MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Oct 27, 09 - 12:29 pm Comment from: silverhawk

M$ is being soooo nice to their corporate associates.

Oct 27, 09 - 12:31 pm Comment from: Macintosher

That article misses out one good point: Microsoft have just been beaten in price for arguably the most significant (obviously not the greatest) amount ever, so all who think they're cheaper have got nowhere to go now, and thus they'll lose customers, proving they have no plans to expand their user base, meaning that it's just going to be Ballmer and Loonies from now on, and there you go, that's my point (and longest sentence ever). In other words, they're going even more down the drain.

Oct 27, 09 - 12:31 pm Comment from: HazMatt

Well, gosh I thought Mac OS X was so cheap because it's an "upgrade" to Mac hardware (refering to all of the Psystar story comments). Microsoft relies on 3rd party hardware so naturally they need to charge more.

Mac OS X is a loss leader.

If that is true I would say they just made a big mistake. Time to pick-up more AAPL now that it is back under $200. Apparently "up-grading" to Windows 7 can get pretty hairy, is that part of the plan to get new PC purchases. Microsoft sure under estimates the public's ability to get it.

Oct 27, 09 - 12:33 pm Comment from: HMCIV

Why does 7ista cost so much? The box is actually a multi-touch screen. (There's no battery or logic board so it's just a box with a screen.)

It was clear years ago that Windows is now the most expensive OS out there. That wasn't always the case.

Earlier Microsoft OSes like DOS cost $50 or so (Digital Research cost more), the first Windows $100 or so. But in those days, Interactive UNIX and Xenix cost close to $1,000. The early versions of Solaris X86 in the '90s cost a few hundred.

But as each version of Windows has gotten ever more expensive (and diverse), the alternatives have gone DOWN in price. Packaged versions of Solaris and Linux are less than $50, while downloadable images are often free.

Consider also that in the early days of the personal computer - which typically cost thousands of dollars - the Microsoft component was among its least significant cost drivers. Today it's one of the most significant.

"And the answer to that one is quite simple: Microsoft doesn’t actually want you to upgrade to Windows 7 at all," Cringely writes. "Microsoft wants you to buy a new Windows 7 PC instead."

Microsoft sells each OEM copy of Windows for about $40. That $40 is pure revenue.

When they sell a physical disk to people for a higher price, they have manufacturing costs, distribution costs, and profit to be distributed to various middle-men. And you have the hassles of the upgrading process not working for many, with the attendant angry customers. Never mind.

Microsoft has always seen their customers as being large corporations, not individuals.

Oct 27, 09 - 12:38 pm Comment from: DLMeyer

Cringely writes, "For a stark contrast, compare Windows 7 with OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, its would-be competitor." followed by "I won't get into ... which OS sees the other as competition". Say, WHAT?
There are, at the moment, three competitors for use as an OS on your PC. Windows is way ahead, OSX follows, and Linux trails the field. Just what is this "would-be" cruft? And, if MSFT didn't see OSX as "competition", why do they spend so much time and energy playing catch-up to Apple's technology?
He DID get it right when he said: "Microsoft doesn’t actually want you to upgrade to Windows 7 at all," Cringely writes. "Microsoft wants you to buy a new Windows 7 PC instead.". But he may have misunderstood the reasoning. MSFT wants people to buy bigger/better PCs that will actually run the new OS without stumbling and generally "behaving badly".

Oct 27, 09 - 12:40 pm Comment from: Harvey

Windows costs more because Microsoft is a software-only company. Snow Leopard costs less because it is not a separate product so much as it is a feature of another product with a higher margin than software.

This is what happens when a monopoly starts losing its stranglehold over the market – time to jack up the prices on the remaining customers who don't think they have any choice but to pay up.

Oct 27, 09 - 12:54 pm Comment from: Tommy Boy

There is no <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_X._Cringley">Robert X. Cringley! It's just a pseudonym used by multiple writers, most often Mark Stephens.

"Microsoft sure under estimates the public's ability to get it."

If only that were true...

MIcrosoft wants people to buy a new PC because that will just further lock them into their platform. Not many people are going to buy a Windows PC and then switch to a Mac after realizing what a dud Windows 7 continues to be. If they simply did an upgrade, then there'd be less of an investment to get thrown away.

Oct 27, 09 - 12:59 pm Comment from: KingMel

Snow Leopard cost me $29. The family pack is $49. Bob Cringely may "know why," but he doesn't "know what."

Oct 27, 09 - 01:06 pm Comment from: critic

"Windows costs more because Microsoft is a software-only company. Snow Leopard costs less because it is not a separate product so much as it is a feature of another product with a higher margin than software."

What the heck are you talking about? There is no product with a higher margin than software, as there are virtually no incremental costs of production for each unit sold.

All you have to do is look at the gross margins of Apple and MS. Apple's margins are about 36% (including software sales, which push up the average), while microsoft's are 78%.

It's more expensive because the suckers still pay the price for it. How come Apple's computers are so expensive? They had a 30+% margin on them in the last quarter so surely they COULD lower the prices but why bother when people think the product is worth the money.

Oct 27, 09 - 01:11 pm Comment from: Cubert

Let's not forget that any supported Mac can be upgraded to SL for $29. It doesn't have to be currently running Leopard as Apple implies.

That's total B.S. Microsoft make $50 or less off an OEM license on a new machine supplied by its 3rd party partners. When a consumer purchase a copy of Windows at retail, the total profits less production, packaging, shipping go directly to Microsoft. Make no mistake that Microsoft is a software company, and that's where they make their money. Windows 7 is priced at the price point Microsoft feels the market will bear without making seem "undervalued" by pricing too low. No comments on whether or not it's worth that price, but that's the way it is.

@ Emil – Apple's Mac products are worth the money. You pay more up front, and get a product with notably longer useful lifespan, as well as better support from Apple over that lifetime than you get from the cheapo PC makers.

I have family members still using 2004 iBooks as their primary computers with no problems. And my 2007 MacBook Pro will last me quite nicely until I decide to trade it in for a new model, at which point my current model will command a healthy resale value.

With Apple, you get what you pay for. With Microsoft, you really do pay for what you get.

Oct 27, 09 - 01:23 pm Comment from: Mac-nugget

I would not expect Apple keeping the price for the OS at $29.00. This price was supposed to be exclusive for Leopard users. They priced low because it had no new block buster features. It was only an optimization release. That said, even at normal price range, OSX has historically been cheaper then Windows.

Why? Lack of competition!

Oct 27, 09 - 01:31 pm Comment from: alsoran

Fat Basterd said:
MIcrosoft wants people to buy a new PC because that will just further lock them into their platform.

You are very wise and very correct! The ONLY thing m$ has going for them is the monopoly status. Once that is gone m$ is done.

Oct 27, 09 - 01:42 pm Comment from: MidWest Mac

And you can't compare OS X — that has the entire OS without restrictions — to "home premium" that is crippled.

Don't you have to compare it to the "ultimate" version of Windows? And wouldn't that cost quite a bit more than "home premium?"

Because Windows 7 has more things in it than Leopard service pack 1...err, Snow Leopard does?

Oct 27, 09 - 01:43 pm Comment from: alsoran

And another thought; Mac users upgrade their software because it is always 'fun' to use a new Mac OS upgrade, much as using a Mac tends to be fun in general.

But why would windowse users upgrade the windose OS? There is no 'fun factor' with windoz.

Oct 27, 09 - 02:00 pm Comment from: John E

why does anyone pay attention to this bozo "Cringely" (a pen name)? he can't even bother to get the price right.

and he's only about the millionth person to figure out MS is trying to push XP users to buy new PC's.

Oct 27, 09 - 02:02 pm Comment from: ChrissyOne

@ Because

More "things"? You must be a programer.

Oct 27, 09 - 02:32 pm Comment from: ken1w

Where is this guy buying this Snow Leopard, at the Microsoft Store?

Windows 7 and Snow Leopard are not competing products. The choices for a current WIndows Vista or XP user are, buy a new PC that comes with Windows 7, get a Mac, or upgrade current PC to Windows 7. There is no "buy Snow Leopard" choice (at least not legally).

So the price difference may be a nice marketing point for Apple, but a typical Windows user's choice is not between Windows 7 and Snow Leopard. It is between buying yet another PC with Window or switching to Mac this time.

Even at 120 dollars, the usual price for Mac OS X its still comparable to the ~100 dollars of upgrade price of the home version of any Windows.

The thing about Mac OS X and iLife is that they come included in all apple computers. So any version of it that you buy can only be installed in a computer that has already paid for an initial version... meaning, ALL versions of Mac OS X and iLife are actually upgrades and that is why they are sold so cheap, because they are always upgrade prices.

Microsoft doesn't have that luxury, since you can install Windows on a computer that was without including the operating system.

Anyone with an old version of Windows, yes, even Win2K, can use the upgrade version for what, $30?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1477&tag=content;col1

Oct 27, 09 - 03:11 pm Comment from: Tommyr

Superior suckage costs money. That why. Suckage don't come cheap. Why do we need what, 6-7 VERSIONS of the same suckage??

Oct 27, 09 - 04:10 pm Comment from: Jubei

"while there are twenty different versions of Windows 7 to choose from"


And that my friends is pure, one hundred percent STUPIDITY. For people to fall into getting various versions, then they deserve to be stupid enough to do it.

How many Mac OS's have come out since XP? 6? That's 5 x $129 + $29 for SL. Those .x upgrades add up.

@ Sarasota

And that is exactly the problem. Microsoft doesn't want users with an operating system that old upgrading to 7 for cheap, as that's a huge jump to make; the jump from Vista to 7 is much smaller. They don't have separate pricing, and they can't, because so many users are still on XP.

Snow Leopard, from what I've read, 'legally' locks you out of upgrading from Tiger using an upgrade license, while you can obviously upgrade from Leopard (just like Vista -> 7, less of a difference there).

I'd argue that maybe Microsoft should have priced the two upgrades differently, but with the many ways to get these licenses cheaper than retail it's hard to complain unless you really want to.

Oct 27, 09 - 05:25 pm Comment from: alansky

Why does Microsoft’s Windows 7ista cost so much?

That's an easy one. It's because Microsoft knows that anyone dumb enough to buy their crap software is probably also dumb enough to pay outrageous prices.

Apple sells Snow Job for such a low price so Mac users can afford to buy Windows 7. Thanks, Apple. Now I can purchase Windows 7 for my Mac.

Oct 28, 09 - 01:32 pm Comment from: pdxflint

If Microsoft wants folks to buy a new computer... then a lot of them will choose Mac. Why not? If there ever was a time to switch, it would be when your older machine won't really upgrade to Win7. Archive all your data, and just make a clean switch to a real upgrade - a shiny new Mac. Just opening the box will tell you you've entered a completely different world, and century.

Windows 7 has twenty different flavors, all with the same cruddy taste...

It's like Microsoft is adhering to a consciously designed plan -- release an abysmal OS, followed by a version that is marginally better and somewhat competent, then charge users an arm and a leg to pay for the functionality and basic usability that should have been present in the previous OS in the first place. If Microsoft had an ounce of integrity, they would charge a minuscule amount for Windows 7, as an apology to their users for putting out such ill-conceived product.

Oct 29, 09 - 05:42 pm Comment from: derekcurrie

' Cringely writes, "Is Windows 7 really worth $70 more than Snow Leopard?"
' MacDailyNews Note: Make that $90.95 more, Bob. '

Why is Cringely such a dweeb? Well, at least he came up with a decent topic.

Also:

1) Why are there are 6 ( S I X) versions of 7ista? (... With 3 versions hidden from the general public). There just 1 ( O N E ) version of Snow Leopard.

2) Where is 7ista Server? Apple released Snow Leopard Server at exactly the same time as the client version. Meanwhile, Microsoft makes their server users wait at least another YEAR!

Same routine as Vista.

Oct 29, 09 - 05:55 pm Comment from: derekcurrie

John E sez, regarding dweeb Cringely: "he's only about the millionth person to figure out MS is trying to push XP users to buy new PC's."

Actually, the sad truth is that just about any XP user who wants to upgrade to 7ista MUST upgrade their hardware.

History:

MS had a bogus Vista hardware analysis site that told you whether your hardware was officially qualified to run Vista. The site was WRONG more times than it was right, resulting in RANTING customers who installed Vista and found their machine ran SLOWER than XP. Yeah, that's typical of Microsoft Windows, but it was really nasty that Microsoft had mislead their customers.

So now we have 7ista, and I have XP users asking me if they should install 7ista on their XP hardware. Worse yet, they ask ME to do it for them. My answer is: NO WAY! I tell them how much slower 7ista is than XP and they gasp in disbelief. I tell them about the higher hardware requirements and they go away grumbling to themselves, figuring they're stuck with XP for the time being.

Conclusion: It's not just out of loyalty to their hardware partners that MS are pushing new hardware. It's out of bottom line NECESSITY. MS don't want to have to deal with that old problem they had when Vista came out: Furious, raving mad customers who are ticked off that their 7ista machines are running at a snail's pace.

Remember way back when MS said they were going to overhaul Windows? Wasn't Windows 2000 supposed to be the overhaul? No! It was XP! Wrong again. It was Vista! No? So it's 7ista?

Never happened. And if you take a look at the boot processes for even 7ista, guess what you find! DOS is still under there running the show. Very sad. Very S L O W.