Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Microsoft Targeting Apple Stores With New Retail Store Concept

Yawn...

Hear comes yet another MS "roaring success" like Vista, Zune, etc.

Recommended reading for Ballmer: "Last Days of The Roman Empire"

Coincidence? I hear Wal-Mart is opening new stores too;)
 
windywoo said:
95%. Its because PC users don't have an orgasm every time Microsoft announces a new product line, or feel the need to defend Microsoft every time they do something questionable.
Click to expand...
If PC users had to defend every questionable action of Microsoft there would have to be a 48 hour day! Conversely PC users must have a terrible non-orgasmic sex life!!!!:rolleyes:
 
AidenShaw said:
You forgot to add the cost of an Apple computer to the price of 10.6.

$899 - Dell Quad Core Nehalem tower + Windows 7 Ultimate

$2499 - Apple Quad Core Nehalem tower + 10.6
________________________

:p
Click to expand...
This does not detract from the fact that at a $219.99 pricepoint, the W7 Ultimate upgrade costs 909% more than Snow Leopard does at $29.

diamond.g said:
Honestly comparing Microsofts pricing to Apples isn't right. Would you expect Apple to sell a single version of OS X to be installed on any computer?
Click to expand...
Computer compatibility has nothing to do with MS's tiered pricing scheme.

diamond.g said:
I would bet if Microsoft sold computers and made it so the os only runs on their hardware they would sell one version for a pretty cheap price.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly believe that?

diamond.g said:
Apple likes to claim they are a software company, but they couldn't survive (as shown in the past) if they let their os be installed "anywhere" officially.
Click to expand...
Entirely not true. They would likely have profited more had they licensed their OS back in the 1990s. Their business problems were more related to excessive varieties and models of computers being offered - this was rectified in 1997, and they have done remarkably well ever since.
 
techfreak85 said:
oh yea. limewire sounds like junk. most of the time, i can tell if a song has been limewire'd;)

but for that reason and for ethical ones, i have stopped.

as for artist names, i searched smoke on the water once and it said "Jimi Hendrix-Smoke on the Water".:confused:
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's as if the collection was created by the average 12-year-old kid on mommy and daddy's computer!

...oh wait
 
DMann said:
This does not detract from the fact that at a $219.99, the W7 Ultimate upgrade costs 909% more than Snow Leopard does at $29.

Computer compatibility has nothing to do with MS's tiered pricing scheme.

Do you honestly believe that?

Entirely not true. They would likely have profited more had they licensed their OS back in the 1990s. Their business problems were more related to excessive varieties and models of computers being offered - this was rectified in 1997, and they have done remarkably well ever since.
Click to expand...
In a way it does, Apple only needs to sell one version for a cheap price because they have made money from us buying their hardware. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury, and I do think that if they built their hardware like Apple does that they would probably be more apt to sell their software for a cheaper price.

Yes they are doing well for not licensing the OS. But they could be doing better.

I do think that MS is doing a dumb thing with the storefront. I just don't see people going to the store to get help with Windows. It doesn't seem like a compelling experience.
 
If they have a bunch of decent Vaios and things running Windows 7, these stores might not be half bad. But they need to make an effort, not run your typical bargain basement PC shop. I remember the Escoms and the Tinys - a crap computer in a polished shop is still a crap computer, people soon learn and the shop fails.

One of the interesting points is going to be trust. Yes the pocketable items in Apple stores have chains on them (understandable) but the laptops are just sat there, I've never seen a security guard in an Apple store and you're free to screw around with the machines all day if required. It kind of reflects their philosophy of Retail versions of most of their software, with none of the activation or even serial numbers. It might attract the attention of a small minority of criminals, but most people enjoy being treated with trust rather than contempt, and so more readily trust them in return and make the investment.

Will Microsoft do the same, or will everything be clamped down and alarmed so you daren't pick it up to see how light it is, and with security escorting you out of the premises if you spend more than 10 minutes on a machine?

Another one is going to be support. The effort and cost of running a genius bar and replacing things so readily, offering a certain amount of free advice and training etc is probably quite high. Most PC shops are run on a very tight margin - one reason why PCs tend to be a little cheaper - and quite frankly have an Idiot Bar staffed by people you wouldn't trust to sharpen a pencil.

I'm not Microsoft/PC bashing by any means, but if they want to succeed in winning back Apple customers then they'll need to provide the same experience as Apple for cheaper... and I have a feeling that's not as easy as it sounds.
 
diamond.g said:
In a way it does, Apple only needs to sell one version for a cheap price because they have made money from us buying their hardware. Microsoft doesn't have that luxury, and I do think that if they built their hardware like Apple does that they would probably be more apt to sell their software for a cheaper price.
Click to expand...
I'm still surprised how people forget that Microsoft still makes the same amount of money regardless of the price of the hardware. A $500 machine with Home Premium or a $5,000 one still turns the same profit.

OS X is easily subsidized off of hardware profits. We even went over the costs of selling the Snow Leopard upgrade at $29. Apple is still making money off of it with the hardware subsidy. They're not giving it away.
 
Cloudane said:
One of the interesting points is going to be trust. Yes the pocketable items in Apple stores have chains on them (understandable) but the laptops are just sat there, I've never seen a security guard in an Apple store and you're free to screw around with the machines all day if required. It kind of reflects their philosophy of Retail versions of most of their software, with none of the activation or even serial numbers.
Click to expand...


Except that is not really the case. At the Apple store that I frequent had all the laptops tethered down via an alarm. I asked a store employee about that possibility since I wanted to see the battery compartment in an older unibody mac. They said, they personally wouldn't mind, but they advised me that the alarm would sound. This was even after I gave them permission to monitor my actions to assure them of my intentions. They said their alarm systems are very sensitive to prevent people from grab-and run's. I was understanding of that and they were quite apologetic.
 
pdjudd said:
Except that is not really the case. At the Apple store that I frequent had all the laptops tethered down via an alarm. I asked a store employee about that possibility since I wanted to see the battery compartment in an older unibody mac. They said, they personally wouldn't mind, but they advised me that the alarm would sound. This was even after I gave them permission to monitor my actions to assure them of my intentions. They said their alarm systems are very sensitive to prevent people from grab-and run's. I was understanding of that and they were quite apologetic.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks for the insights. As I say, this was only in the Apple stores that I have personally visited... I guess they tend to just trust the security of the shopping centre if it's based in one.

Still, the point of support continues to stand, and to a certain degree the trust thing.
 
AidenShaw said:
Mac OSX (client) and Mac OSX Server (10-client) and Mac OSX Server (Unlimited client) are fundamentally the same software.

Mac OSX (client) is "crippled" from the full-featured one.

It's silly to attack Windows 7 based on the business model, when Apple is doing the same thing (just fewer tiers, that's all).




Windows 7 Basic is built on top of Windows 7 Starter. It is additional functionality, not present and crippled.
Windows 7 Home Premium is built on top of Windows 7 Basic. It is additional functionality, not present and crippled.
Windows 7 Professional is built on top of Windows 7 Home Premium. It is additional functionality, not present and crippled.
Windows 7 Ultimate is built on top of Windows 7 Professional. It is additional functionality, not present and crippled.
Windows 7 Server (Win2k8R2) is built on top of Windows 7 Ultimate. It is additional functionality, not present and crippled.​

This is clearly a glass half full or half empty situation - are features added to the bottom, or subtracted from the top?
Click to expand...

Pretty easy to determine. If you can hack to activate a function then it is present and crippled. If you can't then it isn't present. If it requires installation of additional programs then it isn't present/crippled. It isn't really logical to compare Server with Client versions IMO but since you insist and there is only one version of Mac OS Client I will use this example: installation of client (insert client disk) vs installation of server (install client then insert server disk to install). Mac OS X Server functionality is primarily Apple server administration tools to improve usability of Open Source server software. You can compile and install the Open Source server software yourself, but Apple charges for their administration tools which are not present nor are they necessary for the client version of their OS.

An example of intentional crippling of Windows OS functionality to induce upgrading to a more expensive version would be Windows XP Home vs Professional where only 1 CPU is functional vs. multi-CPU. This came into play primarily through hyper-threading CPUs. I can not think of any logical reason to cripple an OS like this other than the Microsoft mindset of charging more for business use and inducing upgrades from consumers. Bill Gates once laughed at the idea of eliminating "bugs" from software because the idea is to always induce upgrades in the "hopes" of improved functionality, performance and resolution of software deficiencies. The "hopes" are always partially fulfilled but new "bugs" then set the stage for then next upgrade.

I don't see this as a glass half full/half empty situation. It is a clear difference in marketing/business strategy. I think if you asked consumers their impression of these strategies when the veil is lifted and motivations revealed, they would find Apple's more reasonable and straight forward, and Microsoft's more distasteful and deceptive.
 
cohibadad said:
....would be Windows XP Home vs Professional where only 1 CPU is functional vs. multi-CPU...
Click to expand...

To clarify this point, "Home" supports 1 socket, "Pro" supports 2 sockets. Multi-core or hyperthreading is not significant - a quad core shows up as 4 active CPUs even in "Home". Only Windows Server is multi-socket.

Paying additional money to "unlock" software features isn't unusual - look no further than Quicktime Pro. Was it "deceptive" for Apple to ship the pro functionality in the application, but only enable it when you pay the upgrade?

Windows editions are no different - some bits are on the disk, some on the DVD, some only on the Server version of the DVD. All come from the same source code.

Same with OSX - the server and client are built from the same code. Apple "cripples" the client by not putting all the bits on the client DVD.

Anyway, the case for OSX is pretty weak if "there's only one SKU" is important.
 
AidenShaw said:
You forgot to add the cost of an Apple computer to the price of 10.6.

$899 - Dell Quad Core Nehalem tower + Windows 7 Ultimate

$2499 - Apple Quad Core Nehalem tower + 10.6
________________________

:p
Click to expand...

Actually it's more like $1300 vs. $2499. You need to configure for as like for like as possible, not just listing the base price with a crap processor. And the MP quad is very close to HP and Lenovo. Dell is definitely the better deal when evaluating all 4 companies.
 
polaris20 said:
Actually it's more like $1300 vs. $2499. You need to configure for as like for like as possible, not just listing the base price with a crap processor. And the MP quad is very close to HP and Lenovo. Dell is definitely the better deal when evaluating all 4 companies.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on the crap processor? The $899 Studio XPS is a surprisingly good comparison.
 
Cloudane said:
Interesting. Thanks for the insights. As I say, this was only in the Apple stores that I have personally visited... I guess they tend to just trust the security of the shopping centre if it's based in one.

Still, the point of support continues to stand, and to a certain degree the trust thing.
Click to expand...

I forgot one thing - this was in a mall store. But the individual store polices may vary based on how easy or hard it is to steel things. Its really hard to hide your activity in a class cube for example.
 
Eidorian said:
Please tell me where you learned about this fact.

Besides the lack of a heatspreader on the Mac Pro's processors.
Click to expand...

It was sarcasm. Sorry I thought that would have been implied. Does Intel even make enough Golden Sample units to do that?
 
diamond.g said:
It was sarcasm. Sorry I thought that would have been implied. Does Intel even make enough Golden Sample units to do that?
Click to expand...
Technically you can consider the Extreme processors to be Golden Sample processors.

Not that it keeps people from buying a Core i7 920 and overclocking it just as high. Besides the video card Golden Sample tag AMD does have the Phenom II X4 42 TWKR.

Then again who has the LN2 (or liquid helium for that matter...) to run something like that at 7.0 GHz 24/7?
 
Eidorian said:
Technically you can consider the Extreme processors to be Golden Sample processors.

Not that it keeps people from buying a Core i7 920 and overclocking it just as high. Besides the video card Golden Sample tag AMD does have the Phenom II X4 42 TWKR.

Then again who has the LN2 (or liquid helium for that matter...) to run something like that at 7.0 GHz 24/7?
Click to expand...

True. I somewhat miss overclocking.
 
polaris20 said:
You need to configure for as like for like as possible, not just listing the base price with a crap processor.
Click to expand...

That is false logic. Mac fans often employ it to boost the prices of other systems.

You need to define a set of specs, and see what each vendors' price is for the cheapest machine that meets the specs. If some vendor's machine is too expensive because it exceeds the specs, then you don't buy from that vendor. You don't starting adding options to bring each component on each system up the the highest level.

In this case, the specs are 2.66GHz Nehalem quad core, at least 3 GiB RAM, at least 500 GB disk, at least 512 MiB video card.


Eidorian said:
Can you elaborate on the crap processor? The $899 Studio XPS is a surprisingly good comparison.
Click to expand...

Some people have swallowed Intel's Xeon marketing hype hook-line-and-sinker. They think that there is some substantial difference between the Xeons and the Core i7.

The only effective difference is that the Xeon packaging supports ECC memory, which was not in the specs. Since no other Apple consumer system has ECC, clearly ECC must not be that important.


diamond.g said:
The Mac Pro uses Golden Sample CPUs that is why they cost so much compared to regular CPUs.
Click to expand...

LOL.
 
AidenShaw said:
Some people have swallowed Intel's Xeon marketing hype hook-line-and-sinker. They think that there is some substantial difference between the Xeons and the Core i7.

The only effective difference is that the Xeon packaging supports ECC memory, which was not in the specs. Since no other Apple consumer system has ECC, clearly ECC must not be that important.
Click to expand...
In a few instances you'll find that the Xeon variants while being nothing more than the single socket version with a few features toggled on or off are a bit more tolerant of higher temperatures.

You'll also find cooler, lower power variants as well but then again you'd be expecting already to pay more given the requirements that need to be met in order to bin to that model number.

It's all off the same wafer with varying degrees of perfection. (Surprising isn't it?) Components that can sustain higher clocks get binned as faster more expensive components or down the mobile arena at lower speeds.

The majority get sent to the midrange clock speed desktop processor area. It doesn't mean you can't overclock the components but Intel didn't slap the locked multiplier there at the higher speeds in the first place.

Intel and AMD aren't going to kill off an expensive processor either to fill in a lower priced slot. At least on the Core 2 side of things you have multiple Wolfdale dies with 2/3/6 MB of L2 Cache that can be turned into a Core 2 Quad via MCM. Nehalem (Bloomfield/Gainesfield for this instance) is monolithic since it's not using MCM for the dual to quad adaptation.

AMD has the Phenom II (Deneb) set which sadly does get binned out from a quad to tri/dual core components. The Athlon II series is a new smaller die set without L3 cache so you don't sacrifice a massive Deneb core for budget parts. You have a chance of an unlock back to quad as well.

Intel has the upper hand with 45/32nm processes but AMD's immersion lithography seems to turn out higher yields of monolithic processors.

nVidia's yields aren't as good as ATI's with the huge monolithic GT200 series. I could go on about die sizes, yields, and production but I digress..
 

Attachments

  • diecomparison.png
    diecomparison.png
    21.2 KB · Views: 253
AidenShaw said:
That is false logic. Mac fans often employ it to boost the prices of other systems.

You need to define a set of specs, and see what each vendors' price is for the cheapest machine that meets the specs. If some vendor's machine is too expensive because it exceeds the specs, then you don't buy from that vendor. You don't starting adding options to bring each component on each system up the the highest level.

In this case, the specs are 2.66GHz Nehalem quad core, at least 3 GiB RAM, at least 500 GB disk, at least 512 MiB video card.




Some people have swallowed Intel's Xeon marketing hype hook-line-and-sinker. They think that there is some substantial difference between the Xeons and the Core i7.

The only effective difference is that the Xeon packaging supports ECC memory, which was not in the specs. Since no other Apple consumer system has ECC, clearly ECC must not be that important.




LOL.
Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but then let's also complain how high HP prices it's Z400 series, and how high Lenovo prices their workstations, because that's what the MP is.

You guys love berating MP's, when the equivalent HP and Lenovo are just as much. But they're safe, because they run Windows.

Nice logic there.

EDIT

I come out at about $2000 for an equivalent HP Z400. Wow, that's such an awesome deal! :rolleyes: But I can get a consumer PC that's just as good for less!!

So do it. And stop complaining.

BTW, when you go to 2 sockets, the MP's are cheaper.
 
Eidorian said:
I'm still lost on what you mean by a crap processor.
Click to expand...

The T3500 starts out at $899 and comes with a 2.4Ghz dual core Xeon processor. In the past, it was even slower. This is what I meant.

However now I see we're going down the path of "I can buy this consumer PC for cheaper", so I guess it doesn't really matter.

My point is Apple markets the MP's as workstations. When you compare them to workstations offered by the Windows big 3, the quads are still more, just not as much as comparing to a consumer PC, and the Octo MP's are actually cheaper than HP and Lenovo.

I'm not going to change AidenShaw's mind, and he's not going to change mine. I fully understand the difference between a consumer chip and a "pro" chip. I wasn't born yesterday nor did I just start working with PC's this morning.

I don't buy consumer desktops for the engineers I'm responsible for, I buy workstations, which the MP's work quite well. Previously we had all HP XW series, and with the new Macs having the ability to run OS X, Windows, and Linux very well, they provide a good value.

Do I think they're great for home users? Probably too expensive. And yes, I think there should be a $1200 i7 desktop that doesn't exist from Apple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back