Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft Remains on Offensive with 'Apple Tax' Report and Latest Laptop Ad
- Thread starter Eidorian
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And since it ran on almost any machine, that made it cheaper, which is why it got such dominance. "Apple OS became a thing for the chosen wealthy few" is basically saying it didn't catch on because it was too expensive - you're agreeing with me.
I don't buy that. Elsewhere it was reported that windows is just as vulnerable but the only reason it wasn't hacked at the contest was because an update to windows was released just before the contest and the hackers didn't have access to it ahead of time.
The MBP can output multichannel over the optical, same as any DVD player with optical audio out.
I'm skeptical you could tell a difference with a double blind listening test set up properly. And no, OWNING a lot of 96k or 192k music doesn't mean you can hear the difference.
Looks like the balanced opinions dropped out on page 5 to me. This has been a dance between Macrumors members that are here for Apple rumors, and the "We want a Apple minitower, on the cheap, chop chop" crowd.
I love the MS ads! They are great for Apple! Comparison ads cause the consumer to equate the two brands. They are great for underdogs. It's a wonderful gesture on Microsoft's part that they are willing to promote Apple to this extent. I particularly like the one in which the woman says "I guess I'm just not cool enough for Apple." The message is that dweebs end up with MS, while cool people get Apple. Who wants to be a dweeb?
Not really. The OS'es were built for different processors, it had nothing to do with price. No way you could make a pre-OS X Mac OS run on an Intel machine without some serious tampering (if at all possible).
You would want to run a Mac OS - you buy Apple hardware (+ Apple tax)
Microsoft is scared of 8-9% market share? Give me a break. There is so much total BS flying in this thread from BOTH sides it's utterly laughable. I mean UTTERLY LAUGHABLE.
Someone points to a browser exploit and tells us how insecure OS X is when hackers are doing REAL damage to Windows every other day in the REAL WORLD. It's a browser exploit...in Safari. By clicking a link no less. Don't use Safari and don't click on untrustworthy sites and links. If you stay away from bad sites (Google marks them for you these days unless you're the unfortunate first person to every visit a hostile site) you won't even get a virus in Windows. In 10 years of using Windows98 to XP, I have YET to get one single virus. What a waste of paying for Norton early on. Now I use a free checker, but it always comes up empty (except for tracking cookies).
I constantly hear this crap about too small a market share to bother writing viruses, but it's a load of utter bologna. The Amiga market was WAY smaller than Apple's current market and we got viruses all the time. Now with the iPhone and iTunes being as popular as they are and Mac sales on the rise, do you seriously think that explains the TOTAL lack of viruses on the Mac? I could easily believe it's a reason we'd see LESS viruses, but come on. There'd have to be at least a few here and there (and I don't mean worms, trojans or spyware, but actual viruses). OS X is based on Unix and that closes a LOT of doors to viruses that Windows has wide open. OS X has a ways to go in the higher level layers of OS X like Safari, but core level viruses would not be easy on OS X. Even so, this idea of invulnerabiity is a definite weakness in the Mac platform. Even ONE good virus could potentially infect most of the Macs out there since almost NO ONE uses a virus checker on a Mac nor is there much support for such in place. It would be comparable to a sneak attack advantage.
Yes, Apple's hardware SUCKS. It just plain SUCKS. There is no other way to put it. The Windows people are 100% right here. It's underpowered and overpriced and no amount of "style" can make up for either one of those. Apple is now using clone hardware and it should sell for clone prices + the OS cost. If the OS is under priced, then let them raise that price and sell reasonably priced hardware. More to the point, if competition were allowed in this country (I guess we're the new Russia now or something gaging by the anti-Psystar people on here), Apple would HAVE to offer reasonable prices. They only have these utterly MASSIVE profit margins because they literally have ZERO competition for hardware for OS X. No, Windows machines *DO NOT* count because they are "not allowed" to run OS X. What makes a Mac a Mac? The OS. PERIOD. Hardware no longer has ANYTHING to do with it. I'm sick and tired of Mac people pretending otherwise and making up EXCUSE AFTER EXCUSE why Macs cost so darn much and offer so little performance compared to a PC that costs 1/2 as much. Apple's ONLY desktop is the Mac Pro (everything else is a laptop in disguise PERIOD and it's easily proven). Yes, it has Xenon processors in it. Big deal. They offer nearly no real world performance gains for most software over a desktop level Core2Quad for 1/2 the price. You can get a quad-core for $1000 now that will BLOW AWAY a $3200 Mac Pro running most software that has any GPU use what-so-ever. That's just plain SICK.
Apple finally updated the Mini and it's STILL overpriced and underpowered, just a little less so in the latter. Minis and Macbooks are still WOEFULLY INADEQUATE to play any real modern games. They're good enough to play games from 2 years ago and only just. Even the Mac Pro with the highest video card offered is a joke compared to an $800 PC with SLI. There is simply NO COMPARISON. Apple has not made ONE BIT of an effort to beef up video card support (SLI in the latest Mac Pro will work in Windows but not OS X for example) or to get retail video cards available so you're not paying Apple 2x as much for the same video card Windows users can get at Best Buy (Apple keeps the extra 100% profit because they're greedy).
People keep saying how Apple is worth it blah blah blah as if that somehow JUSTIFIES 25-50% profit margins due to NO COMPETITION for hardware. 5-15% is normal. In other words, that $3200 Mac Pro should cost more like $2300 and the $2300 one should cost more like $1800. With a few tweaks (using regular quad cores instead of Xeon or even a good higher end core2duo and what not), they could EASILY sell a good mid-range tower for $1200 and STILL make a good profit.
I can virtually GUARANTEE if Mac clones were the norm, prices would be more in lines with PC hardware. And to Apple's advantage, I believe they'd get a LOT more switchers if the prices were similar. I can't tell you how many people I know at work that say they'd like to buy an Apple computer, but they're not paying $1500 for an iMac when they can get a 'good enough' PC for $400-600. You can even get a laptop PC for that much. Apple's cheapest laptop is $1000. That would be a very good mid-range laptop in the PC world these days with many more features than Apple provides (some posts on here provide good lists). Yes, high profit margins make Apple money now, but a larger market share would guarantee a future for Apple whereas a small market share could easily go the other way fast if Windows7 turns out to be all some say it is.
Give me a break. You simply CANNOT hear any such differences you claim. I'd bet money on it. NO "audiophile" has EVER proven ONE CLAIM on bogus pretenses (i.e. what's beyond the levels of human hearing) EVER. Show me one double blind test that statistically PROVES you can hear such a difference and I'll believe you. Just ONE. You can't and won't provide one because you cannot hear those differences because those changes have NO affect on audible sound to humans. You probably painted your CD edges green too.
The TRUTH about Nyquist sampling is that 2x the frequency you want to record contains 100% of the musical data within. There is not "improved detail" by increasing sampling frequency beyond 40kHz and frequency is the *ONLY* thing the sampling rate affects. The word length controls dynamic range. No human can hear more than 21-22kHz when they're children, let alone adults. Any sampling rates beyond 48kHz are only useful for avoiding filtering post-course (but we've had highly effective oversampling since the late '80s that will take care of that nicely; no brick filtering needed anymore). Any word length beyond 20-bit is only useful for headroom while recording. If you honestly believe you can hear more detail from 96kHz recordings, I've got some swamp land in Florida I can sell you too.
There is some validity to the idea that 20-bit word lengths could be useful to extend dynamic range to the limits of human hearing, but if you're listening to material that dynamic over extended periods of time at maximum, you're going to destroy your hearing so it's a limited point at that. 24-bit is overkill on the playback end and once again is only really useful for recording due to headroom (so the recording doesn't hit the rails and distort).
Clearly, you do not. The recording industry would do better to focus on better quality recordings so a downmixed CD sounds as good as it can rather than wasting time on formats people won't buy just to sucker people into paying for something they cannot hear a difference from anyway. Multi-channel is nice and it's the only real reason I have any interest in DTS, DVD-Audio or SACD (I do have a DVD-Audio player built into my DVD player), but there are far too few recordings that utilize it and most of the ones I've heard clearly aren't utilizing the dynamic range levels therein. The extra bits wasted on increased sampling rates and word lengths is just space filler, though on the playback end.
I realize you will vehemently deny all this and claim your "golden ears" can hear those differences, but like I said, show me one VALID double blind test that proves you can hear the differences you claim and then I'll believe you. It's simple scientific proof that will show your claims are valid and not just made up in your head (people fool themselves all the time in high-end audio; people make FORTUNES selling snake-oil in this industry. I know because I followed it for over a decade). But quite frankly, your claims are beyond the science of human hearing and so therefore I have no faith in your ability to produce said results. Most "bad" sounding CDs are due to poor mastering techniques used to make music sound "loud" for the radio. This is a well known FACT. Many SACD type recordings are ONLY made with high-end playback in mind so of course they sound better. But if they were mastered to CD and were 2-channels only, they would sound identical in frequency response and almost identical in dynamic range (very few recordings at any recording rates have noise floors below 90dB to begin with).
"LPs" sounded better to some people due to their even-order harmonic distortions that are inherent to the format. Even order distortion sounds "warm" to the ears. All vacuum tube-based distortion pedals for guitars, for example, produce even-order distortion and thus they sound pleasant compared to some ear digital ones that produced both even and odd or just odd harmonic distortion. However, even-order distortion is recordable. If you record your LPs on a good deck to CD, the CD will sound IDENTICAL to the LP played on that gear. This is an easily proven fact in a double blind test. Thus, the CD format is not to blame. The idea that LPs have frequencies beyond CDs is just plain laughable. Most LPs have highly distorted frequencies in the 15kHz range. There is NO usable signal in the 20kHz range at all. 96kHz wouldn't be recording ANYTHING but noise off an LP. So this idea that 96kHz sampling rate somehow produces the "magic" sound of the LP doesn't make any logical sense.
Put simply, good recordings sound good and bad recordings sound bad, whether on SACD or regular CD.
I'm not sure why you keep saying it had nothing to do with price.
"No way you could make a pre-OS X Mac OS run on an Intel machine without some serious tampering (if at all possible)."
Exactly - so your options were a cheaper intel machine running dos/windows or a more expensive mac. The price is the reason windows won out.
"You would want to run a Mac OS - you buy Apple hardware (+ Apple tax)"
Again, exactly - as you say, the apple option is more expensive, which is exactly why it lost out in market share. You're still agreeing with me. You insist that price has nothing to do with it, then you turn around and give reasons that demonstrate that apple was more expensive, which hurt their market share.
It's more by person than post count. The evengelists tend to post more.
It's a shame it's just the same bloody stuff over and over again.
Well, if they're not scared, how do you explain them targeting Apple directly with these Laptop Hunter ads and the 'Apple Tax' report?
Since Apple has to date utterly ignored this MS advertising campaign, there has been no show of 'Ugly Faces'.
And the ugly fanboi face is very much a two way street, particualrly since there's statistically going to be more ugly MS fanbois than ugly OSX fanboies if for no other reason than the 90%-10% (or 97%-3%) marketshare split.
If there is to be any pro-Apple response in the near term, I'd use the "Apple Tax" report as my fodder...and how it shows that MS is willing to lie in order to not lose customers.
Perhaps you missed the post that quoted MS's 10 K report. Here's Microsoft's current 10-K filing at the SEC.
On page 13:
An important element of our business model has been to create platform-based ecosystems on which many participants can build diverse solutions. A competing vertically-integrated model, in which a single firm controls both the software and hardware elements of a product, has been successful with certain consumer products such as personal computers, mobile phones and digital music players. We also offer vertically-integrated hardware and software products; however, efforts to compete with the vertically integrated model may increase our cost of sales and reduce operating margins.
The key question to ask yourself is that if this threat to MS's business isn't specifically referring to Apple, then who could it be referring to?
The fact that Vista had malware before it passed OS X in marketshare also illustrates that malware isn't that simple.
Plus since Apple buyers tend to be more affluent, doesn't that also suggest that (famous Bank robber) Willie Sutton's Law applies? (Q: Why do you rob banks? A: "because that's where the money is.")
A straightforward intellectual excercise is to calcuate how much malware should exist, on a "per capita" basis using respective market shares. Now compare that 'expected value' number with reality and try to ascertain why they differ by ~2 full orders of magnitude. Long story short, the 'market share' argument doesn't cut it.
And IIRC, Microsoft's profit margins are higher than Apple's. Its mostly just the PC manufacturers (Dell, HP, etc) who are the ones caught in the 'commodity market' price squeeze.
I'll disagree on that one. Microsoft has roughly either a 10:1 advantage (USA) or a 20:1 advantage (worldwide) in OS product sales versus Apple with which to amortize their development costs of Windows.
If we simplistically say that distribution costs are $5 and that MS sells OEM licenses for $30), then if we assume that Apple's OS development costs & profits are to be the same as MS, then w can calculate's Apple's "break equal" selling price for OS X for this cloning scenario.
For 10:1, its (10*$25+$5) = $255 ($225 more)
For 20:1, its (20*$25+$5) = $505 ($475 more).
The current reality is that because Apple limits hardware permutations (no clones), their OS development costs shouldn't be as high as MS's, so reality works out differently. However, on the hardware side, Apple does take a higher profit margin than the likes of Dell or HP, so the loss of this profit center would have to be shifted to the OS.
Maybe. But the real danger is contained within the old saying: "We lose money on every sale, but make it up in volume".
-hh
I don't think the average PC user would care at all about what Apple users may think. In the US Apple marketshare maybe can be as high as 7(?) percent; here in Europe it is probably closer to 3.
I don't mean that most Apple fanboys have an inferiority complex regarding marketshares, but the discussion about what / who is the better is pretty irrelevant among PC users who get along reasonably well with their machines and other software.
I'm a PC user, and I prefer Windows to Mac OS. Just personal preference, nothing more.
I've always hated when I run into Mac snobs who talk down to me as some "uneducated" person because I won't jump ship. Even had some claim I'm a fake in my work (Interactive Media Designer) because I don't prefer Macs, as well as DJs think I'm insane for wanting my Toshiba over a Macbook.
These ads speak a partial truth. It is way less expensive to buy a PC over a Mac. I also agree that if you want to do gaming, your options on a PC are way more open than on a Mac.
I think of a Mac as a specialty computer. Kind of why you buy an espresso machine as opposed to a normal coffeemaker. I don't see one buying a Mac just because they want to play video games, look at web sites, and type college papers. Granted you can do most of that on there, most users I've met don't buy Macs for that. I see them buy it to do music and multimedia. I see them buy it for personal preference and such. To me it's like deciding if you want to buy a normal power drill, or the industrial-strength one for special needs.
PLUS....and I said this before....the easiest thing Apple can do to counteract these ads would simply be to point out how they include iLife and iWork with their computers (I heard they do). So buy that Sony Vaio PLUS MS Office PLUS software to make movies and graphics...and I'm sure it won't be as inexpensive as they claim.
Lord knows when any friend of mine buys a new computer, they're always asking why MS Word isn't on it.
I've always hated when I run into Mac snobs who talk down to me as some "uneducated" person because I won't jump ship. Even had some claim I'm a fake in my work (Interactive Media Designer) because I don't prefer Macs, as well as DJs think I'm insane for wanting my Toshiba over a Macbook.
These ads speak a partial truth. It is way less expensive to buy a PC over a Mac. I also agree that if you want to do gaming, your options on a PC are way more open than on a Mac.
I think of a Mac as a specialty computer. Kind of why you buy an espresso machine as opposed to a normal coffeemaker. I don't see one buying a Mac just because they want to play video games, look at web sites, and type college papers. Granted you can do most of that on there, most users I've met don't buy Macs for that. I see them buy it to do music and multimedia. I see them buy it for personal preference and such. To me it's like deciding if you want to buy a normal power drill, or the industrial-strength one for special needs.
PLUS....and I said this before....the easiest thing Apple can do to counteract these ads would simply be to point out how they include iLife and iWork with their computers (I heard they do). So buy that Sony Vaio PLUS MS Office PLUS software to make movies and graphics...and I'm sure it won't be as inexpensive as they claim.
Lord knows when any friend of mine buys a new computer, they're always asking why MS Word isn't on it.
I suspect it's also pretty irrelevant among mac users who get along well with their machines and other software.
I'm not sure why anyone brought up the whole "fanboi face" thing, this is mainstream advertising and there's no way they did it with the intention of message board reaction.
We agree on that, but I don't think that is the only reason.
Back in the day when I bought my first Mac, upgraded to system 7 and sold my IBM-clone, Apple software was superior compared to most DOS-applications. Later, when Apple declined and lost almost all but their most loyal followers, Windows software showed a lot of possibilities that the Mac had never ever seen. Even today, there are much more versatility in the Windows world than will natively run on a Mac.
Just wondering; how many switchers would there really be out there if a Mac could not run any Windows applications on bootcamp or Parallels? If all Windows software you had previously paid for suddenly became useless if you wanted to switch?
As I see it, recent Mac growth has a lot to do with Windows compatibility. Apple may still hold on to their Mac-hardware-only-policy-for-Mac-OS, but they rely heavily on Windows openness according to hardware. Microsoft tried to deny users of the cheaper Vista versions to run on Parallels, but that was just plain stupid. Today, any Mac user with a modern machine have the security to run windows software that don't exist for the Mac, and even any windows software that is cheaper the the Mac counterpart.
Quite honestly; most of all software I use daily have their windows versions. The only software I would sorely miss if i de-switched back to Windows, is Rapidweaver.
Ok, too much rambling already, but I think it is more complicated than just cost. We will finally see how that works out in todays economy, going from recession to depression??
Having used Macs for more than 20 years (and windows machines as well a few times) I know that all of them could do the job. Different; somewhat, but none a lot better than the other. And the recent price raise on the Mac Pro has really made me think that my next desktop won't run OSX.
I don't think it's the only reason, I just think it's the main reason and I think most of the secondary reasons were caused by the pricing.
You mean more apps? Of course there are more apps, it's because there is more market share...which happened because of pricing.
If, back in 1984, the mac had been the same price or cheaper than PC's, you really think apple wouldn't be the dominant market share right now?
Heck, if apple suddenly priced all their machines competitively with PC's (as well as actually offering models that were competitive in some of the segments they now ignore, also a pricing factor), don't you think that apple would see their market share grow a lot faster?
The problem with growth is that it needs to be managed. Bigger market share entails bigger support costs, bigger sales expenses, more training, more communication channels, bigger organisations, etc...
If Apple upped their market share to Microsoft levels tomorrow morning, Apple would be dead by next week.
That's probably true. But Microsoft didn't make it that big overnight, either.
Who buys their 11 year old kid a $1500 laptop anyway? Yea I got a PowerBookG4 that was $3000 new but I got it as a 4 year old hand me down.
Microsoft has had the leisure of growing with the market. They came in with the first PC sold on day 1, and as such, they have been able to manage their growth right along side the market. They also had the advantage of market analysts that were basically predicting their growth for them by looking at the entirety of the PC market.
Of course. But who ever said they should try and grow that fast?
And they had a pretty easy time surviving some pretty big screwups from being the cheaper platform and having the vast majority of the market share (which came from being the cheaper platform).
The interesting part is really that its not really about simple market share, but more that products like the iPod have created a 'Halo' that raises awareness for the rest of their products and more approachable.
An interesting point, because for the consumer segment who is as you say getting along "reasonably well", you're 100% (IMO) correct that this is not a relevant demographic that is being targeted by Apple.
Apple is really targeting the consumer who isn't particularly satisified with the Windows OS, to encourage them to consider trying Apple as something that is "better" (which is then also worth paying more for).
But what is "better"?
Where this gets difficult to analyze is how to characterize the motives: is it simply one which is asperational, like a Mercedes instead of a VW?
Or, as per the English adage, is it one of "The Grass is always greener on the other side" where it is clearly different and maybe actually better?
Or if we are more cynical, perhaps its simply a competitive "Keeping up with the Jonses" form of conspicuous consumption?
IMO, most likely, there is no single, simple answer: people decide to buy based upon different (and individualized) factors: 30% this, 40% that, and 30% for the ego...or whatever combination (YMMV!).
My only real point in mentioning the fanbois is that there's always going to be a percentage of people in any group who are going to be arrogant, obnoxious boors ("AOB's"), and AOB's can often have their advoacy backfire.
And statistically, since there's many more Windows OS users, there's going to be vastly more Windows-AOB's (than Mac-AOB's), which means more opportunities for Windows-AOB-advocacy to incur an embarassing misstep.
-hh