It doesn't seem like it could help them. Sure, they made $200 off me because I bought their full software, but if it weren't for Boot Camp, I would have a PC, not Mac. I love OS X, but Windows is essential for what I do. If Microsoft only allowed their software to be installed on Dells, HPs, etc., one of those companies would have made an extra $600 off of me easily. Why does Microsoft allow us to legally install their software?
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.
Why would Microsoft allow us to install Windows on our Macs?
- Thread starter Brettka7
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Your entire argument is flawed. Apple has specifically made boot camp to be able to run windows and the hard drive can be erased to install windows on it. Limiting windows to a specific hardware would take a great deal of time, money and resources on microsofts part and would actually lose them ALOT of money.
They're actually making more money by allowing individuals to use it on boot camp or software like parallels. They do not make an extra $600 just because someone buys a dell. Dell only gives microsoft the cut for the software only.
Microsoft is only a software company, they dont care what hardware you install it on, they make their money either way.
Please rethink your logic.
Last edited:
Dell and HP are not Microsoft. How does giving $600 to Dell help Microsoft other than selling one registered license? Its the same thing as buying a license for your Mac. Its still one license. They don't make money on hardware sales. Apple hardware is just another platform to install windows on. Same as any other PC company.
Because you get OSX either way with your hardware.
If you wanted a PC, you wouldn't buy Mac.
In addition, Apple makes its money from the hardware, not from the software; so you need to be very stupid to buy Mac in order to run on it Win exclusively.
Well, actually they do now. At least if you count the upcoming Surface for Windows 8 Pro as PC hardware.
Because Microsoft of course doesn't give a damn about how much more money Dell or HP will make. As far as I know, vendors are paying less for a full Windows 7 licence compared to a regular price.
It'd be more logical for Microsoft to encourage users to build their own workstations or custom gaming PCs as well as install windows on Macs since in both cases they pay more per Windows copy.
It's a great selling point to potential switchers (Apple allowing Windows to be installed on Macs). All that windows software not going to waste makes switching easy. College kids always have at least one course related program software that is Windows only and with Bootcamp or VMware they can run that program on a Mac. One of the smarter moves (along with putting iTunes on PCs) that Apple has made in the last 10 years.
they likely make more money off of someone purchasing a copy of windows to install on their mac then they make from a person buying a Dell/HP etc. that comes with windows preinstalled.
Microsoft don't sell PCs. They sell software.
If you buy Windows + Office, they still win, whether it is on generic PC hardware, via bootcamp, or a VM on your mac.
In fact, rather than a heavily discounted OEM version, you paid retail...
The surface would never compete with Asus` tablets. Asus uses Android anyway, so there is nothing to complain about.
According to the word on the street, they still don't sell PC hardware - the surface has not been selling and the x86 version isn't out yet anyway so...
They might make it, but it doesn't sell
They might make it, but it doesn't sell
You answered your own question. Just as MS is a software company, so as long as you buy their product they don't care what machine you install it on, Apple is a hardware company so as long as you buy their product they don't care what you install on it.
Microsoft is no longer a pure software company, they are a devices and services company. But I find your question to be a bit funny, because Microsoft makes FAR more money off of an individual buying a copy of Windows ($200) than when it is pre-loaded onto a computer from an OEM (~$25-60, official numbers have never been released).
And one would also assume that you might also invest in a copy of Office for Windows as well ($130) to get access to apps like OneNote, Access, Lync, etc... that there are not OS X native versions of.
In fact, it is the reason that Office for iOS and Android are inevitable. They won't be free or cheap and are more likely to be tied to a subscription, but in the long run, it is not beneficial to tie your services to only your platform. It wouldn't make sense for Google to not make a YouTube app for iOS, or for Apple not to support iTunes on Windows, or for Amazon not to make Kindle apps for every platform in existence. I would bet that more people actually value non-platform exclusivity as a benefit because most people live in multiple ecosystems and unconsciously want to avoid lock-in.
And one would also assume that you might also invest in a copy of Office for Windows as well ($130) to get access to apps like OneNote, Access, Lync, etc... that there are not OS X native versions of.
In fact, it is the reason that Office for iOS and Android are inevitable. They won't be free or cheap and are more likely to be tied to a subscription, but in the long run, it is not beneficial to tie your services to only your platform. It wouldn't make sense for Google to not make a YouTube app for iOS, or for Apple not to support iTunes on Windows, or for Amazon not to make Kindle apps for every platform in existence. I would bet that more people actually value non-platform exclusivity as a benefit because most people live in multiple ecosystems and unconsciously want to avoid lock-in.
The same reason why they created iTunes for Windows. The same reason they switched iPod connectors from Firewire only to USB only. Crossover appeal.
I know for certain several of my friends wouldn't have switched if it wasn't for the Boot Camp beta in the Intel version of Tiger. They weren't even really planning on switching; it was more of a longtime curiosity about Macs and the safety net that they could switch the hardware to full-time Windows if it didn't work out.
With Apple and OSX having very wide, mainstream success nowadays, maybe the above scenario seem paranoid to more recent switchers, but back in 2006, switching from PCs to Macs was still considered kind of a big deal and a major potential headache.
That was ACER. They were going to make a Windows tablet just to have MS at the last minute says "we are making one too."
Microsoft, first and foremost, is a software company.
Then why waste your time responding at all?
Then why waste your time responding at all?
Ok, I'll spell it out, as i'm bored, which is basically the reason i'm even posting in this stupid forum
Saying "Not worth answering" is in effect of course, answering.
My logic was Windows VS. OS X. If you can have a computer that easily has both OS on it (Mac), or one that has a clunky OS on it and takes time and effort to install the other OS (PC), you're going to want the one that does both. I suppose if they make a killing off the $200 Win 7 cd, it makes sense to them to offer it, thanks for the answers everyone! Or, at least, almost everyone
My logic was Windows VS. OS X. If you can have a computer that easily has both OS on it (Mac), or one that has a clunky OS on it and takes time and effort to install the other OS (PC), you're going to want the one that does both. I suppose if they make a killing off the $200 Win 7 cd, it makes sense to them to offer it, thanks for the answers everyone! Or, at least, almost everyone
You are wrong. Most people do not need both OS at the same time. Mac users are paying more money for Apple's product while Window users getting cheaper (price) PC from company like Samsung, Sony, etc cannot install OSX. If you talk to a lot of Window users, they don't care about OSX.