<p>
</p>
<p>I doubt you’ll think any reason for why a 2.4 GHz Core 2 machine from one manufacturer would cost more than a 2.4 GHz Core 2 from another is compelling, but I’ll try nonetheless. :-)</p>
<p>Essentially, two things: Build quality and software.</p>
<p>For build quality, I’ll just pose this question: Why would anyone buy the HP Envy? It’s more expensive than laptops with the same specs. Answer: Build quality matters. The usability of the trackpad (one area where the original Envy was lacking, but Apple shines) matters. The size and weight matters. Battery life matters. How sturdy the machine is matters–Is it made of cheap plastic, creaking a bit? Or is it made of sturdy plastic or metal?</p>
<p>If you find a PC laptop that offers the same hardware as a MacBook Pro, with 10 hours of battery life, a sturdy plastic or metal casing, and similar weight and size, I doubt the price difference will be more than $200. Apple may even come out costing less in some cases.</p>
<p>For software, the bottom line (and this goes along with my prior post) is that Mac OS X is superior to Windows. Windows 7 is a good operating system. Windows XP was a good operating system. But Mac OS X is better. Not just the OS itself, but the software it supports. </p>
<p>Take a look “Coda,” a popular web development tool with a great interface. Also take a look at Pixelmator, a lightweight photo editing app with an open source core, but built with OS X technologies like Core Image, that hand off much of the processing to the graphics card. Finally, look at Versions, a SVN client. This clearly isn’t a simple app, but it has a well-designed interface.</p>
<p>These apps are well-designed, stable, and fast. In my experience, Mac developers care a lot more about interface than Windows developers, and interface is key. As I said before, design isn’t how it looks, design is how it works. </p>
<p>Build quality and software. That’s why Macs cost a bit more.</p>