I think you are miss understanding my original post. I was responding to someone that was basically saying nobody was in range which was completely incorrect. See the original comment:
Not only are they less expensive for the lifetime of ownership, longer lives, more powerful, more fully featured
We could probably argue for hours and at the end of it we would both be right because each machine is built with slightly different needs in mind. HP, Dell, Lenovo and Apple all make very competitive product each with their own set of features and benefits.
Apple has a well balanced product but there are competitors and it's a matter of budget.
The SSD it uses is pretty cheap, not PCI-E, not that fast. So they're trimming price because the SSD is about 1/3 of the speed of what the Macbook Pro ships, possibly 1/4 of the performance, and cheap SSDs are cheap
This has been a very interesting forum topic on Tom's Hardware. I was unable to find the post but I was actually involved in it. The conclusion was that the PCIE 3.0 SSD are 3 times faster using a bench test. This means that you can apply the 3x rule to any software that is highly optimized for read/writes such as some premium encoding software available out there.
For the rest of your applications (generally speaking), you aren't gaining much since the HD I/O in general only account for 5% of the bottleneck when comparing with a 6GB SATA. What does this mean? If it takes you 10 seconds to load an Excel file, you can improve speed by 2/10th of a second.
The other thing is that the boot time between PCIE and SATA is equal. The SATA SSD also outperforms the PCIE in certain areas and the PCIE really doesn't shine for regular desktop usage. The following benchmark by a reputable reviewer is very much point you to believe the same thing: