PDA

View Full Version : Vista Will Double Apple’s Market Share


MacBytes
Oct 14, 2006, 11:48 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Vista Will Double Apple’s Market Share (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20061014124819)
Description:: none

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Some_Big_Spoon
Oct 14, 2006, 12:05 PM
Article says nothing. His #1 reason that people are going to leave Vista / Windows in droves? UI inconsistencies. No one's leaving because of that, and OSX is even more of a Frankenstein in terms of it's UI.

Save valuable seconds and pass on this piece of fluff.

iJon
Oct 14, 2006, 12:06 PM
Good article. It's bad when your own Microsoft fans start running for the hills when Vista is mentioned.

jon

mdntcallr
Oct 14, 2006, 12:18 PM
hey OS X.5 is just going to be that good.

Apple in on the upswing. this is a good thing

asim
Oct 14, 2006, 12:46 PM
while he may be a little bit pro os-x himself, it seems that more than anything he is saying that if his family switches to mac he will get fewer requests for technical support. hard to argue with that.

iJaz
Oct 14, 2006, 01:01 PM
Good article. It's bad when your own Microsoft fans start running for the hills when Vista is mentioned.

jon

True, I think even Thurrott called Vista a train wreck! :D

BenRoethig
Oct 14, 2006, 01:57 PM
It's going to take more than bad software from Microsoft to double Apple's share. It's going to take an effort from Apple to meet switchers half way.

psychofreak
Oct 14, 2006, 02:01 PM
It's going to take an effort from Apple to meet switchers half way.

You mean something like dual-booting windows...oh, wait, didn't they already do that?:rolleyes:

BenRoethig
Oct 14, 2006, 02:14 PM
You mean something like dual-booting windows...oh, wait, didn't they already do that?:rolleyes:

By realizing a that a laptop on a stick as a desktop only appeals to you guys.

bilbo--baggins
Oct 14, 2006, 02:53 PM
Funny. When we rant on forums, people frown. When a columnist rants, people read it as gospel.

Shadow
Oct 14, 2006, 02:55 PM
As much as I want it to happen, its not going to. Shops like PC World (UK) are simply too biased too Windows-they are already promoting Vista at my "local branch".

macnulty
Oct 14, 2006, 04:30 PM
It's going to take more than bad software from Microsoft to double Apple's share. It's going to take an effort from Apple to meet switchers half way.

"A Mac pro as a home desktop is like a Freightliner with a Pickup bed."

You can get a Freightliner with a pick-up bed, serious testosterone.

wyatt23
Oct 14, 2006, 04:42 PM
vista is going to be a success regardless if people like it or hate it.. see: windows 95/98.

the only thing that could help apple out is that most of the computer people have aren't capable of completely running vista to the fullest before some upgrades. they will likely look at price comparisons, realize that can get an apple for in some cases cheaper that comparable dells and hp's, and what's this, CURVEBALL... all apples out right now are vista-compatible.

[granted they will love leopard/tiger so much, they will forget the vista thing quickly]

pilky
Oct 14, 2006, 06:39 PM
By realizing a that a laptop on a stick as a desktop only appeals to you guys.

The only people that this laptop on a stick doesn't appeal to is those that like to upgrade their systems. Most computer users (PC and Mac) don't really upgrade. At most they upgrade their ram. The vast majority of computer users I know never upgrade their machines, they just buy them and then buy a new one when they need one

Ugg
Oct 14, 2006, 06:58 PM
It's going to take more than bad software from Microsoft to double Apple's share. It's going to take an effort from Apple to meet switchers half way.

Don't you mean a bad and extremely expensive OS? Even Apple's OS upgrades are a bargain in comparison and it looks like MS is really going to crack down on the widespread piracy that so many windoze fanboys practice.

What more do you want from Apple? Some cheap, marginally functional box that needs to be returned to the manf. every 6 months?

rdhazrd
Oct 14, 2006, 09:29 PM
they will likely look at price comparisons, realize that can get an apple for in some cases cheaper that comparable dells and hp's, and what's this, CURVEBALL... all apples out right now are vista-compatible.

One problem with that, MOST people don't look for the best performance for the price. They look at price. "Oh, a Dell for $300, what a deal". They don't realize they are getting a computer worth about $150. And I don't think most people give a rat's pink behind if they can run Vista to it's fullest. It's sad how stupid the general public is.

Analog Kid
Oct 14, 2006, 09:43 PM
Article says nothing. His #1 reason that people are going to leave Vista / Windows in droves? UI inconsistencies. No one's leaving because of that, and OSX is even more of a Frankenstein in terms of it's UI.

Save valuable seconds and pass on this piece of fluff.
I'd say his number one reason for expecting a mass migration is that Vista is expensive and doesn't fix any of the problems of XP. He expects Leopard to provide an easier to use platform bundled with most of the applications people need.

But you're right-- mostly fluff. Nice to hear more people predict a major shift though.

When Apple users and Windows users talk about inconsistent interfaces they mean different things, I think. Apple users complain about the icons looking different, or the windows borders being different colors. Windows users complain that each application or tool or setting has a completely different way of doing essentially the same thing. OS X is pretty consistent in its interface, even if its outward appearance can vary.

white89gt
Oct 14, 2006, 09:45 PM
I don't know who here has seen or used Vista RC 1, but it blows big time. Most of the stuff that I thought would be cool is more of a hassle. I have it running on a computer of mine at work and I can't wait until I have time to reinstall XP on it. I'm not a big Windows fan, but XP has it's nicer points. I'll take OS X over XP any day though. I wish that there was a way to get OS X running on a x86 PC box without it being terribly unstable. I'd have all my computers at work on it if there was. I can't wait until Leopard comes out. From what I've seen it is a terrific operating system.

Analog Kid
Oct 14, 2006, 09:56 PM
One problem with that, MOST people don't look for the best performance for the price. They look at price. "Oh, a Dell for $300, what a deal". They don't realize they are getting a computer worth about $150. And I don't think most people give a rat's pink behind if they can run Vista to it's fullest. It's sad how stupid the general public is.
Not sure what kinds of rats you have in Wisconsin, but ours have brown, furry behinds. Or maybe I haven't looked closely enough...

That aside, my experience has been that people talk about being able to get a $300 Dell, but rarely do. "Why would I get a Mac for $2500 when I can get a Dell for $300?" They end up comparing high end Macs to low end PCs. What they wind up buying is much more capable and much more expensive than the $300 machine.

They look at price and performance separately, and often buy performance while feeling good about the price of something they didn't buy thinking it's an indication that they must still be getting a deal. If Dell can make a computer that is cheaper than anyone else's, then their whole line must be less expensive than comparable machines elsewhere. Most people understand price, but don't understand the features that lead to performance.

Apple suffers from a shallow product line. They have to, given their volumes. This means they can't push out a machine that's dirt cheap but low demand just to attract peoples attention. They had the mini for a while which proved how inexpensive a Mac could be, but then they went Intel and doubled the price... I, for one, think they should have kept the G4 mini's around as long as everything is moving to universal binaries anyway.

babyj
Oct 14, 2006, 09:56 PM
There was a column in a PC magazine I read which was raising questions over whether people would switch from XP to Vista, it came to the conclussion they wouldn't (as there wasn't any must have features and for business it wouldn't be worth the risk) and that it would cause Microsoft serious problems (financial mainly).

But I really fail to see why the release of Vista, whether it is good or bad, would have any major effect on the number of people switching to Mac's - people will just stay with XP.

Using Firefox as an example doesn't prove anything, nor does Open Office - there are many excellent reasons for people to switch to them (more than for switching from XP/Vista to Mac) yet not that many have. Microsoft still have massive markets share, the last I heard Firefox had 5%-15% which is good but not that good.

The continued success of the iPod and the iTV are going to be the main reasons people switch in the near future. The iPod as its a showcase for what Apple products are like, though this will only ever result in small numbers of switchers.

iTV as the next os battle is going to be fought on the home media server front. But its going to need some killer features to have any chance of taking on Windows Media Centre, which to be fair to Microsoft is a pretty good package. My brother just got a £200 Xbox 360 which in conjunction with a PC running XP Media Centre, can do everything the iTV is likely to do and a whole lot more.

Nintendo are the company Apple should be looking to for inspiration. All the press laughed at the DS going up against the PSP, it didn't have a chance yet it has blown the PSP away sales wise. We'll have to wait and see what the Wii does but it has the potential to do the same.

Nintendo refer to them as 'disruptive' products, causing a major change in the games market. Apple need their own 'disruptive' product, which will draw people to the Mac. Nintendo have also commented on their 'blue ocean strategy' (Google it) which again would be a good direction for Apple to keep moving in (which they have already started to with the iPod).

Analog Kid
Oct 14, 2006, 10:23 PM
There was a column in a PC magazine I read which was raising questions over whether people would switch from XP to Vista, it came to the conclussion they wouldn't (as there wasn't any must have features and for business it wouldn't be worth the risk) and that it would cause Microsoft serious problems (financial mainly).
That will slow the adoption, but people will eventually move because all new machines will ship with Vista leading to incompatibilities and a need to standardize on the newer platform. Once one user in the office is using an updated version of Office, everyone needs to update to read the files. Same is true, to some extent, with the OS. Networking, file sharing, peripheral support, etc.
But I really fail to see why the release of Vista, whether it is good or bad, would have any major effect on the number of people switching to Mac's - people will just stay with XP.
What I'm hearing among my peers is that people are planning to make their next home machine a Mac. I give the folks I manage the choice of moving to Mac in the office, but they're nervous about it-- they want to try it at home first. Makes sense. That's the path I followed.
Using Firefox as an example doesn't prove anything, nor does Open Office - there are many excellent reasons for people (more than for switching from XP/Vista to Mac) yet not that many have. Microsoft still have massive markets share, the last I heard Firefox had 5%-15% which is good but not that good.
"Pundits" like this tend to be geeks, or at least want to emulate geeks. Firefox, Linux, and OpenOffice have much higher visibility among that crowd. Same goes for the people reading their columns. You're right-- it doesn't prove anything, but if they don't talk about the geeky stuff they get clobbered with email from readers.

In most ways, the counter argument is much more instructive-- Netscape had complete dominance and IE came out of nowhere to obliterate it. The fact that Firefox is struggling for a few percentage points shows that superior products don't always succeed.
The continued success of the iPod and the iTV are going to be the main reasons people switch in the near future. The iPod as its a showcase for what Apple products are like, though this will only ever result in small numbers of switchers.

iTV as the next os battle is going to be fought on the home media server front. But its going to need some killer features to have any chance of taking on Windows Media Centre, which to be fair to Microsoft is a pretty good package. My brother just got a £200 Xbox 360 which in conjunction with a PC running XP Media Centre, can do everything and a whole lot more than the iTV is likely to do.
Yeah, the iPod is bringing a lot of attention to Apple, but I don't think it's going to fuel much of a shift by itself. Apple's market share isn't going to move much until they get better penetration into businesses. That's where the bulk of machines are sold, and it's where people are forced to accept the machine someone else prescribes. At home, many people want or need a machine that's compatible with the office.

The success of the iPod/iTunes is starting a bit of a reverse pressure-- people want a work machine compatible with their home. They want to be able to manage their iPod at work. This isn't going to do much to change the situation though-- for most of us, the pressure to work at home is far greater than the desire to play at work.

bobber205
Oct 15, 2006, 12:10 AM
I've used Release Candidate 2 at work for Vista and it sucks.

I can't tell to tell any differences between it and XP.

And to make it worse, they've stolen SO MANY things from OS X.

winmacguy
Oct 15, 2006, 12:20 AM
Apple's market share isn't going to move much until they get better penetration into businesses. That's where the bulk of machines are sold, and it's where people are forced to accept the machine someone else prescribes. At home, many people want or need a machine that's compatible with the office.
This isn't going to do much to change the situation though-- for most of us, the pressure to work at home is far greater than the desire to play at work.
Ironically this is the one market place that Apple never has and never will aim for. The Macintosh is a "personal" computer not a "work" machine.:rolleyes:

bobber205
Oct 15, 2006, 12:57 AM
Ironically this is the one market place that Apple never has and never will aim for. The Macintosh is a "personal" computer not a "work" machine.:rolleyes:

Is the Mac Pro not a work machine? :p

Felldownthewell
Oct 15, 2006, 01:21 AM
The more people switch, the more likely we are going to get viruses and spyware written for OSX and eventually OS 11. For that reason and that reason alone I hope vista dosen't blow as much as it seems to. Cnet gave RC2 a bad review- it was even worse that RC1.

nagromme
Oct 15, 2006, 01:44 AM
The more people switch, the more likely we are going to get viruses and spyware written for OSX and eventually OS 11.
True. But double a chance in a million is still just two chances in a million :) Mac OS X is more secure by design even if it were to match Windows marketshare--which won't happen.

Analog Kid
Oct 15, 2006, 01:44 AM
Ironically this is the one market place that Apple never has and never will aim for. The Macintosh is a "personal" computer not a "work" machine.:rolleyes:
I have to disagree. All of the Windows compatibility stuff (windows networking, exchange support, etc) can be seen as addressing the business market. That's what makes it possible for me to use a Powerbook at work.

On the long list of things I could have suggested to Apple for making their Macs more office friendly, I wouldn't have dared suggest the boldest move they've taken yet-- the Trojan horse that is Boot Camp. I can't say anyone in my office has bought a Mac because of this, but I know many that have considered it but don't want to be first. Once someone takes the plunge and everything turns out ok, more will follow. Then, like many of us, they'll start to fall in love with the ease of use they find on the Mac side and stay there more and more.

Me? I get by using OSX alone. I have VPC, but haven't used it in well over a year and now don't want to because I don't want to deal with all the patches I'm going to have to load and all the reboots it's going to put itself though. Just firing up VPC is going to be a day-long process as far as I can tell.

Then there's the latest "Get a Mac" commercials which are taking tentative steps towards actually marketing to the business world. I wish they'd be more aggressive on this front, but the easiest money to be found for now is probably still in the home market and creative businesses.

PCMacUser
Oct 15, 2006, 04:23 AM
Um, I'm not sure if anyone else has pointed this out, but switching to OS X from Windows is not that easy. You can't install OS X on a PC! And I'm not sure the release of Vista is going to drive millions of people to an Apple store to part with thousands and thousands of dollars just to not use it! The big moment will come when Apple makes OS X available on all x86 platforms, not just their hardware - and I'm sure the general consensus in these forums is that that is not going to happen anytime soon...

BenRoethig
Oct 15, 2006, 08:25 AM
The more people switch, the more likely we are going to get viruses and spyware written for OSX and eventually OS 11. For that reason and that reason alone I hope vista dosen't blow as much as it seems to. Cnet gave RC2 a bad review- it was even worse that RC1.

That wouldn't be very likely. The virus would have to find a way to gain administrator privileges to do anything. The security measures in windows were designed when there were no internet threats. For compatibility reasons they haven't been able to fix much. Mac OS X was designed with broadband internet in mind. The classic OS had viruses, I had to deal with them. OSX has been around 6-7 years and nobody has cracked it yet.

Um, I'm not sure if anyone else has pointed this out, but switching to OS X from Windows is not that easy. You can't install OS X on a PC! And I'm not sure the release of Vista is going to drive millions of people to an Apple store to part with thousands and thousands of dollars just to not use it! The big moment will come when Apple makes OS X available on all x86 platforms, not just their hardware - and I'm sure the general consensus in these forums is that that is not going to happen anytime soon...

That's the point a lot of people miss. If it were just about software, the switch would be made for a lot of people. It's not. Apple has a fundamentally different view on computer hardware than the mainstream. Windows PCs tend to be function over form, while Macs are usually form over function. Most people who are not going to trade that practicality for a pretty box even if it means a much better operating system.

daveact4
Oct 15, 2006, 12:20 PM
The release won't drive millions into an Apple Store for a new machine. I work at Fry's Electronics as the "Mac Guy" and I deal with every switcher who comes through with questions. By doing so I have found that everyday people (who don't know why having the 1gb of ram is a good thing) don't know what they are shopping for. At some point in their computering career they were told to get a PC, and so they did so. When they come into my "Apple Store" I walk them through the computer of iLife and why they can use a Mac the same way they can on the PC, their eyes light up when I tell them about spyware and viruses. These are the people that talk to and see their point of view of computers. It is a financially large product to purchase right there on the spot but I know they will be back the next time a virus pops up on their PC.

The switch will be a slow long process for Microsoft and Apple to be on the same market level. If I remember correctly after XP was released many people said they are going to stay with Windows 2000 and not make the switch because 2000 does what they want it to do. Once that computer itself becomes obsolete the switch will have to be made and the PC user will have to eat XP. This time since OSX is getting a lot of attention, mostly the marketing campaign with Mac and PC. Its amazing how many people LOVE those commercials which brings them to an Apple Store or to me where I can talk to them and give them something to think about.

This next year will defiantly be interesting once Vista and OS 10.5 release. I'm looking forward to it and defiantly ready for it.

Flowbee
Oct 15, 2006, 12:39 PM
And I'm not sure the release of Vista is going to drive millions of people to an Apple store to part with thousands and thousands of dollars just to not use it!

It's been a long time since you had to spend "thousands and thousands of dollars" to get a Mac.

IJ Reilly
Oct 15, 2006, 12:43 PM
vista is going to be a success regardless if people like it or hate it.. see: windows 95/98.

True story. Windows 95 was called a technological disaster when it came out by some otherwise Microsoft-friendly people. Not that it hurt Microsoft any. They shoved it through the OEM pipeline and people bought it just the same, if only because they had little real choice. This is all the the public acceptance Microsoft has ever needed to call any OS update a success, no matter how flawed it might be. Vista will probably be no different in this respect than its successors.

The significance of this article (if there is any) is that an increasing number of former Windows-heads may be getting ready to bail on Microsoft. They are also not bashing Apple as much anymore. That's a good sign, because these people have a lot of influence on their friends and family members. For years, they've been telling them not to buy a Mac. Now that tune might be changing.

IJ Reilly
Oct 15, 2006, 12:50 PM
Um, I'm not sure if anyone else has pointed this out, but switching to OS X from Windows is not that easy. You can't install OS X on a PC! And I'm not sure the release of Vista is going to drive millions of people to an Apple store to part with thousands and thousands of dollars just to not use it! The big moment will come when Apple makes OS X available on all x86 platforms, not just their hardware - and I'm sure the general consensus in these forums is that that is not going to happen anytime soon...

No, it isn't that easy, but during the '90s a lot of people switched from the Mac to Windows. It wasn't easy, but they did it, because they were being told that Apple was doomed. Now we are learning that it's a two-way street.

I think Apple may some day experiment with limited licensing, but they will never make OSX available for all generic PCs.

babyj
Oct 15, 2006, 10:58 PM
I don't think Microsoft have done themselves any favours by waiting so long after the release of XP to come up with Vista. They then compounded it by putting the high end features in which requires higher spec PC's. It would of made a lot more sense to do incremental upgrades over time bringing the new features in one by one.

People will look at the cost of Vista, add on the cost of upgrading to the spec needed for all the features (no one will rely on the bottom end specs) then multiply it by the number of PC's they have. They will then have a fit and decide not to go ahead with moving to Vista.

For example my brothers got 5 PC's running XP, all of which would need to be replaced / upgraded for Vista. He's always been a Windows man but he ain't gonna shell all that money out. I've been working on him and I reckon he'll be another convert to Mac's soon.

The funny thing with the money is I reckon people would be happy paying say $100 a year for the OS but wouldn't pay $300 for an upgrade every 4-5 years (even though it would work out cheaper). I'm surprised Apple and Microsoft haven't moved to an annual pricing structure yet.

PCMacUser
Oct 15, 2006, 11:57 PM
It's been a long time since you had to spend "thousands and thousands of dollars" to get a Mac.
Really? It costs $3000 for a 20" iMac here. $3800 for the 24". A 15" Macbook Pro costs $4100 and upward. A Mac Pro costs $5200.

Hmm, you don't think your country is the only one that uses the dollar as its currency, do you? :rolleyes:

Chundles
Oct 16, 2006, 12:13 AM
Really? It costs $3000 for a 20" iMac here. $3800 for the 24". A 15" Macbook Pro costs $4100 and upward. A Mac Pro costs $5200.

Hmm, you don't think your country is the only one that uses the dollar as its currency, do you? :rolleyes:

Yep, the wonders of the South Pacific Peso.

That, and Renaissance has it's Kiwi customers by the short-and-woolies because Apple have no retail presence there.

Prices are actually quite decent here in Aus now, they're more than what you'd pay in the US but less than UK prices. The Mac is now very competitive in price compared with big-brand PCs here which hasn't been the case until recently.

babyj
Oct 16, 2006, 01:57 AM
Prices are actually quite decent here in Aus now, they're more than what you'd pay in the US but less than UK prices. The Mac is now very competitive in price compared with big-brand PCs here which hasn't been the case until recently.

Its a misconception that UK prices are a lot more than the USA, they're not when compared correctly. The big problem is sales tax at 17.5% in the UK, compared to nothing in the USA. When you take that out prices are no more than 10% more expensive in the UK and a lot of that is just down to the weakness of the USD vs GBP at present.

IJ Reilly
Oct 16, 2006, 08:26 AM
Its a misconception that UK prices are a lot more than the USA, they're not when compared correctly. The big problem is sales tax at 17.5% in the UK, compared to nothing in the USA. When you take that out prices are no more than 10% more expensive in the UK and a lot of that is just down to the weakness of the USD vs GBP at present.

You're right it's a misconception, but not because there's no sales tax in the US. Most states levy a sales tax (between 5-8%), but they are added at the point of sale, not to the price of the good on the shelf, as VAT is.

BenRoethig
Oct 16, 2006, 08:48 AM
Its a misconception that UK prices are a lot more than the USA, they're not when compared correctly. The big problem is sales tax at 17.5% in the UK, compared to nothing in the USA. When you take that out prices are no more than 10% more expensive in the UK and a lot of that is just down to the weakness of the USD vs GBP at present.

The UK government has full sovereignty over the UK in all aspects. The U.S. is a confederation (like the E.U.) in which the States retain full domestic sovereignty. The federal government has no legal authority to institute a tax like the VAT. Only the state governments can tax intra-state transactions.

IJ Reilly
Oct 16, 2006, 10:24 AM
The UK government has full sovereignty over the UK in all aspects. The U.S. is a confederation (like the E.U.) in which the States retain full domestic sovereignty. The federal government has no legal authority to institute a tax like the VAT. Only the state governments can tax intra-state transactions.

I'm pretty certain this is not really the case. There's a significant movement in the U.S. to replace the income tax with a national sales tax. Not to open a debate on whether this is a good idea (which has already occurred over in the political forum), but I do believe it would be Constitutional.

Chundles
Oct 16, 2006, 10:32 AM
I'm pretty certain this is not really the case. There's a significant movement in the U.S. to replace the income tax with a national sales tax. Not to open a debate on whether this is a good idea (which has already occurred over in the political forum), but I do believe it would be Constitutional.

I just wish you guys would put the tax on the price tag, not add it on at the end. I hate walking through a supermarket and not knowing exactly what I'm spending.

For online stuff just have a drop down menu with your state that will show the correct price.

IJ Reilly
Oct 16, 2006, 10:49 AM
I just wish you guys would put the tax on the price tag, not add it on at the end. I hate walking through a supermarket and not knowing exactly what I'm spending.

It's in the nature of the system, unfortunately. The states set and collect sales taxes as they wish.

Ugg
Oct 16, 2006, 10:57 AM
It's in the nature of the system, unfortunately. The states set and collect sales taxes as they wish.

It's not just the states but cities and counties that tack on a percentage as well. Within California each zip code could concevably have its own sales tax %. A quick glance at the Board of Equalization's website (http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rates.cgi) shows a bewildering array ranging from 7.25% to 8.75%.

That drop down menu for the US would be miles long!

IJ Reilly
Oct 16, 2006, 11:06 AM
It's not just the states but cities and counties that tack on a percentage as well. Within California each zip code could concevably have its own sales tax %. A quick glance at the Board of Equalization's website (http://www.boe.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rates.cgi) shows a bewildering array ranging from 7.25% to 8.75%.

That drop down menu for the US would be miles long!

Yes, that too. I was trying not to over-complicate the explanation. ;)

Fortunately I live in a 7.25% county, which saves me a few dollars when I buy a car. It doesn't matter where I buy it -- so long as it's delivered here, I get charged the lowest sales tax rate in California. It's a goofy system. I won't try to defend it.

Flowbee
Oct 16, 2006, 12:32 PM
Really? It costs $3000 for a 20" iMac here. $3800 for the 24". A 15" Macbook Pro costs $4100 and upward. A Mac Pro costs $5200.

Hmm, you don't think your country is the only one that uses the dollar as its currency, do you? :rolleyes:

Wow, you make a great point. Apple will never be able to double their marketshare unless they manage to get their New Zealand pricing sorted out.

Snowy_River
Oct 16, 2006, 01:08 PM
...They had the mini for a while which proved how inexpensive a Mac could be, but then they went Intel and doubled the price...

Huh? The Mini was introduced at US$499. Now it's US$599. How is that double? Yes, it would be nice if they got a lower end model (like a 1.67GHz Core Solo?) back down to the US$499, but that extra US$100 isn't going to kill the value of this as being a low-cost Macintosh computer.

AppliedVisual
Oct 16, 2006, 01:45 PM
I'm pretty certain this is not really the case. There's a significant movement in the U.S. to replace the income tax with a national sales tax. Not to open a debate on whether this is a good idea (which has already occurred over in the political forum), but I do believe it would be Constitutional.

If the voters approve it, it's constitutional - for the most part. The federal government has the legal right to levy taxes on a voter-approved basis. That's how we came to have Income Tax, Inheiritance/Estate Tax, Social Security and other payroll taxes, etc...

And as someone else mentioned 5 to 8 %, that range isn't really accurate. Some places are as high as 10% and maybe more these days and some still as low as 2% or even 0 under the right conditions. In home-rule states, of which there are very few remaining, smaller agencies can change tax rates too and you can actually run into situations where one person pays 7% while the guy across the street pays 3% just because he's outside city limits or outside of a special taxation district established for a new city development.

bousozoku
Oct 16, 2006, 01:59 PM
I just wish you guys would put the tax on the price tag, not add it on at the end. I hate walking through a supermarket and not knowing exactly what I'm spending.

For online stuff just have a drop down menu with your state that will show the correct price.

It's worse in the real world. In some states, food that has not prepared doesn't get taxed but prepared food and luxury items are taxed. Up until a few years ago, certain services here weren't taxed. Clothes are taxed here, but in other states, clothes aren't taxed, though some states only exempt children's clothes from taxes.

Back on topic, I noticed another article about Vista's new restrictions on being run in virtualisation, which obviously affects a lot of Mac users now. Microsoft have changed the rules so that only the most expensive version can be (legally) virtualised using Parallels or VMWare or Virtual PC for Windows.

It obviously forces more people to pay or more people to pirate, although the third option is to wait it out and continue to use WinXP.

babyj
Oct 16, 2006, 02:50 PM
You're right it's a misconception, but not because there's no sales tax in the US. Most states levy a sales tax (between 5-8%), but they are added at the point of sale, not to the price of the good on the shelf, as VAT is.

I'm getting confused with all this sales tax stuff.

If you buy from Apple's website how much do you pay? Just the price on their website? Or do you get charged the relevant sales tax for where you live as well?

If you sell to the public you legally have to show VAT inclusive prices. Confusingly, if you sell to businesses you don't have to and there is a bit of a grey area - you'll see companies showing exc VAT prices in consumer magazines.

iJon
Oct 16, 2006, 02:52 PM
I'm getting confused with all this sales tax stuff.

If you buy from Apple's website how much do you pay? Just the price on their website? Or do you get charged the relevant sales tax for where you live as well?
It will normally be whatever sales tax is in your area cause Apple has a presence in every state.

jon

IJ Reilly
Oct 16, 2006, 04:44 PM
If the voters approve it, it's constitutional - for the most part. The federal government has the legal right to levy taxes on a voter-approved basis. That's how we came to have Income Tax, Inheiritance/Estate Tax, Social Security and other payroll taxes, etc...

Taxes are established by Congress, not by voter approval. But we digress. Significantly.

SPUY767
Oct 16, 2006, 04:45 PM
I'd say his number one reason for expecting a mass migration is that Vista is expensive and doesn't fix any of the problems of XP. He expects Leopard to provide an easier to use platform bundled with most of the applications people need.

But you're right-- mostly fluff. Nice to hear more people predict a major shift though.

When Apple users and Windows users talk about inconsistent interfaces they mean different things, I think. Apple users complain about the icons looking different, or the windows borders being different colors. Windows users complain that each application or tool or setting has a completely different way of doing essentially the same thing. OS X is pretty consistent in its interface, even if its outward appearance can vary.


OS X Gets this right because the API forces developers do do things the Mac way or, to completely write their own windowing toolkit a la Shake. Either way, the mac has always been the more consistent of the platforms graphically because the designers understood that while individuality is great, it will be hella easier to remember stuff if we make it all the same.

SPUY767
Oct 16, 2006, 04:49 PM
Is the Mac Pro not a work machine? :p

Nope, 12Ghz of processor crunching away are only good for making artsy trash!

billyboy
Oct 16, 2006, 08:50 PM
It sounds like one point of view is that business is too conservative to adopt Vista, so it will bomb, whilst the other camp think business purchases with Vista pre installed will force the widespread adoption of Vista. Either way, MS do OK. And they win really well if people buy dual boot Macs and purchase a new Windows OS, or install Office.

A second point is that Apple are basically tugging at the coat tails of Vista, and will be very pleased with every 1% increase in marketshare, while MS wont even miss a few percentage points lost. I think Apple have been watching MS tactics and chosen to think different by thinking like MS. Taking advantage of the lucky iPod driven publicity, they have been telling the world they are different, then gone right ahead and offered what people expect from years of MS domination - Intel chips and the ability to run all the MS software they need for the office. Apple will do the right thing later. Smart - at last.

jhu
Oct 16, 2006, 09:29 PM
Is the Mac Pro not a work machine? :p

it is, but what large company is going to deploy thousands of computers that cost at least $2100? even $599 for mac minis is too much. that's why dell, hp, etc are still around.

bobber205
Oct 16, 2006, 09:46 PM
By work I meant "can do work". But yes, I see your point.

IJ Reilly
Oct 17, 2006, 10:17 AM
it is, but what large company is going to deploy thousands of computers that cost at least $2100? even $599 for mac minis is too much. that's why dell, hp, etc are still around.

The main issue in large corporations isn't the hardware, but the OS and software. Apple has to know what a huge nut that would be to crack, and have decided not to design their product line around a losing strategy. The current strategy is to make inroads into home, small business and academic environments. It seems to be working fairly well.