[sukuriant]

I think it's a historically common consensus that high powered macs are considerably more expensive than their equally powered non-mac alternative.

My historical stance on the matter has been that the money goes to R&D. I have no proof to validate my assertion, though.

And some quick links to compare. I could have taken more time on selecting the links, but this was pretty quick:

http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MD104LL/A

vs

http://www.alienware.com/Landings/laptops.aspx

[rimantas]

  > I think it's a historically common consensus that high
  > powered macs are considerably more expensive than their
  > equally powered non-mac alternative.

By consensus you mean misconception? I don't remember Macbook Air "clones" being cheaper by $1000. Some are even more expensive. OTOH, I prefer to use computers, not specs. "Multitouch trackpad" may look the same in specs, but in practice it makes huge difference.

[sukuriant]

Those aren't the specs I look at or think about. I look more at:

8GB DDR3 1600Mhz RAM

Core i7 3.2Ghz Processor

nVidia 650M

256GB SSD

1920x1080 resolution

My mouse is usually a peripheral.

I would also imagine a clone to cost more than the original anyway, in many cases.