RSSThe Value Question: Is the Apple or Microsoft Family Pack the better deal?
By Joe Wilcox | Published July 31, 2009, 7:43 PM
Is three times the price three times the value? That's the question I'm asking about Microsoft's limited-time Windows 7 Family Pack -- three Home Premium upgrade licenses -- for $150. Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" Family Pack, with five licenses, will sell for $49.
It's a rhetorical question really. Most people with Windows PCs won't have the option of running Snow Leopard. Intel Mac users, by comparison, can run Windows dual-boot, using Apple's Boot Camp, or by way of third-party virtualization software. That said, to qualify for the discounted Family Pack pricing, Mac users would still need Windows XP or Vista.
I've long advocated that Microsoft offer a Family Pack. Kudos. Good job, Microsoft. But that was before Apple cut the price of its Family Pack from $199 to $49 and before Windows XP-to-7 upgrades turned out to be hard going (more on that topic in a few paragraphs). Both circumstances raise questions about each Family Pack's value.
Mac users running Leopard can get Snow Leopard for $29 or the aforementioned five licenses for 49 bucks. Some people contend that the low pricing reflects that Snow Leopard -- hence the "Snow" added to "Leopard" -- is a minor upgrade. But that minor compared to Leopard doesn't mean minor compared to Windows 7.
A Question Asked Different Ways
So I'll ask you about which offers more value. Would you rather pay $49 for five licenses or $150 for three? That's the easy question. But it ignores mitigating circumstances regarding whom is eligible for what. Apple's discounted pricing is only available to Leopard users. Earlier Mac OS X users will pay more, but also get more. They must buy the Mac Box Set -- with Snow Leopard, iLife `09 and iWork `09 -- for $169, or $229 as Family Pack. So, would you rather pay $150 for three licenses or $229 for five licenses and two extra software suites?
But, again, the question is oversimplified. The majority of Windows users run XP, for which Microsoft has got a crazy-complicated upgrade process. Microsoft will issue you the rights to upgrade from Windows XP to 7, but not the means. XP users must back up their data, wipe the hard drive and install Windows 7. Tech guru reviewer Walt Mossberg aptly expressed last week:
The process will be so painful that, for many XP users, the easiest solution may be to buy a new PC preloaded with Windows 7, if they can afford such a purchase in these dire economic times. In fact, that's the option Microsoft (MSFT) recommends for XP users. (Conveniently, this option also helps Microsoft's partners that make PCs.)
Vista users can directly upgrade to Windows 7, but that's not most people -- although it might be the majority of Betanews readers. So, I'll ask: If a XP user, is $150 for three licenses a bargain for you -- or is it too much for the trouble?
Product activation is another consideration when answering the value question. Unless Apple changes policy with the new operating system, Mac users won't have to suffer onerous product activation. It's a sale based on trust. Hackers cracked Windows 7 product activation, even before the software released to developers; Microsoft claims to have already blocked the hack. Would you rather pay $150 for three licenses bound to three machines or $49 for five licenses that could be moved around?
Apple Tax or Microsoft Tax?
That brings me to a broader topic of value. Yesterday, during Microsoft's annual Financial Analysts Meeting, CEO Steve Ballmer droned on about how his company and Apple approach value:
I want to describe our value proposition. We are a high-volume player. We do not, say, like Apple, believe in low volume, very high prices, very -- Apple is a great company, does a fine job. But their model says high margin, high quality, high price. That's kind of how they come to market. We say we want big market share. But with big market share, you take a lower price...We can't be high priced, that doesn't get you the volume that we aspire to.
Steve Ballmer means hardware and software, even though Microsoft only sells the latter. He's right that people pay more to join the Mac club. The entry-level Mac laptop is $999 and iMac is $1,199. But in terms of software, Apple can claim much lower pricing, which the two Family Packs demonstrate.
Same applies to earlier releases. Apple sells Leopard full version for $129, or $199 for the Family Pack. Apple sells one Mac OS X edition that contains all the features and installs on a clean Mac, no upgrade over previous version or product activation required. By comparison, today, Microsoft Store sells upgrades to Windows Vista Home Premium for $129.99, Business for $199.99 and Ultimate for $219.99. The closest Vista edition to Leopard is Ultimate full version, which Microsoft Store sells for $319.95. Caveat: People buying Vista can get Windows 7 upgrade for free.
Steve Ballmer spoke about high-volume, low-cost. Who has lower cost for productivity suite software? Apple's sells iWork Family Pack for $99, with five licenses. Office 2007 Home and Student sells for $149.99, although Microsoft Store has a special: $99. The Mac Home and Student version isn't discounted, by the way.
How about server software? Apple sells Mac OS X Leopard Server for $499 with 10 client-access licenses, or $999 for unlimited CALs. By comparison, Microsoft Store sells Windows Server 2008 Standard Edition for $1,029. I assume this version comes with five CALs, but the product description doesn't say. CDW sells Windows Server 2008 Standard with five CALs for $954.99. Businesses with volume-licensing contracts pay less. But they still pay for CALs, which Apple includes in the $999 price.
Yesterday, Kevin Turner, Microsoft's COO, also dug at Apple pricing yesterday. He put up slide titled, "Apple: Customers Get the Apple Tax." He told FAM attendees about Mac shoppers: "They are thinking about buying an Apple laptop, how they are going to get ripped off and pay too much, quite candidly."
Whoa, "ripped off" is strong language. But is the $100 difference between Family Packs the Microsoft Tax? Or perhaps the nearly $191 difference between full versions of Windows Vista Ultimate or Mac OS X Leopard? Or for Microsoft server CALs? Is there a Microsoft Tax here? You tell me.
The point: For many software products -- and I could cite plenty more examples -- Apple charges less than does Microsoft. But price isn't the only measure of value, although yesterday Steve Ballmer made it that way with respect to Apple (but not Linux). Apple charges more one place, while Microsoft charges more somewhere else. It's not the price that matters so much as the value for the money paid.
So, I ask differently: Which company do you think offers more value, regardless of pricing, Apple or Microsoft?
A correction for paragonjr:
OSX 10.1 was a free upgrade to 10.0 as 10.0 was faecally bad. (hence machines kept being preloaded with OS 9 until 10.1 came out - much like Windows xp being preloaded while waiting for 7... :) )
An opinion:
Version numbers are meaningless - are you more upset about having hypothetically paid an upgrade from Windows 2000 to Windows xp just because their version numbers are 5.0 and 5.1?
I write software commerically, hence I know that 90% of major version number changes are for MARKETING REASONS, ie. to coincide with a new campaign or whatever. The remaining 10% of major version number changes are the result of suicidal "let's do a rewrite" projects, of which 100% are a disaster.
Another opinion:
So is it a bad thing that Apple brings out new versions of it's OS more regularly than Microsoft?
Are Apple users forced to upgrade even if they don't see the value in it? Is there another reason for tallying up all OS upgrade costs mindlessly that I'm not quite getting?
Score: 0
|I stand corrected on OS X 10.0 to 10.1 upgrade cost. Thanx. :)
Not making any judgment on whether more upgrades are better or worse than fewer upgrades.
Purely an academic exercise: assuming one were to diligently (and legally) upgrade with each major OS revision since 2001 until 2009, which upgrade path would prove costlier - Apple's or Microsoft's? In terms of full-featured (non-crippled) version upgrades, I'd say Microsoft - by a long shot.
Score: 0
|Upgrade path also presupposes that in 2001, an OEM PC or Mac purchase would have included Windows XP or Mac OS X.
Score: 0
|PS: Didn't mean to disparage the upgrade tallying exercise earlier - apologies - just wanted to put into context that releasing frequent new major versions doesn't in itself cost the user anything.
Score: 0
|No need to apologize. You did bring up a valid point. No one is being forced to upgrade to any major OS revision. That applies to both PCs (Windows; Linux) and Macs (Intel, PowerPC).
Score: 0
|I see the Microsoft marketeers have come here to astroturf the site with BS.
1) Activating an OS and the platform it runs on are two very different things. unless of course, you are Microsoft trying to hide the fact they treat all their customers like criminals with their draconian DRM infestation of their OS requiring it to phone home and verify you are not stealing their super expensive software. Apple requires *NO* activation
2) Apple does not charge for service packs. never has. Microsofties simply ignore how Apple versions its software. Repeated for the 10 millionth time, a "dot" release to Apple is a major release. For example, leopard is 10.5 and Snow leopard is 10.6. The patch level of Leopard is 7, so the real number is 10.5.7. All seven of those patches were given at *zero* cost.
TOC of ownership is a funny thing, especially when you look at the real costs of ownership of super expensive Microsoft OSes. Since 91: you would pay a *ton* more for Microsoft OSes. The cost of Vista Ultimate was $499 when it came out. LOL. The cost of Vista 7 Ultimate is a $279 "upgrade". Windows Me + XP + Vista + Vista 7 = ~$1000 USD. Ouch! In that same time Apple has had five major releases around OSX. $129 * 5 = ~$600 USD. And that is for multiple user licenses. Plus on the Microsoft side, you add in the cost of Anti-Virus upgrades, Firewall upgrades, Anti-spayware upgrades, etc... and the cost is near $1600 USD....over $1000 more.
3) Apple sells high quality hardware, unlike the cheapo cloners selling Windows based computers. Simply look at them and you can see the difference. Love when someone says they can get a Windows machine for $499. yeah, and the specs are horrible compared to a Mac. Slower processor, slower memory, lower resolution display, slower hard drive, way worse graphics, etc... You will have to buy two of those $499 machines during the lifetime of the Mac, and you will still have a slower PC.
When you look at the total cost of ownership, and include productivity, the Mac is a far better value.
Score: -2
|how much did all those Macs cost you that you had to buy? back then i got my PCs pretty much second hand, parts from friends, swappin... i never had Win Me, guess i saved cash on that one, XP pro was 129$, never paid full for Vista, bought OEM,
now Windows 7 comes along, got a copy for $50..... and it will last me probably 10 years
and what are all those software upgrades you're talkin bout? i never paid for any of those
regardless, you are a little more than retarded if you think any respectable person spent $2700 on software lol....
Score: 1
|One makes their money from software
One makes their money from hardware
that is all...
Score: 1
|Apple uses the same hardware as everyone else, its basically an asus machine.
One makes their money off software
One makes their money off hardware
If you already own a Apple PC then this is the better deal for you
If you already own a Wintel Box then Win7 is a better deal for you.
Score: 1
|As ancillary to the family pack price comparison, here are single license price comparisons (minus any convoluted upgrade paths).
Mac OS X full-version retail costs (MSRP) for all OSs released since 2001:
OS X 10.0 (Mar 01) $130 (upgrade $29)
OS X 10.1 (Sep 01) $130 (upgrade $29)
OS X 10.2 (Aug 02) $130 (upgrade $29)
OS X 10.3 (Oct 03) $130 (upgrade $29)
OS X 10.4 (Apr 05) $130 (upgrade $29)
OS X 10.5 (Oct 07) $130 (upgrade $29) (Intel; IBM PowerPC G4 or G5)
OS X 10.6 (Sep 09) $170 (upgrade $29) (Intel only) (box set incl. iLife 09, iWork 09)
http://www.apple.com/pr/...y/2009/06/08macosx.html
Cumulative OS X *full-version* retail costs (MSRP) = (6 x $130) + 170 = $950
Cumulative OS X *upgrade* costs from OS X 10.1 upgrade through OS X 10.5 upgrade (for PowerPC Macs) = 5 x $29 = $145
OS X 10.6 upgrade = $29 (for Intel Macs only)
Windows full-version retail costs (MSRP) for all OSs released since 2001:
Windows XP (Oct 01)
$199 Home Edition (upgrade $99)
$299 Professional (upgrade $199)
http://labmice.techtarget.com/FAQ/winxpfaq.htm
Windows Vista (Nov 06)
$200 Home Basic (upgrade $100)
$260 Home Premium (upgrade $130)
$300 Business (upgrade $200)
$320 Ultimate (upgrade $220)
http://www.microsoft.com...e-editions/default.aspx
Windows 7 (Oct 09)
$??? Starter (upgrade $???)
$200 Home Premium (upgrade $120)
$300 Professional (upgrade $200)
$320 Ultimate (upgrade $220)
http://windowsteamblog.c...s/windows7/default.aspx
Cumulative Windows *full-version* retail costs (MSRP):
XP Home Edition ($199) + Vista Home Basic (100) + Windows 7 Starter ($???) = $???
XP Home Edition ($199) + Vista Home Premium ($260) + Windows 7 Home Premium ($200) = $659
XP Professional ($299) + Vista Business ($300) + Windows 7 Professional ($300) = $899
XP Professional ($299) + Vista Ultimate ($320) + Windows 7 Ultimate ($320) = $939
Cumulative Windows *upgrade* costs:
Vista Home Basic ($100) + Windows 7 Starter ($???) = ($???)
Vista Home Premium upgrade ($130) + Windows 7 Home Premium upgrade ($120) = $250
Vista Business upgrade ($200) + Windows 7 Professional upgrade ($200) = $400
Vista Ultimate upgrade ($220) + Windows 7 Ultimate upgrade ($220) = $440
Score: 1
|i'll go right out and buy a copy, oh wait i need a $2800 MacBook Pro to go along with that?... sounds like a deal to me
Score: 1
|$1,349 for a refurbished MacBook Pro 15" should suffice.
http://store.apple.com/u...e/home/specialdeals/mac
More MacBook Pro 15" deals here:
http://lowendmac.com/dea...book-pro-15-prices.html
And here:
http://macreviewzone.com...ware/php/macbookpro.php
Score: 2
|Correction: Mac OS X 10.0 to 10.1 upgrade was free - not $29 as posted.
Revision: Cumulative OS X *upgrade* costs from OS X 10.1 upgrade through OS X 10.5 upgrade (for PowerPC Macs) = 4 x $29 = $116
Credit: Viking369
Score: 1
|Talk about missing the point...So take a perfectly working wintel box and buy a apple? For 6 times the amt of a retail upgrade? Yeah...that makes sense...
Also you cannot upgrade to starter its not available for purchase it'll come on lower cost pcs
Score: 0
|lol the dude just admitted i need to spend $1800+ and 40$ i guess (cdn) for upgrade lol, thats some VALUE
now, if i could get OS X and the upgrade and install it on my PC, that would be better value than windows (if apple kept the costs the same, which they wouldn't) ... and Apple would go broke in the end
Score: 0
|@ terminalx
"Also you cannot upgrade to starter its not available for purchase it'll come on lower cost pcs"
So a $49 (http://www.cheapnetbooks.org/) netbook's cheapest Windows 7 upgrade option is Home Premium for $120. Nice!
Score: 0
|Correction: No direct upgrade path from Windows XP (netbooks included) to Windows 7.
http://www.informationwe...tml?articleID=218500981
Score: 0
|Here's Microsoft's proposal:
"Love your current PC? Buy a Windows Vista upgrade now. Get a Windows 7 upgrade later."
Windows 7 Upgrade Option
http://www.microsoft.com...buy/offers/upgrade.aspx
Windows 7 Upgrade Paths
http://www.acer.com/windows7upgrade/
Good luck running Vista on netbook.
Score: 0
|Alternate Microsoft proposal:
"If you have Windows XP or Windows 2000, you can purchase Windows 7 Upgrade version. But you must back up your files, clean install, and reinstall your applications."
http://www.microsoftstore.com/s/windows7
Nice options.
Of course, one can always buy another netbook (and migrate applications and settings) - dirt cheap.
Score: 0
|It has XP on it which I am sure you are aware is an 8 year old OS now and using old hardware as well - How well will Snow Leopard perform on a apple computer 8 years ago? Wait, you won't be able to install snow leopard on it because apple is discontinuing ppc support? say it ain't so!
Score: 0
|You're perfectly correct. So what? How many smart shoppers really want an 8-year-old machine? LED backlit screens are so nice. As are 8GB DDR3 memory (third party), unibody construction, fully-integrated iLife suite, fully-integrated iWork suite, and fully-integrated professional apps. No need for Microsoft Office as iWork imports and exports just fine. The list goes on.
As for GTA IV, I'm sure a netbook would do nicely, although a premium, state-of-art gaming laptop would be much more preferable. If I were a gamer, I'd stick with homebuilt PCs.
Oh, yes, there's Blue-ray. Not that big a market yet compared to DVDs. Microsoft, Apple, and others are all pushing HD downloads. Wireless terabyte network storage for multimedia is also nice. As is Slingbox.
Score: 0
|Why are you using the word 'tax' other than it is popular? Taxes are not an 'evil', unless you don't like police officers or firemen that communities use 'taxes' to pay them with.
I get really tired of the word 'tax' used in a negative context. 'HIGH' taxes or 'Taxation without representation' would be a better argument with US readers.
1) Sure you don't have to activate OS X, it only installs (without hacks) on Apple hardware.
2) Apple in terms of OS X upgrade has charged more than Microsoft over the years. Items that are Service Packs for Windows users and free, are new .x revisions and been $99 bucks for OS X users. Since 2001, OS X has cost users 5 times the cost of Windows in just OS Software upgrade costs.
3) Apple sells mediocre hardware, yet is more expensive than high end PCs. I know this probably upsets 'fans', but it remains the truth. To this day, the fastest video card you can get in a MacBook is as fast as a PC Laptop sold in 2005. (Compare numbers of the Geforce 7950 GTX M (2005) to the latest GPUS in the new Macbooks.) Sadly the best video you can get in a MacBook or even the Pro Desktops are medium range video cards and the Geforce 9600 is low-mid range.
When it comes down to the Mac vs PC debate, it seems the specifications on thing that are important to 'power users' and 'graphic/video designers/editors'.
If you wanted a 1920x1200 display on a laptop you couldn't buy a Mac until recently, where these are common displays offered on PC Notebooks for years. The same levels of inequality exist today, yet nobody talks about this.
In the $2000-3000 notebook market, you can literally get Intel i7 notebooks with Dual GPUs, which is several times faster than anything Apple produces.
Even in medium range notebooks, you can pick up a PC Notebook with a Geforce 9800 or ATI 4670 GPU (both faster than a Mac GPU) with a fast Dual Core processor for $800.
Maybe the Mac would be a 'real' option for people like myself if they had hardware even close to what you can find in the PC market, and this is at any cost. Why would I buy the latest Mac to have slower performance than my 2005 PC Notebook, I mean really?
Score: 0
|Amen on the tax thing.
Display wise i'm afraid you're wrong - 1920x1200 has been in the 17" MBP and 24" iMac, not to mention stand-alone displays for years. Plus they are S-IPS and H-IPS panels which makes them far more color accurate (and expensive), which for a graphics / video / photography person is critical. As opposed to your 1337 haXX0r Dell 24" TN panel with "dynamic contrast enhancement" which totally screws up colour reproduction - but you knew that, right? :)
Graphics-wise at the time of introduction the MBP's graphics are pretty decent, but yeah seeing as gaming is practically non-existent on OSX the graphics hardware isn't there either - nor should it. There's plenty for video and opengl optimised photoshop work though...
Score: -2
|There is a HUGE Microsoft tax to every PC, be it a $300 Netbook or a $5000 game machine.
First, Apple MacOS comes packed with iApplications that will cost Thousand of $ to buy compatible software for the PC. Then we have Hundreds $ for security application : Firewall, anti-virus, keyloggers, rootkits, bots,.. just to guard the Pc and OS . Not to mention the hours and money spent on restoring OS and data lost after the BSODs, viruses..... and bogus microsoft updates.
Score: -5
|i dont even know where all your bs coming from. If you have no idea of what windows world looks like, then avoid making those ignorant statements in public please.
Score: -2
|"First, Apple MacOS comes packed with iApplications that will cost Thousand of $ to buy compatible software for the PC."
Name one I can't download a free alternative for regardless of whether I am running Mac, Widnows or Linux....
Score: -1
|The damages inflicted by Microsoft's applications on customers, because of crappy security, is measured in Billions of $ each year, due to servers crash, data lost, data theft, money spend on security hardware and software for networks and workstations. Microsoft's OP is the worst menace to society in the last 25 years and years to come.
Score: -5
|Again, more incorrect information put out as fact.
Windows Vista has had 20 times LESS security issues or vulnerbilities than OS X Leopard (an OS a year newer).
When the latest Adobe Flash and other 'multi-platform' exploits came around the ONLY protected users were Vista or Win7 users running IE in protected mode.
Ironic or just sad that freaking IE on Vista was the only major OS and browser protecting users, uh?
Most Server 'thefts' in the past two years have been non-Microsoft servers. Even the hard core 'precious' OpenBSD was hacked and student records were stolen from Berkley last year. Most server thefts and bots today are *nix boxes, with idiots like you administrating them and have no freaking idea hacker are using your systems.
You have no clue about what you speak, rather you are repeating popular myths.
Score: 1
|@AnthonySPT, your post had me rolling on the ground! The stupidity of it was hilarious. It is so far from reality i do not see how you could make up such crap. bravo! one of the best trolls i have ever seen.
Score: -4
|Wow, look at all your facts, its so eye-opening, oh wait, you provided none.
Source for Server Issue http://yro.slashdot.org/...pl?sid=09/05/12/1630240
Vista has better security then Leopard - http://www.eweek.com/c/a...s-More-Holes-than-Spots/
Well 2/3 ain't bad - I couldn't find anything that states the exploit could be prevented by using IE in protected mode, I would assume it would since that is the purpose of it, to only affect the browser not the OS.
Score: 0
|@terminalx - what are you trying to say? Or did you log in under the wrong user again?
Score: -1
|Seriously? That's the best you got, can't comment so retort to me being a split of someone else? This is my only user name I have no others, hell I think I use this on a lot of other forums or krushyou. That's all folks. Anyways...I am replying to your snide remarks on anthony - as per usual you provide no evidence for the nonsense you speak. He was right at least 67% of the time I can't find any evidence on the flash story.
Score: -1
|since apple sells both hardware and software, I dont see how u can compare apple with MS.
ya, you save $100 at OS, but you lose $400 at computer. So, if i have to compare, obviously MS offers more value.
Score: 3
|If a Windows/OEM-of-choice computer does what you need / want then that's absolutely correct.
That is the crux of it, value is a very personal thing. Arguing over which of two clearly successful solutions is better value overall is a fool's game. The market has already proven that there's a definite value proposition for both.
Score: 2
|Joe, this 'tax' thing is just total rubbish and I wish you wouldn't promote it further... Just because some marketeers want to misappropriate words because of their attached negative connotations doesn't mean we have to follow along... There's no such thing as a Microsoft/Apple Tax.
The pricing comparisons, etc are kind of interesting, but really, nobody will make a decision on which system suits them best based on OS upgrade prices. That would be like choosing between a Canon or Nikon SLR based on the prices of their hotshoe flash accessories, or something equally silly.
Score: -1
|Every time Microsoft introduces a new OS the tech press falls over themselves telling us how great it will be. Just look at Vista. As it gets nearer and goes past the release date and we really see what they have delivered the glow wears off very quickly. Windows 7 might be OK although Microsoft seems to be 'doing the dirty' on pricing and those who upgrade from XP and wait until the OEMs get hold of it.
I use Mac, Linux and Windows. OS X and Ubuntu have given me very little grief in the past. I cannot say the same thing about Windows 95, 98 SE, ME and XP. I will never buy another Windows computer.
Score: -1
|let me get this straight, after 20+ years of windows being mainstream, every issue pretty much documented, still haven't tamed the beast? it didn't fail you, you failed it ... thats my opinion lol
Score: -1
|A day more than 15 years ago I asked a friend if the MAC had regular crashes as Windows 95 and NT 3.5 that were crash kings. He said it never crashed. I started to use that same MAC and he decided to extract a floppy disk while I was at it. At that time the MAC crashed, irrecoverably. :P
Windows XP is fairly stable for my needs and really speedy without all that screen candy I hate (yes, MacOSX and Vista). So nice everyone can decide what they like. Now we need them to not try to force their preference to the others. :)
Score: 2
|"Every time Microsoft introduces a new OS the tech press falls over themselves telling us how great it will be."
Are you for REAL? Was the rampant FUD over Vista lost on you?
Score: -3
|Almost all of my BSOD's under Win2K/XP (in the last 5+ years) can be placed at the foot of one company, and it's not Microsoft. Drivers, Chipsets and GPUs, by Nvidia. I went into detail but it sounded too much like a rant :-) It's easy to blame MS for those arcane BS BSOD msg's -- but they are almost always related to either hardware failing/starting to fail, or serious driver problems. Albeit some problems ARE indirectly caused by Windows allowing carte blanche permission to everyone and its dog to crap all over system32 and the registry. Thankfully the Dogs have been put in the pound.
Though any Mac fanbois that blathers about Mac stability is glossing over the crapfest of both Mac and Windows in the 90s. Cuz pretty much everything sucked then, unless you were a linux guru or stuck with DOS.
Score: -2
|Umm... you don't really have to be a linux guru. Try Ubuntu, the closest stupid-proof linux distro. You may be a bit surprised of the results. After a year or so you'll be able to do the math regarding this tricky "what-do-i-get-for-the-money-and-time-i-spend" question.
Score: 0
|I believe the much more interesting story, is WinXP Pro was $299 for one license in 2001 ( 8 years ago). PC hardware prices have dropped like a very heavy stone (4 Gigs of DDR3 Ram for $60, 512MB of DDR was ~$50 ~4yrs ago). One need only look as far as ArsTechnica's sub $1000 gaming machine to get a much clearer grasp on Apples hardware prices.
Comparing Microsoft Software pricing to Apple doesn't even remotely make sense. Compare it to itself. It's cheaper than it was 8 years ago. That is a good thing.
Score: 1
|When comparing Mac OS X pricing to windows, you should be comparing to the Windows OEM (or DSP) pricing not the full retail, cause that is the exact equivalent. There is NO Mac OS X equivelant to the Windows Full Retail price...correct me if I am wrong.
Score: 1
|When users get a new OS X for $130 without changing their Mac, that is equivalent to retail pricing.
Score: 1
|Yes, there is.
OSX Retail is the equivalent of Windows Retail. The prices ? Oh... the prices ... ;-)
Well... umm ... ;-)
Score: 0
|Ok. But can I also install it on a new Mac? Get a Mac without OS and install the OS that I have purchased for 130$. In addition can I install it on ANY PC hardware? NO to the latter, most probably NO to the first. So "Retail" are not exactly equivelant...With Windows you can do whatever you want with retail, even assemble your own hardware.
Score: 1
|Microsoft family pack is a better deal because you don't have to spend thousands of $ on crapple taxed vendor locked hardware. 3 PC + 7 Family pack is cheaper than 3 Macs
Score: 3
|Not at all. I happened to admin two multiplatform LANs, both having at least 100 computers. Among those there were about 40 Mac computers. Well, over 8 years I only had to perform 15-18 hardware interventions on the Mac computers (not to mention NONE on the Linux servers).. Most interventions were HDD, keyboard and/or mouse replacements. One of the G4s is now under my table, still working.
Just take a guess how many hardware interventions I had on the remaining regular PC computers :-) Oh, some of them were brand names too.
Score: -1
|Don't forget, Ballmer also announced MS was working on reducing the size of the Apple tax by increasing the cost OEM's need to pay for licensing Windows 7...
Score: 3
|"It's a sale based on trust." as opposed to a sale based on the fact that all Apple computers come pre-installed with some version of Mac OS, and you can only (legally) run Mac OS on Apple computers.
Score: 0
|So if Mac using Mr. X gives his Leopard DVD to Tiger user Mr. Y, which works fine due to lack of activation, it is not piracy?
Score: 0
|why ask us anything? you don't care what we think, you just wanted an excuse to write about Apple and Microsoft and are you still going on about that Meeting? couldn't fit it into one of your 6-7 articles in a day?
the lower pricing on Apples OS $130 and its update is a reflection that Apple picks up alot of cash from its overpriced 'hardware' and its brand, its software is not where it makes its cash right now, just bonus bucks. MS is a software company (slowly changing) what you think it would be smart to charge 29$ for 7? its revamped entirely, you can tell just by using the thing... fairly sure they would like to make some $
more value, lets see... i first got 95 in well 95 (from a friend) on a PC, 98 in 98 (from a friend), XP in 2006 (wga not for resale fullversion pro) and 7 in 2009 ... i'm going to add up how much i spent: round 190.00? $ total in 14+ years, and i did get Vista on a PC so i suppose i paid a little for that
i think we can see where the better value lies, i probably will not get another Windows OS until 2017+, unless its something i just have to try, for some reason... not because it looks purdy
i wonder how much Apple would charge for OS X, if it ran on all computers...you know, in order to make the money back it loose off its hardware sales
regardless, my point is, myself and many people i know have barely spent a dime on Windows over all these years, if i were using Mac i'd of HAD to spend thousands upon thousands by now, and more when the switch to intel came about
PC's are and hardware getting cheaper by the day and i will have 2 Operating Systems, XP and 7 that have already paid for themselves 10 fold to run on them, nice eh?
oh and Linux, i do play with some distros now and again and those cost nothing, so yeah, value? lies with Windows and Linux (more so in the past, but still applies today)
and also, with my own situation, i won't need to buy a new PC until 2014+ whenever my own dies during that year, a lot of $ saved indeed, though those netbooks are cheap to buy and play with preloaded with Windows for the decent specs, later reverted to Linux
Score: 2
|I was asked to write on Windows 7 Family Pack. At first I said no. So there's no any "excuse" about it.
Thanks for answering the value question. You raise a good question about "how much Apple would charge for OS X, if it ran on all computers." I'll ask another: What would Microsoft charge if Windows and Mac OS X competed for the same OEMs?
Score: -1
|well if i were MS, the first thing i'd do is see how well they were selling.... if well! i'd have to slash prices on Ultimate down to the level of OS X (they would take huge losses for awhile depending on how it sells because Mac sales would plummet) slightly cheaper and hype that like no man has done before, ad wars like noone has seen because fighting for the same turf now but also, it would drive innovation to its max for upcoming OS's on both sides... prob for both companies, faster pace too
in short, if OS X came out for all capable devices which lets face it, every PC out there is capable... MS would welcome its new challenger at some important event and announce a challange for them, now Microsoft would take losses as well as Apple but with 7 avail soon and with its touted reviews, there would be wind in their sails along with whatever price beats out Apple....
who really knows though? it would be a difficult thing for Apple to accomplish, there would be reports of crashes beyond crashes and problems galore... not Apples fault but basically the same spot Microsoft was in with Vista except worse so...
its real hard to answer what both companies might do... and losses because of pirating etc s*** be hard to run a company my mind hurts just thinking about it, right now Apple has it pretty easy :) and they still have only 9% the market after 20+ years
Score: 2
|i don't even think Apple would sell Macs at all really, if that happened :P their own decision or some court...
Score: 0
|I wish they'd stop asking you to write on MS or Apple based news because your articles are prone to some serious flamebait.
I don't consider myself easily flamebaitable, but questions like
"Which company do you think offers more value, regardless of pricing, Apple or Microsoft?" just don't seem fair in the face of the fact that Microsoft isn't in the business of creating hardware that runs their own OS....so how on God's earth can that question be answered without some kind of bias? How are you able to compare the Apple OS which ONLY (is supposed to) runs on Apple computers, with an OS in an of itself, made to run on just about everything? Of course Apple can afford to sell their OS in a 5 pack for 130 or whatever, they're not competing with MS for use on Apple systems. Even if said people shell out to buy Vista or 7 from MS, that is of no consequence to Apple because they've already gotten their money for their OS when that user purchased their Mac. In essence, of course the Apple scenario offers more value. How can anyone argue with buying 5 licenses for 49 vs. 3 for 150?
Score: 0
|