OS X, the core development team is surprisingly small in relative terms. Apple doesn't have to cover as many bases as Microsoft does.

Every so often you can read of grumblings about how much some OEMs pay to Microsoft and how they could be better off keeping the money and doing it themselves: http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/09/12/hp.developing....

I had a HP tablet with a wacom-integrated screen. It cost me around $1000 USD several years ago and suffered various problems: graphics crashes, overheating, and worst of all, a malfunctioning tablet. The vent fans were placed and designed such that if I didn't disable the tablet, my cursor would jump down to the lower-right corner where the vent was and constantly wiggle/click.

Needless to say, I wasn't impressed.

My second HP I bought about a year ago; I was the proud owner of a DV8t, one of the first i7 laptops. Not only did customer support lie to me (infinite glass screen, what?), but this laptop is badly-designed, too. The battery has been completely dead for several months now and I hadn't even owned the laptop for a year at that point.

The volume, wireless, and CD tray are all controlled from a touch-sensitive panel. The kicker? The panel often malfunctions, resulting in my sound going haywire, my CD tray popping out randomly, and worst of all, my wireless flipping on and off constantly.

To add insult to injury, I can't disable it from the device manager like I could the crappy wacom layer in my previous laptop.

So whatever the price difference between Apples and HPs, I'm sure they cover something other than just the numbers associated with the hardware. I'm certainly never buying another HP and I'll tell everyone I know about how terrible HP's machines have been to me whenever I have the chance.

What is it going to take for LCD manufacturers to provide high resolutions for 15" laptops. 1366x768 is low on a 15 inch laptop imo. Not blaming HP here, it seems to be an industry wide trend. Used to be the case that you could buy 1920x1200 in a 15 inch form factor. Then it came down to 1920x1080, now even thats gone.

Last I looked some of the thinkpads (15") on lenovo's website had an option for 1920 by something.

I'm not sure if your links are out of date or what, but the MacBook Pro you linked to is $2,548 with AppleCare, not $2,768. It also has a 750GB drive, not a 500GB drive.

The listed HP with 4GB of memory (down from the standard 6), a 750GB drive upgrade, Windows 7 Pro and a $199 warranty costs $1702 according to the supplied link.

That means a difference of $846 at the end of the day. $150 of that difference is simply the higher cost of AppleCare vs. HP extended warranty.

Even then, if you consider the life-span of this machine to be on the order of three to four years, which is not unreasonable, then that's a premium of about $16 to $22 a month amortized over that time-frame.

The links and prices are correct. You'll have to match the specs on the sheet when configuring at Apple's store.

Note that the drive option (500GB vs 750GB) does not change the price -- you can have either for the same price. I chose the faster drive (7200 rpm) over the slower (5400 rpm) -- a 25% increase in drive speed makes a world of difference in performance.

I'm not sure what you did with the HP configuration -- starting with the base config ($999), adding the specs listed on the sheet (note: there is no base 6GB to downgrade to 4GB -- and Apple memory options are never* competitive compared to other options), the price remains as noted on the sheet. Perhaps try it again from the base config. So, the rest of the analysis is unfounded.

I should add that given the mention of 3-4 years amortization (which doesn't net out, given the correct pricing on the sheet), Apple limits your coverage to 3-years. There is no option under any circumstance to acquire a 4th (or further) year of coverage (Apple FAIL). HP, on the other hand, will cover your machine for at least 4 years -- and I believe you can purchase coverage indefinitely (requires further investigation). Killing support on a machine that should last 4-6 years demonstrates a complete disregard for environmental conservation, given the enormous* (frankly staggering) energy required to manufacture it in the first place. Shame on Apple.

Sigh. IMO one really really has to give up the thought that you are paying for the hardware when buying Apple products.

The HP link doesn't seem to work for me -- it points to their old HP envy 14 line.

As for 16x9, blame HDTV.

Sorry ebiester -- I had the heading incorrect (Envy 15 rather than Envy 14) -- they discontinued the 15 and 13 in favor of the new 14. The link should point to the new machine and the heading is updated. +1 on HDTV bastards!

Without size and weight included, which are to me the primary attributes of a laptop, the comparison is moot.

Heh... fair enough, updated the doc -- the numbers show HP is getting better at cloning by the year:

Dimensions --- MBP: 14.35 x 9.82 x 0.95 HPE: 14.01 x 9.33 x 1.17

Weight: --- MBP: 5.6 lbs HPE: 5.5 lbs

HP Envy 17 is clearly a rip off.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com