Behind Microsoft's 'Apple tax' gambit
Microsoft (MSFT) raised the stakes in its anti-Apple (AAPL) PR offensive Thursday by issuing a 10-page "white paper" that puts a price tag on what it calls the "Apple tax" — the premium paid by consumers who choose Apple computers over those that run Microsoft Windows.
It's a theme that was first raised last month by CEO Steve Ballmer, who told a Business Week-sponsored forum last month that Mac customers were paying an extra $500 to get the Apple logo on what is essentially the same hardware. And it has been repeated with slightly more subtlety every week since in a series of 60-second TV mini-dramas in which ordinary price-conscious Americans choose PCs over Macs. (The third is pasted below the fold; for more on the first two, see here and here.)
But the white paper, written by Endpoint Technologies Associates' Roger L. Kay and entitled "What Price Cool," goes a few steps further. Not only does it slap a considerably higher tax on that Apple logo — $3,367 for two computers over five years — but it turns up the rhetorical temperature to something approaching the boiling point.
The white paper is available here as a pdf file and summarized as a faux U.S. tax form by Brian LeBlanc at Microsoft's official Windows Blog.
"What Price Cool" is a curious document. "White paper" is a term of art in business and politics for an authoritative report that lays out facts clearly and concisely to help readers make informed decisions.
But no one would mistake Roger Kay's white paper for objective statement of the facts. It's a tendentious piece of work, dripping with sarcasm. Take, for example, this paragraph from the section that briefly summarizes the history of personal computers:
"All during this time, even in the darkest of ages, when Apple hung onto a 2% share with its fingernails, the Mac community held vigil. Their inner belief was sheltered against the cold wind of market sentiment by secret thoughts that they were, well, better. Fewer crashes, less clutter, and, as time wore on, fewer viruses. But it was more than that, the Mac was just more elegantly done, nay, cooler."
Kay seems obsessed with what he perceives as Apple's "cool," a word he uses in various forms 25 times — an average of 2.5 times a page — culminating in his conclusion:
"Macs are pretty cool, Jack thinks, but at a $3,367 premium over five years? Now, that’s not cool!"
It's an odd approach, especially given the fact that the Apple premium is quite real. Macs do indeed carry higher sticker prices than PCs with comparable specs. You would think that for an industry watcher with Kay's experience, making side-by-side comparisons would be relatively easy. But as several of Apple's defenders have pointed out, Kay seems unable to keep his fingers off the scale.
Technologizer's Harry McCracken, who worked with Kay at IDG and describes him as a "friendly acquaintance," says that Kay's spreadsheets are riddled with errors, comparing old versions of Apple computers to current versions of Windows PCs. (McCracken has done his own cost comparisons and come to very different conclusions.)
Similarly, Ina Fried at CNet found several instances where Kay added in the cost of software on the Mac side — for example, $70 and $149 for Quicken and Office, respectively — but not on the PC.
In his defense, Kay says that he took great pains to make sure his charts were correct. Some of the errors, he says, were due to changes Apple made in its specs after he wrote his piece; others to Microsoft's in-house production team grabbing the wrong versions of his charts.
"I don't think the main theme is destroyed by what is essentially a production error," he says. "But this is the methodology of the Mac Brownshirts. They find a discrepancy and use it to invalidate the entire thesis."
Kay stands by his piece, and his rhetoric — in particular the games he plays with the word "cool" — although he admits that he would not have called what he wrote a white paper. "White papers are boring. You have to have pity for the poor reader."
"I actually believe most of this stuff," he says. Although he adds that Microsoft did call for changes in his text — particularly in those place where he praised Apple. For example, he wrote in his original draft that Windows "copied" Apple's graphical user interface. That raised legal red flags for Microsoft's lawyers. In the final version, the verb was changed to "followed."
Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by any of this. After all, Microsoft paid Kay to write this paper and it's unlikely to have released anything it disagreed with.
Kay, for his part, is hardly a disinterested observer. He's been consulting for Microsoft since 2006, offering among other services, according to his webpage, "message tuning, spin management, press release support [and] high quality writing."
In the past he has written, in reference the Mac's apparent immunity from computer viruses, that "those living in shiny houses of self-righteous glass often end up surrounded by shards of their former sanctimony" — predicting (incorrectly so far) that Macs and iPhones would soon be infected.
And he is often quoted by the press as an independent Apple expert, as when he said this to Wired about Steve Jobs: "I think he has cancer. They talk about digestive this and digestive that, but … forget all the buzz you're hearing. Just look at the photos."
You can read more of Kay's previous work here and here. For me, one the most revealing pieces is his paean in Business Week to his 10-year-old Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) Jornada notebook, which he dusts off every year to take notes at the Consumer Electronics Show in Los Vegas. "Every time I open this device," he writes, "I of course have to endure the mockery of my peers."
Now that's not cool.
See also:
- How Microsoft put Apple owners on the defensive
- All about Microsoft’s “Lauren”
- Is the Apple press falling into Microsoft's trap?
Below the fold: the third Laptop Hunter ad.
If I wrapped up a PC and put it under the Christmas tree for either of my university aged kids … I might has well have wrapped up a dog turd.
Apparently university cool also means you must spend a $100 on a pair of jeans or $50 on a hair cut.
What is wrong with kids today? My mom cut my hair when I was a kid so why do they need a professional barber.
I bet if we asked Steve Ballmer would admit that his mom still cuts his hair.
LOL
Aside from all this MAC vs PC bickering.
A fun fact: Microsoft had to hire a team of Apple-using creatives to come up with their current ad campaigns.
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/126/believe-it-or-not-hes-a-pc.html
The "AppleTax" report is not even close to reality. But what I do not understand is why does Microsoft worry so much if people by Macs anyway. Most Mac buyers are likely to buy MS Office and perhaps WIndows XP anyway and I bet MS make more money per copy sold on those buyers!
AND, MS does not make the PCs. They sell them the same software that Mac buyers buy. SO perhaps they should just change their marketing plan and say "so, you just purchased your cool Mac… don't forget to by Office and Windows too!"
BTW: I had an HP laptop. ABSOLUTELY the worst laptop I ever owned. They replaced it once under warranty and the 2nd one was just as bad. I used Windows on the Mac way more reliably and that HP was donated to a recycle center. There is a difference between "Less Expensive" and "Cheaper"!
Macs are "cool" AND well constructed.
A couple of points:
1)Mac's are more expensive, (they start at OVER $1000)
2)The GLOBAL ECONOMY is melting down
3)Um, in case you didn't know, this is America, it's all about the money! (Check the site's name, it's called FORTUNE magazine)
4)An as an American, if I have to SPEND MORE MONEY to get something, I can always look elsewhere can I?
4)Hello PC.
I'm imagining this presentation given by the guy in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas holding forth about the dangers of drugs to the cop convention.
"KNOW YOUR APPLE FIEND!"
I think it was the definition of a cynic: "one who knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing." The incredible part is that the installed base of PC's vs Macs is like 10 to 1, why does Microsoft feel the need to put these kinds of comparisons together? Anyone who's ever used a Mac doesn't argue about this stuff anymore.
All of these threads about Windows versus Macs have this central theme: People who have actually used both Windows and Macs overwhelmingly prefer Macs. People who have never owned a Mac prefer Windows. I used Windows for 15 years. When I bought my first Mac I had to also keep my HP box running. When I got my first Intel Mac I ditched the crappy HP box and ran XP on my Mac with Parallels. I find myself needing the virtual XP less and less. I can't wait for the moment that I never again hear the Windows startup chime. As for the price difference: My 9-year-old Apple laptop (Pismo) runs OS X just fine. What 9 -year-old Windows laptop runs Vista?
As someone who use both Vista and OS X regularly on a Mac Pro, I detest using Vista and only use it for some specific programs. It is buggy, slow, ugly, and feels cheap. OS X is a pleasure to use. There certainly is a value and benefit to using something that just works and is pleasing to use at the same time. It's like driving a Lexus versus a Kia.
Joe from MD, and those of similar comments, Mac OS vs. Windows is a false choice – it's not the question.
Microsoft's new ads even emphasize the point: you don't get an integrated solution with Windows. You get a Sony, or an HP, or some off-brand. Or you build your own.
Yes, with that kind of product you get more flexibility. But also remember that when radio first started, you didn't by a "radio" – you bought a "kit". Same with TVs. You don't do that anymore, and isn't it a good thing that you don't have to do that anymore with computers?
Microsoft would have you believe that is a "tax", and that wanting a product that is complete, integrated, and simple is somehow a desire for a "status symbol".
Hmmf. Sometimes "cool" just means "good", not a superficial approximation of "good" (which actually sounds like something other and Apple that is in this article – heh, maybe it's Microsoft that is the "cool" one!)
Its funny how both sides are so passionate about which is better, Mac OS or PC. Lets put things into perspective. Mac OS is built on top of a Linux/Unix OS. So the argument should really be which is better, Linux/Unix or Windows.
There are those that think the Mac OS is better and those that think Windows is better, and both sides are more than willing to share opinions. As for me, I've used both and like the Mac OS better because that it what I got used to over the years.
I think it all comes down to preference in the end. The same thing goes with cars – people will argue between GM/Ford/Dodge, and Audi/BMW/Mercedes, etc, etc, but there is not necessarily a clear answer of what is better. It is all what people like better.
Just my two cents…
Working tech support for schools I saw time and time again: when schools went from Macs to PCs, their tech support costs doubled (or more). When they went from PC to Mac, their support costs were cut in half (or less). This was for different groups doing tech support for different schools – so it was not tied to the person or people doing the support.
Even ignoring that, when price comparisons were done, the Macs cost more and came with more: but when the time (and money) to set up computers, including physical setup and virus / malware protection was included, the prices were much closer. Extend the price of the needed malware protection over the life of the computer and the Mac was usually ahead.
That is not to say there were not times I suggested going with Windows PCs. For a lot of the administrative tasks of the school those were a better fit. They ran fewer programs, were not "abused" by students use, were not needed for creative endeavors such as can be done with iLife and other Mac software.
Michael Glasser
I always laugh at these threads because people get so emotional over them. I worked in higher ed for many years and supported both platforms. Budget-wise (even with mac discounts) Apples took a bigger bite out of our budget. Mind you this was before Vista came along, but overall, I heard how Apples were so great by the mac users I worked with, but sitting down using both I never could get attached to the mac.
They can do all the same things and if they can type up a paper or do a spread sheet, or chat on the web or handle my digital pics, spiffy. In the end for me it comes down to Online gaming. I know there are online games for the mac but last I checked my games weren't among the ones available on mac. Does that make them lesser games? I don't think so.
As for people's luck with Laptops lasting, alot of that is user more than hardware. I've got an HP laptop that still runs strong and it's 3 going on 4 years old now. I have a second one that is pretty much on 24/7 (yes a laptop) that sits by my recliner for when I watch TV and such. I also have an HP Desktop that with a few hardware modifications came out to about $800. So with the 24" HP Flatscreen I spent maybe $1100 total on it. The other HP Laptop that I ordered custom from HP was $1500 with a 17" screen. So I have 2 Large Screen Computers for around $2600 dollars. They both run Vista and run 24/7 with no hassles. I think some people exaggerate how bad things are, and I watch my coworker with his mac calling tech support fairly regularly for things that break on his laptop.
So in the end I can say we will all agree to disagree. There is no super flawless computer, in the end it comes down to the definition of what's "cool." Cool for me is that what I have does what I want it to do with very little hassle or expense.
The whole thing is just funny. Microsoft is spending millions of dollars promoting PC's over Macs. Do they say PC's are better? No. They say they are cheaper. But the really funny thing is that M$ DOES NOT MAKE COMPUTERS. They are like.. well.. um.. Vista sucks, so lets not mention it in the commercial… lets push the computer instead. We can't say that the package is better, so we will push that idea that it is not as good, but costs less. Yea.
Seriously though. One thing that nobody mentions is that if you take the resale value of a Mac into account, it usually offsets most of the original price difference and you wind up with a machine that is more stable, virus free, easy to use, good software included, and as a bonus yea, they are better looking.
Do I feel I am cool for buying a Mac? No. I feel I made the best choice for my prioities. If your ONLY priority is the amount of cash that it costs you up front then yea. get a PC.
'I use both a mac and a PC as well. I love doing computer work while using a mac. Using a PC makes me want to slit my wrists'
Honestly it sounds like a personal problem to me.
"Did it ever occur to you that maybe you are just incapable of using a PC and that you prefer Macs because they take less intelligence to use?"
Actually what occurs to me is that arrogance is not the sole province of Mac users. I switched back to a Mac at home a few years ago after exclusively using Windows at work and at home for more than a decade. I won't ever go back to a computer limited to running Windows and Linux. Not because Apple computers are easier but because they actually work. In my experience of using personal computers and observing others using them for over 25 years, Apple computers have a fraction of the down time of computers made by other manufacturers. The stability of the software and integrity of the hardware are second to none.
Following Rick K's lead, here's my analysis for my Mac at home:
Home computer use per week = 10 hours
Value of 5% more efficiency = 130 hours saved in five years
130 more hours spent with my 3 year old daughter and newborn son – priceless!!!
Apple Tax = $4000 over 5 years
Income = $100,000 per year, so
Value of 5% higher productivity = $25,000 over 5 years
Bargain of the century
MACs are not any more reliable for a ton of extra cash. But they are perfect for those users that prefer style over substance.
I use both a mac and a PC as well. I love doing computer work while using a mac. Using a PC makes me want to slit my wrists.
The mac is just a better machine. For starters, it comes with a great software expounds your macs functionality. A PC? It's loaded with crap from the get-go. I'll pay the extra money for a solid machine any day.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe you are just incapable of using a PC and that you prefer Macs because they take less intelligence to use?
@ Anonymous
A few notes:
Retail Vista Ultimate: $213.74 (royaldiscount.com)
Extra Burner: LiteOn (DVD+R: 22x): $26.99 (newegg.com)
Virus and Spyware Software: Free! (for home use >Avast!, AVG, etc.) | I bought Kaspersky IS 2009 at Fry's for around $75 dollars > free after rebates
Addendum: The memory you to which you pointed me is 1066 MHz, not 1600 MHz (trying to keep things as close as possible)
Adding the extras into my box, per your suggestion, it would come to $2802.54. Add Adobe Production Premium, as I cited below (and did with my real box), and one would come up with a grand total of $3699.53, a whopping 53 cents more expensive than the paid price for your Mac (less expensive if you trouble to upgrade your graphics card to the one I cited in my PC). That is, your Mac without Illustrator, Encore, Premiere, Photoshop, Photoshop 64 (PC only), Flash, Soundbooth, and After Effects. Ah, but you have iMovie and Garage Band! (I apologize for the sarcasm)
In summary: I agree with you. If you purchase a Mac, strip out all of the components that you do not want (but are forced to purchase from Apple), buy the components that you do want, sell the non-wanted items on eBay and get the prices that you set, then yes…we are looking at similarly equipped computers (minus 7 professional applications by Adobe) that cost roughly the same.
This will be my last post. I am beginning to feel quite petty putting forth arguments that should not even need to be made.
Macs are great computers. Really. I simply cannot justify spending the extra money.
I owned about 4 PC laptops prior to purchasing my first mac. None of them lasted longer than 8 months. Finally I bought a white iBook G4 which I used for 2 years before I upgraded to a macbook pro a week or two after they first came out. I still use that macbook pro and the iBook G4 is still running great for the person I sold it to. You pay for more than the name, you pay for quality, elegance, reliability, and yes, even style.
Quite an interesting article. I'd like to say I know Microsoft seems interested in talking about the so-called "Apple tax" which is real although Apple has been working to bring prices down somewhat on their Mac computers (a few years ago Steve Jobs compared one of their Mac computers to a Dell PC and did a price value comparison to suggest the Apple Mac was better than the Dell in both respects) what about the Microsoft tax though.
That is the tax of going with Microsoft software — it still exists but Microsoft's ability to bully others around and win in doing so has been slightly weakened at best. They used to say to PC vendors they could not advertise for Linux even if they also sold Linux machines today that is starting to change.
Linux carries no actual tax with it except maybe the time spent learning how to use it for non techies to figure out — there is a Microsoft tax and an Apple tax otherwise but no Linux tax. Maybe everyone should go Linux which is a non proprietary open operating system that can work on PCs and Macs — often with different hardware and has multiple distributions.
Linux is even more open and accessible to use than Microsoft Windows. Hail Linux!
Doesn't matter if you compare BMW's to Macs or a PC to a rats ass. I pay more for my Mac because it's a much better experience than my PC. Thats right, my PC. I use them both. I have PC's at work and at home but I spend most of my time and whenever I have a choice on my Mac. I won't say that my Mac is perfect and that I've never had problems but it pretty much runs flawless compared to ANY of my PC's. My crew at work constantly has to call the IT department to come down to look into problems that we're having on our PC's. I can recall one time where I bought a PC laptop a few years ago. I bought the performance insurance with it. I started with a Compaq which had to be exchanged within days. To make a long story short, the store I bought it from had to replace my laptop ten times before I finally got one that worked. In the process, I had several Compaqs, an NEC, and three Sony's. OMG was I glad that I paid up to get the performance insurance and I'm sure the store was thinking that they wished they never sold me that package. The entire time, I have owned Macs alongside my PC's and NEVER have I had a situation like this except for my iMac that stopped working properly after my house was hit by lightening. Bottom line, I can't wait to get my next Mac, er…PC….er Mac….Oh wait! My Mac can do both now! Have fun people! Try not to get at each others throats too much. LOL
jim wrote:
"I see people crying about security. You people must not understand. Apple isn’t more secure. It’s just less targeted. If you think that virus creators couldn’t whip something up for a mac then your crazy."
OK, Jim is a "techie". He understands this issue so much, he is going to explain how a programmer writes a virus that infects the mac through the operating system.
Over to you, Jim….
*by the way, you can write the virus in whatever language you like, and compile it for the mac.
I am not ridiculing you here, Jim. If you know how to write system active code that gets past the way OSX operates, I am all ears.
I love tinkering with code, and would enjoy sending a mac completely crazy under controlled conditions. But I just don't see how it could be done, in practical terms. How do you get the system to run your code?
Until late last year, I was a windows user since version 3.1. I switched to a Mac-Mini and have never looked back. I no longer have to spend 1-2 hours per week tracking down some problem or other. no blue screens, reboots or frustration. It even runs XP under Fusion better than any other computer I have owned.
Microsoft is playing with fire. Suppose their marketing campaign actually succeeds and people give up on paying current apple prices. Then what? There is a price war between apple and pc.
Who would win? Well, let's see. Apple owns every piece of its food chain from the hardware to the os to the outlets (at least for the most part) that sell their machines. PC is a gaggle of companies at every step in the distribution chain: windows sits on hardware made by a different company that in turn is often sold by yet another party… Each link in the chain is vying to make money at the expense of its rivals.
Apple could drop their prices dramatically and still have margins far higher than their competitors. And to win a price war, if it happened, apple wouldn't have to be cheaper than their rivals, just closer in price.
What would happen to the pc world if the apple tax, however you figure it, dropped to $50 to $100?
Pc's argument would be that people scrimp every penny and that Jobs' argument that apple thrives in the same way BMW thrives just no longer applies in these times. Maybe. But most of us spend more time computing than commuting, making some premium worth it.
What would happen in a price war? Pcs would be decimated not just by an even hotter popularity of cheaper apple products. They would also face excruciating pressure on margins in a desperate attempt to keep under cutting apple, an attempt that would kill many in the pc chain.
We've already seen this movie: ipod vs zune.
Microsoft: be careful what you wish for.
Greg Bates
I think this was a useless study in all reality. Most people that do any sort of computuer shopping or study computers know that Macs cost more than a comparable PC. Its just the royalty you get to pay for the Mac.
In terms of performance, windows has the slight edge in that most software/apps are programmed to run on windows. Mac has the edge in that no one bothers to write viruses and what not for macs and that it generally looks a lot sleeker. If you think those advantages are worth the extra money, go for it.
If there is anyone that is still ardent the the costs are the same, then I would suggest comparing the prices of similar speced Macs and PCs. If you want, compare it to Vaio PCs as they are bit more costlier than say Dell. a few months ago, i got my friend a Vaio SR $250 cheaper, without discounts (with discounts it was about $400 cheaper), than a similar speced MacBook. That should prove whether or not its more expensive.
Robert,
A word or two for you and your wife:
I don't know why you would have trouble hooking up a wireless router….millions of people have done so without any problems. Did you call for support? Did you use your PC to investigate how to set up wireless support for a mac?
You really couldn't find your hard drive? never occurred to you to double click on the only icon on the desktop?
IS the Documents, Pictures, Movies, User concept really that complex? Couldn't find her files….did you try to FIND them with the FIND command?
Could you give us the URL for a school message board that won't work with Safari? Is this a criticism of Apple or the school? [Are you implying that Safari users can't use UMd message boards?]
By the time Vista was out Microsoft was not even supporting IE on the Mac. IE wasn't available after early 06 and Vista came out in late 06….you aren't making things up here are you….trolling perhaps?
You say have to use Netscape like it is a bad thing….some folks prefer Firefox to Safari. I know it may be a hard concept coming from the dark world, but Browser Choice is a benefit.
Why exactly does Netscape work poorly because IE on the Mac is not worth a darn.
Are you blaming Apple for Crossover? They don't make or advertise Crossover…..
Apple gives you BootCamp software which would allow you to boot directly into Windows if you want to install a copy on your Apple Intel Hardware. Did you try this? What programs are you trying to run?
You don't open a second browser to look at two sights…you open a New Window. You still haven;t figured this out after two years….there may be no hope for you.
Here is my response to Mr. Ballmer and to everyone discussing Apple. The core of the appeal is the buying experience…. not just the euphoria upon getting a machine that works but realizing several years later that you made the right choice. Here is my story. I bought the white plastic cased MacBook nearly three years ago and it performed flawlessly for over two years and developed several issues. the bottom line was that I took it in six times….. and dealt with the employees at the Apple Store in The Woodlands, Texas in a reasonable and respectful manner. After exhausting all efforts to fix my macbook ( I depend on it for my business), a staff member informed me that since the machine was such a mystery Apple was giving me a new one.
When I arrived I was greeted not only with the new machine- it was the aluminum-clad new model. I was shocked. After I recovered I asked if I might buy a new warranty for the computer. I was told that this was included in the deal because of my situation and the inconvenience I had suffered.
For once an for all, I am damned sick and tired of listening to the strong-armed jerks like Steve Ballmer who insult my intelligence by suggesting that price is everything…. and inferring that they are looking after me by offering a lower price point—- I am equally offended by the whining legions of Mac users that seem to bitch about everything Apple does or who wish for the good ole days of yore.
Apple is a great company and I only hope they continue to be fanatical about the customer, maintain their attention in all aspects of commerce and keep focused on their creative vision.
All my best to them, to Big Steve ( that's Jobs- not Ballmer… Big Blob) and those who are willing to pay for and appreciate quality in their daily lives.
I've been in computing since 1979 and currently am an Enterprise Architect. I've run darned near every desktop OS over the years, CP/M, Amiga, OS2, Mac, Next Step, every major Unix variant, many Linux distros since 1986.
Microsoft had a good think going from 3.51NT until Vista. I have run Windows 7 beta and don't care for it.
OSX doesn't impress me compared to Linux, I can find many benefits just in the Linux OS over OSX. Not saying OSX is a pig like Vista, but it's nothing wow like the Jobs cultists claim (none of which ever seem to have deep computing experience). I view MSFT's licensing policies over the past five years as increasingly worse. However, compared to Apple, they are saints.
Having opened that line of thought, Linux smacks down both companies on so many fronts.
So the small looney Jobs cult rants on, yet Apple adds nothing positive to the average person's computing needs. Many developers add lots of value running on MSFT's OS but MSFT is slipping further backward.
Face it, Linux is the future. 'nuff said, I'll sit back and watch the cultists scream and rend their clothing while the big corporate followers ignore them while they bicker and complain about MSFT. Soon enough, most will be making the move to Linux without even realizing it.
"What am I missing? Facts and numbers appreciated.
Posted By Jonathan, Atlanta, GA : April 11, 2009 10:35 am"
My Computer BFG Tech GF GTX 260 (896 MB > $271.99
Intel Core i7 920 > $229.99
150 GB (10,000 RPM)Sys Drive > $189.99
Asus P6T Deluxe Motherboard > $299.99 tiger $310 Antec Truepower 850 Watt ATX > $191.99 dell $210 CoolerMaster V8 CPU Cooler > $67.99
Vista Ultimate 64 Bit (OEM) > $175.99
this license requires computer be resold, not to be used by builder. system builder software not supported by MS, should use retail version Best Buy $320
6 GB DDR3 (1600 MHZ) > $169.99
8GB $144 LG Blu-ray Burner > $249.99
Lian Li PC-A71B (All Alum) > $239.95
Gateway 22″ Widescreen HD > $209.99
add 2nd optical drive to make even with mac w/ blueray $100
does not include iLife software
needs security and spyware software $60
D-Link DWA-556 (Wireless N Adapter)> $59.99
WD Hard Drive (1 TB)x4 > $379.96
Total Cost $2737.80 more reasonable $3044
MAC PRO base $2388 macmall includes $333 free software and printer bundle.
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB inc
Intel Core i7 920 inc
[No Option] could buy as you did from reseller [Unknown]
[Unknown]
[Unknown]
OSX
6 GB DDR3 (1066 MHZ)
purchase from other than apple can add 8GB ram from OWC for $144 which you could do with your box as well , i reduced your price to even
[No Option for Blu-ray]
could add same LG Blu-ray Burner you purchased> $249.99
All Aluminum Case
[No Screen Equivalent -- none chosen]
could purchase same Gateway 22″ Widescreen HD > $209.99
AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
includes iLife software subtract $69 to even things up
All Four Bays Chosen — 4 TB could buy WD Hard Drive (1 TB)x4 > $379.96 here as well, would leave you with the stock 640 GB SATA drive to sell on Ebay or put in case.
Total Cost: $3699.00 more reasonably $3303 Available to resell 3×1 GB RAM approx $60, 640 GB SATA Drive approx $60, macmall bundle sell for approx $200
total $2983.
This does not give any value to your expertise at building a system from parts nor does it value your time doing so. This does not value my expertise at reselling items on ebay nor my time doing so. What it does is show that two similarly equipped computers cost the same.
I love how you idiots sum up why someone uses what product in one or two sentences. Your failure of imagination is your own.
I use both. I guess that means I'm a stupid misinformed customer on all fronts. Or maybe I am a lib coffee house type using facebook all day AND a spyware infested cheap ass who can't identify quality.
The reality of it is that these are tools, and each has benefits and drawbacks. There is no other system that gives me as a developer the power of an underlying UNIX shell with a slick user interface. This comment will of course bring in the Linux nerd demographic, to which I say, yes I use this too.
Windows, nothing can match the breadth of application software available for this platform. In return for that wonderful feature you get virii, trojans, crapware, malware, click-here-to-allow-this-program-to-run, and all of the other headaches of ownership, and you probably get a box designed like it was meant to impress a 12 year old antisocial boy.
Walking into an Apple store is an irritating experience, elbowing your way through crowds of hipsters and people who have decided that technology as image is the most important thing it has to offer.
None of this though means that buy buying an object you too define yourself by the experience, nor does it mean by finding utility in the tool that you have somehow joined a cult on one hand or the other.
As above, to make these sweeping statements is just a failure of imagination and a lack of experience with what one platform has that can benefit.
On my desk is a Dell laptop running Vista, a Macbook Pro running OSX and a Mac Pro that is running XP and OSX, and I'm ssh'ed into some Linux servers running software I'm writing.
People, they are just tools. Buying into buying one or the other because some corporation is giving you an image argument pro or con, is just slapping a label that says "STUPID" on your forehead.
I have never owned a Windows computer. I started out using Macs but have since switched to Linux and could not be happier.
i have been a PC user since the mid 80's, i was introduced to the Mac by my uncle, whom i work for and resolve most of his computer issues, he got a Mac because he has the iphone, whenever he had any issues (learning) with the Mac, he would ask me to help him resolve it, my answer to him would be "i am a PC, i dont do Mac", so he did the next best thing, he bought me a Mac.
I am now the proud owner of 13" MacBook that i upgraded to 500GB HD and 4GB MEM, and loving it.
@Kenn
I would not say that this is my "real" argument; it is simply my argument. Most educated readers (like yourself) would pick that up without having to state it specifically. In any case, thanks for clarifying.
Nevermind the argument, here is my "real" issue. Often I read articles like this and people laud the Mac and justify its high prices in the comments. For folks who want a good build and and less trouble–and who cannot/do not build on there own–by all means, go for the Mac. It has less bloatware and offers great value. It can dual boot (the only real plus in my view) But also admit this: "Hey, I'm not tech savy. I can't build a computer the way I want it. I just want something that works great out of the box." I'm okay with this. You mention your PC build and that you use your Mac more often and it gives you more value. My question to you: Why? How?
Let's put it this way. I have a PC that has much better hardware than a comparable Mac Pro (new readers, it is cited below). I understand that this is my opinion, but the OSs are not vastly different (with respect to user experience–and in my view and experience they simply are not–despite the eye candy). I have saved nearly $2000 dollars. Where is that value hidden in the Mac? Garage Band? iPhoto? iMovie?
As a side comment, I purchased CS4 Production Premium from Royal Discounts for $896.99. This still puts me cheaper than the Mac cited below (the one without a monitor or professional video, graphic, and audio software). Again, where is this Mac value you mention when it comes to me, the home builder. As always, specifics are appreciated.
Interesting. Microsoft "CEO Steve Ballmer, who told a Business Week-sponsored forum last month that Mac customers were paying an extra $500 to get the Apple logo on what is essentially the same hardware."
Indeed, this Apple "same" hardware runs Windows just fine with Apple's BootCamp or with a number of Virutalization Packages. I'm running Windows Server 2008 on a plain Mac Book (not pro) and it works fine.
So, ask yourself, what skin is it off Microsoft's nose if people buy Mac hardware?
The answer, I believe, is that Microsoft doesn't care about the hardware as much as it cares about the Operating System and the future potential software sales to someone that "picked" the Windows platform. See, as of now, Microsoft can't make Apple preinstall Vista as it has essentially done to just about ever other PC manufacture. If Microsoft loses the sale at hardware ship time, it's an uphill battle to reclaim it later.
So, you've got to wonder why the article spent so much time talking about hardware cost, and so little comparing the merits of Apple's OS/X with Windows Vista.
I submit that they concentrated on the hardware cost because comparing software isnt' a clear win for Microsoft. In fact, many people that try to be unbiased would say that the Apple software is better.
I have both a MAC and a PC. The MAC I have is maybe 2 years old. It is a desktop with the 24" screen. I have a variety of PC laptops and desktops.
My wife wanted a computer for school that would be just hers. So we went shopping. This was when Vista was just coming out and I wanted nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, there was something like 2 pc computers with Win XP left in the store and they both sucked (that is the technical word I think). So we got to looking at the Mac and ended up going with that.
I heard all the time about how intuitive a Mac is, and how you can run all of these Windows programs on it. Well, I seem to have gotten the Mac computer that is not so friendly…..here is a list of the issues that I have had….
Getting the computer to hook up to my wireless router. That took a few days to figure out.
Just finding the 'hard drive' on the computer. Really sucked trying to find where my wife saved her school reports.
Getting a browser to work with her message boards for school. Safari does not work. Have to use Netscape which works poorly because IE does not work worth a damn on the Mac.
Crossover….I want to choke someone at Apple over how this program is advertised. It is billed as a program that allows you to run Windows based programs. What it does not tell you is that it only allows a very limited amount of programs to run, they are all older, and none of them run very well.
Silly little things that are supposedly 'intuitive'. Like opening a second browser when you want to view a second web page without navigating away from the one you are on (at least on my wife's college site …University of Maryland). I am sure there is a way to do it….but I have not yet figured it out.
Maybe I am just comfortable with PCs as I have used them for a long time…..but the Mac does not seem to be nearly as easy to use as people say.
My wife says that people tell her that when she 'gets it', she won't be able to understand how she ever used a PC at all. Well, 2 years later she is still working on 'getting it'.
I personally dread the 'Honey, I need your help' calls from upstairs. Because it invariably means that I am going to spend a couple of hours trying to figure out how to do something that I can do on my PC in about 5 seconds.
I agree, Apple is getting a premium for it's label. So does Starbucks. But you don't hear MacDonalds protesting the Starbucks Tax.
That said, the 'Apple Tax' pales by comparison to the Windows Tax, which has been levied in earnest over a period of 20 years, ever since Microsoft ripped-off the Macintosh user interface (which Apple ripped-off from Xerox before them) and introduced it's first versions of Windows.
The Microsoft Tax became thoroughly established in the mid-90's when the company realized they weren't going to be able to meet their projected release date for Windows-95. Since business customers were still struggling with numerous defects in the previous versions of Windows (the 3.x series), the din of customer complaints was rising, and Bill Gates came up with a great idea: since they couldn't deliver a complete and thoroughly tested Windows-95 right away, they offered a 'BETA' version of Windows-95 that people could acquire "at their own risk" for "testing purposes". Since at that point, millions of Windows-3 users had been worn down by consulting costs and delays finding work-arounds for the problems with what they had, many of them figured whatever bugs there were in Windows-95, they'd be better off with that than the current version.
And so, the migration to Windows-95 began, even though by accepting the basic premise that they could tolerate the operating system 'asis', with defects, they were in effect releasing Microsoft from any obligation to support it or provide fixes to the defects in anything resembling a timely manner.
This strategy worked so well, from that point on, Microsoft realized that their hegemony over desktop computing (at least in the business sector) was so strong, they could release anything they wanted, defects or no-defects, with impunity.
In fact, Microsoft began to realize it was far more cost-effective to let their customers find the bugs, than to try and do it in-house. It put them in the position to pick and choose which defects needed immediate attention, and which ones could be left in place, to be fixed only with the next major version release. The PC hardware manufacturers benefited from this strategy because it put customers in the position of having to either pay Microsoft a fee to upgrade to a 'new' version of Windows, or buy new hardware which came with the new version loaded on it.
In addition, by leaving the bugs in the current version, all of Microsoft's competitors in the software applications markets had to re-write their applications to accommodate what wasn't working in the current version. This made it impossible for companies like Lotus and Word Perfect, companies who had dominated the spreadsheet and word-processing markets until then, to compete with Microsoft's new Office product lines, and both of them were forced out as a consequence. Not because Office was better than the current market leaders, but because Microsoft software engineers new how to navigate around the internal defects of a proprietary operating system, the internal details of which only they had access to.
Another nuance of this strategy has been Microsoft's practice of changing the rules on the desktop with each new version release. As often as not, those changes are gratuitous, and are often found objectionable by their established end-users. However, as long as business users have literally been forced to adopt whichever new version of Windows Microsoft chooses to release, they have also been forced to accept the new rules, even when doing so sometimes costs them significant time and money in terms of training, outside technical assistance, and changes they must make to their internal information systems.
As for Microsofts competitors for desktop computer software, every time Microsoft changes the rules, they are stuck having to re-tool their existing products, a process which invariably gives Microsoft a few months lead during which time they can grab market share in whatever markets seem attractive at the time. This strategy worked great for them up until the release of Windows Vista, at which point it backfired big-time.
Why? In part it was because the previous version of Windows, Windows XP, had been out long enough to become stable. Because the Vista development had taken such a long time, Microsoft had been forced to provide fixes to XP, particularly as the relentless series of security leaks in the Windows code-base were discovered, and exploited by various parties. As XP became stable, outside applications developers had enough time to improve their products, and for the first time in about 15 years, Windows users actually found themselves with a desktop operating system which was reasonably reliable. Furthermore, thanks to advances in microprocessor technology by companies like Intel and AMD, Windows XP started to perform faster. The increase in hardware performance had finally overcome the inherently bloated and inefficient core systems that had evolved over the years as Microsoft attempted to overcome earlier mistakes in the Windows product design.
With the advent of Windows 7, Microsoft has reverted to the original Windows 95 gambit, by releasing a 'BETA' version in advance of the 'real' version, and the strategy has worked, just as before. And, as they have for essentially the entire life of the Windows product, they will use their monopoly over the PC hardware distribution channel to force adoption of the new version by consumers and business, and then, as those new purchasers waste their own time and money coping with a new set of defects, release new products which solve some of the more egregious ones, while leaving the rest to be fixed in the next 'improved version' from the geniuses who sustain this pernicious monopoly.
Microsoft's policy of using defects in the Windows operating system as a way of preserving their monopoly has paid huge dividends for the company, at an incalculable cost to personal computer users world-wide. Whatever the Apple Tax may be, the cost to businesses all over the world of their dependence upon Microsoft dictated standards and practices surely number in the trillions of dollars over the life of the Windows operating system.
Ironically, when a minor software flaw was identified in Microsoft’s Zune game console last year, they mobilized massive resources to fix the problem and provide it to consumers. Meanwhile, there continue to be thousands of known defects in most of Microsoft’s PC software products which have been in place for years, and cost literally hundreds of millions of man-hours to consumers and businesses world-wide. The European Union's commerce regulators have identified various aspects of Microsoft's anti-competitive and monopolistic practices, and succeeded in requiring Microsoft to alter those practices to some degree by getting significant damages in EU courts. Unfortunately, the US Department of Justice seems completely uninterested in protecting American consumers.
The other major counter-force that threatens Microsoft's hegemony has been the emergence of a thriving and very effective open-source software (free software) business model, wherein major software systems are provided to personal computer users for free, and are subject to a strong demand driven influence favoring compatibility between software applications, ease of use, and the establishment of public standards and practices that benefit all users of personal computers.
Nowhere is this phenomenon more in evidence than at Apple Computer. While Apple itself still attempts to follow the Microsoft's proprietary business model wherever it can, the major business decision they made which was critical to their recent resurgence as a serious competitor to Microsoft was the adoption of an open-source operating system called FreeBSD. FreeBSD is very similar to Linux, but less well known, since it has for many years been a mainstay platform for Internet servers, while Linux focused on end-user desktop computing. It has been that decision which has enabled them to match Microsoft's desktop software capabilities one for one, more than any other.
The real threat to Microsoft over the intermediate term is not so much Apple, but the success of the open-source business model. Now that IBM, which has embraced open-source software for many years, is about to acquire Sun Microsystems, also a major player in open-source, the tide appears to be turning against the relentless 'toll-booth' business model which Microsoft has pursued since it's inception. Microsoft is right: you do pay a bit more for the new Apple personal computers. But the solution to that problem is not to be found by embracing the latest proprietary version of Windows, but to join those who are now buying PC's with Windows pre-loaded, and replacing it with 100% open-source desktop software like Linux, Ubuntu, PC-BSD, and a variety of other variations which generally do the same things Apple's computers do, but at a considerably lower cost.
What's the big deal? Apple chooses NOT to compete on price. So what? Who says that is the only thing that you are allowed to compete on?
I'm a happy PC user, but own a few apple products. The perceived "pain" to change to a new OS is a key reason of why I stay.
Microsoft has decided that it wants to push competition on price. As a marketer, I think that focusing an entire campaign on why you are better than your competitor makes me wonder if you don't believe your own product is strong enough to stand up on it own though.
from the author:
"But this is the methodology of the Mac Brownshirts. They find a discrepancy and use it to invalidate the entire thesis.”
paint your critics as nazis – real classy and mature.
i am also suspicious of people who blame others for their own short comings such as "production errors". did the author NOT proof the final product? if my name was going on something so important you bet i'd go over it with a fine tooth comb.
The white paper and the fax form do not factor in the cost of wasted time and productivity having to fend off viruses, malware, spyware, etc. Now there is a hefty tax! The fact that Microsoft is resorting to these sorts of advertising gimmicks says it all.
i really couldn't care less. I prefer mac and I'm not opposed to the market share staying at or around 13%.
These marketing campaigns from MS is really smoke in mirrors at best, or deliberately misleading at worst.
If price is the only thing they have on Mac, that's pretty sad.
I think the "Macs aren't as vulnerable to viruses" excuse is equivelant to "prisoners aren't as vulnerable to STDs." Yeah, if you lock yourself behind bars (virtual or physical) infections are a lot less likely… I'd rather open a "Window" and take the risk and actually experience life..
ex ped: And you believe that prisoners don't have sex?
I read Harry McCracken's article and he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
He doesn't understand the importance of newer generation ram, professional gpus vs gaming ones, raid options, and color gamut in screens. He really doesn't understand what workstations are actually used for and just skims right over the most critical features as though they were as important as having an extra usb port.
Who cares if you prefer mac or pc!! I am tired of both side fighting about who is cooler or who has less buggy programs. If you like mac's, great… if you want to buy a pc, good for you. Why does everyone feel like they have to be on the "winning" side? Why do you feel the need to post in here and argue about a product you paid for, effectively giving money to someone to market their own product?
Its bad enough I have to suffer through political bashing every 4 years. Now you are making me listen to product bashing pretty much every day. Save your marketing money and just advertise your own products based on their own merits.
Windows is right, It's a money thing. A computer is useless after 2 years Or less and needs to be updated. So if one has $2500 to spend on a Mac then go ahead, but I prefer my PC's for under $1000 and good ones at that. Mac is a status thing, my Hummer 3 vs. your Hummer 2
Folks, lets get real. This is not about the consumer buying what they consider best. Microsoft has a great foot hold because they were very clever in positioning themselves in the business community in the early and mid 80's. Their business strategy worked.
I am a Mac user and convert after years of using only PC's. From a technology standpoint if my technical team had a choice we all would be running on MacBook Pro's with Paralells or Fusion to use when we either want to test some new exotic os (Or Microsoft's latest attempt at solving their problems) or just talking to the corporate mainframe because the application is so old nobody ever ported it to anything but Windows (again Corporate mentality). My company provided laptop in the office is a Dell system of course running Windows and the ticket on that beauty after the necessary upgrades to do our job came to $3,400 the MacBook Pro I have and use at the office including the VMWare Fusion and XP license for the softare came to $2,500. The PC is already obsolete, the MacBook Pro is still runnig fine. Both machines are the same age which is around 4 years. To add the Dell weight in my backpack tops off at 9 pounds with the power brick. The MacBook is 7 Pounds. Guess which stays locked in the docking station?
Between Mac, Windows and Linux there's a lot of difference you find that windows in most cases is more user friendly while macs are more reliable. The problem occurs where you have people saying macs are better due to the fact that they never break or get virus's. One could say the same thing about linux and other open source programs the problem is with windows the most widely platform it is the most cost effective to write malware/virus's/trojans or whatever it may be for windows since you have better chance of infection due to a larger audience. Microsoft does the best it can but you can only do so much when you constantly have people trying to saboutage you. The more popular macs do come the more problems they will have
Something doesn't add up here. Close to 90% of the comments are from pro mac people? How is this possible when apple holds such a small % of the marketshare.
Is it because Mac owners are just the techie kind of people that would be trolling around looking for articles like this?
Does that actually give support to the fact that Mac owners do have this "i'm cool" mentality.
I see people crying about security. You people must not understand. Apple isn't more secure. It's just less targeted. If you think that virus creators couldn't whip something up for a mac then your crazy.
This apple tax is true. If you like apple that much then pay the price for it but don't argue that it isn't true.
As for me i'm a windows user. Guess what. I'm a techie also….guess what I have come to realise? I have a huge population behind me. If there is something I want to do on my pc then someone has done it before me. I can simply do a google search. If I want to play any video game created it's probably on pc. If I want to do the same with apple then normally I have to wait a couple of months for the release.
Windows does everything I need it to do. You know a while back my brother decided he wanted a new computer. I shopped around bought everything separately. Built his computer from ground up. When I say built I mean we built it ourselves. Sinking the processor and everything. It's got 4g of ram. Intel core 2 duo 7400, a 500gb hard drive, ati hd 3870, all together it cost about 500 dollars. Now, try to compare that price with an equal apple product.
This isn't a marketing strategy to get Apple uses to convert to PC's. It's simply a campaign to keep PC users motivated to by another PC. This kind of marketing for the most part is ignored by Apple users.
I rarely comment on stories, but I just can't believe that I went to Kay's website (first 'here' link at the end) and the links in the lower left are not to web pages but C:\Program Files\…
That's just embarassing.
@Jonathan who compared hardware cost – here's your real argument: why would I buy a branded computer when I can build one for less?
It doesn't apply only to Apple but also to Dell, HP, Sony, etc. Yes there is an "Apple Tax" but so does every PC manufacturer. I myself have a home built PC and a Mac. Which one costs less to purchase/build? The PC! Which one do I use more often and gives more value? The Mac!
Video editing=MAC
Everything else=Windows
Lets face it, Most mac users are lib coffee house dwellers with Save the Planet stickers on their crap Volvo. I chuckle at the MAC crowd when I sneak-peek their screen and see them fully engrossed in their Facebook page.
The person who should own a MAC is a Windows and or AOL user who leaves all the bloatware installed from the factory and then gets mad when their PC slows down after 6 months.
I've been happy as a clam running first Suse and now Ubuntu Linux for about four years now. I find Microsoft's indictment of Apple quite ironic since I don't need as much machine to cheerfully run a free OS as I would need to accomodate Vista.
COOLNESS = CREATIVITY = PRODUCTIVITY
I'm a scientist. My employer provides me a Lenovo Thinkpad R400 for free. It works fine and I get tech support. However, I have always used my research GRANTS to buy myself and the people that work for me Macs. I use my PC to do mundane work – but that's it. When I need to do science, I always turn to my MacBook (not even a MacBook Pro). To me the "coolness" of my Mac is that it inspires creativity. Whether writing grants or papers or analyzing data – the ideas flow when I'm using my Mac. And I never need tech support – the Mac OS is so easy I can handle any problem that comes up myself. There is no question that paying a few hundred dollars per computer for a Mac is worth it if it helps me win new grants and advance medical science.
All I can say is I have an HP with Windows 2000 from 1998 and a Dell that came with Windows XP. I upgrsde to XP Prof and have had this computer since 2004. Oh! It was given to me form the original owner who had since 2003.
Works like it was new.
That's my testimonial
First,
Resale vale would get you the $500 back easily on a Mac.
Second, Car analogy,
A Car is a car why buy a BMW when you can drive a KIA both can get you from point A to B?
Answer: The BMW will cost more but is a safer, reliable, faster and more comfortable ride.
Disclosure: Had 4 PC got sick and tired of the time it takes to maintain them. Abandoned them all (No resale vale) and got me 2 iMacs. It has been 1 1/2 years since of trouble free experience for all 4 users and I saved enough in maintenance man hours to justify buying the Macs in the first place.
Will never go back to PC's
Kay says that he took great pains to make sure his charts were correct, yet couldn't look up the correct prices of mobile me? and ilife? or include software only for the Mac that you would also have to buy for the PC? nor include an equivalent on the PC side for iLife or Mobile me? only a "smart challenged" blogger would think he took "great pains" to get inaccurate numbers?
and what about the resale value? who would forget about that?
Anyone notice how they have to focus on hardware cost instead of the merits of the operating system? Thats becuase vista is an atrocious POS.
I pay the mac tax for stability and much use egronomics.
If you add in all the anti-virus anti-spam software and time you have to spend dealing with windows crashing…the macs seem like a real deal.
I'm an electrical computer software IT engineer, and I have used a PC more for more years than any of you have been alive. I know everything about all computers. I know how to build them, fix them, break them, and I eat them for breakfast. And I say PC's are best. This argument is over!
The funny thing about these comparisons are that they ignore the "Microsoft tax" as well. I have a laptop that I spent around $500 dollars on (including the stupid Vista license). Out of the box it was a dog. One linux install later, it can hang with machines in the $1500 price range. The only software cost was the bundled shovelware I threw away. As far as desktops go, there's the "build-up" tax too. My desktop is comparable to the high end offerings at the retail chains, and cost about as much as a Vista Pro license to put together. It also has the added bonus of not wasting it's power running the bloated overhead of a Windows install unless I need to run it in a VM.
It seems to me that Microsoft is getting scared especially after running ads like this. They can't help but mention Apple in their ads, and that is what is going to bring them down in the end. Every Microsoft Windows commercial from here on out is going to mention Apple, and no publicity is bad publicity.
Last year I bought a fully loaded Dell for $1200. Out of the box the thing had problems even booting up so I spent 2 hours on the phone with India trying to get it to work. After the tech asked me to get out a screwdriver I asked for my moneyback.
I then bought a macbook and had such a great experience bought 2 more to replace the other PCs at home. I use PCs at my job and there is comparison. I would never buy a PC no matter what the cost.
The point MSFT misses is this is not about cost it is about value. Cost is usually the detrmining factor when comparing commodities of equal value. This is like comparing a Hyundai and BMW because they both have an engine and 4 tires.
I paid 599 dollars for one of My Dell Microsoft driven laptop. I use it for the "cool" appliction of running Dj software. It works realitivly well for the low cost. I agree Apple is way over priced but, you need to pay more to help pay for there ridiculous adds bashing PC's. The only reason you would bash another competitor is if you don't have enough good to say about yourself! As far as virus free goes…. there time will come. When there are enough Macs out there (if that ever happens) someone who hates everyone else will write one and it will cause problems. People who write viruses are not going to waste there time with the "couple" macs there are to a hundred PC's.
Good Job Microsoft for battling back. This isn't politics so stop bashing eachother!
I am a software engineer and was a Windows user for years. I thought that there was no reason to switch to a Mac and take on the learning curve, etc. However, a new job was the catalyst to switch and I could not be happier.
I am currently running a MacBook Pro and a Windows desktop running XP 64 Bit. I can tell you first hand that evaluating hardware specs for a Mac and a PC side by side is not as black and white as Microsoft would like you to think. For instance, my MacBook has a 2.6 GHz dual core processor, 4GB of RAM. The windows desktop I have has two 3.4 GHz quad core processors (that is 8 cores), 16 GB of RAM and a SCSI hard drive. For those of you who do not know what SCSI is, it is a drive with faster data transfer rates. The read write to a hard drive is often time sthe bottleneck on your computer. The windows machine could serve as a high availability database server. IT cost much more than my MacBook. However, the MacBook still runs faster and better than the windows machine with more than double the specs. Do not trust what you see written on the box.
Another question to ask yourself is why Mac users are evangelist for Apple and Windows users are not for Microsoft. Do you actually believe that any marketing Apple could do will create evangelists for their product. The answer is no. Only making a great product and providing great customer service can do this.
Last, my time is so valuable to me and the Mac saves so much for me to use making more money, that I would gladly pay double the current price for an Apple. That would be $6,000 for my MacBook Pro. It would still cost me less over its life than the Microsoft based machine.
This is a stupid arguement. The only reason this is even an issue is that Microsoft was able to hit back at PC vs Mac very effectively. Both advts lied. Problem is the media is a bit on the bias side of this issue. They use Macs.
I was a PC user for 13 years… From IBM DOS all the way to Windows XP I faithfully never looked at anything but my PC and really believed that the PC was the best.
I'm not an "average" computer user either, I think I do much more than the average person on a computer.
One day I bought the cheapest MAC that I could find… So that I'd know… It was a 13" Macbook.
I'll happily pay the so called "Mac Tax" and I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER PC!
I have used Windows-based machines and Macs. Vista and OS X are both great. I have no problem with Macs. They are fine computers with excellent software (and I love my iPhone). Those complaining about Vista have either never used it for any length of time, or tried it in early beta or on a [old] machine incapable of using it. At any rate, I digress. The "Mac Tax" is real. Argue all you want, here is the real world cost of my computer vs. the Mac Pro equivalent:
My Computer
BFG Tech GF GTX 260 (896 MB > $271.99
Intel Core i7 920 > $229.99
150 GB (10,000 RPM)Sys Drive > $189.99
Asus P6T Deluxe Motherboard > $299.99
Antec Truepower 850 Watt ATX > $191.99
CoolerMaster V8 CPU Cooler > $67.99
Vista Ultimate 64 Bit (OEM) > $175.99
6 GB DDR3 (1600 MHZ) > $169.99
LG Blu-ray Burner > $249.99
Lian Li PC-A71B (All Alum) > $239.95
Gateway 22" Widescreen HD > $209.99
D-Link DWA-556 (Wireless N Adapter)> $59.99
WD Hard Drive (1 TB)x4 > $379.96
Total Cost $2737.80
MAC PRO
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB
Intel Core i7 920
[No Option]
[Unknown]
[Unknown]
[Unknown]
OSX
6 GB DDR3 (1066 MHZ)
[No Option for Blu-ray]
All Aluminum Case
[No Screen Equivalent -- none chosen]
AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi Card with 802.11n
All Four Bays Chosen — 4 TB
Total Cost: $3699.00
Note that the Mac Pro does not come with a monitor, the memory card chosen is inferior (less memory and I assume no HDMI), the memory MHZ is less, there is no option for any drive above 7200 rpm, and Apple gives no option for a Blu-ray burner. In addition, my home build can hold 8 drives. Add a 24 inch (Standard Definition) monitor to the Mac configuration and the price jumps to $4598.00.
So, even with inferior equipment (at some points) the Mac is either $961.12 or $1860.20.
What am I missing? Facts and numbers appreciated.
microsoft's greedy plot of monopoly will bring itself down, as wall street's greedy plot has. i just ditched IE for Firefox, and it works so much better. no more heartburn over microsoft schemes.
Here is a better question, how many of the people posting here are part of Apple's grassroot guerrilla marketing campaign? From the sample size we have here, it seems like almost everyone owns a Mac, but yet Mac only have 3 to4 percent of the WORLD wide market, something must be skewed. And sad to see a business publication like Fortune being over runned by the Slashdot crowd, just because the article was linked by Google News.
Interesting, but stupid…
Why is Microsoft attacking a hardware company rather than software? Apple poked at Microsoft's Windows products. So Microsoft's DA marketing exec decides to attack superior hardware when Microsoft does not sell hardware? Really, really moronic…
Oh, I guess Microsoft doesn't have a hole to pee in against Leopard so they won't even open that discussion. This would have made more sense, of course being the only real "competition" is in the software/operating system.
IT Professionals know, Winblows… unfortunately they do have the business sector by the balls, so we have to deal with it. Like other software companies in the Winblows world, each version grows and blows more.
Yours Truly,
Mac convert proudly for 6 years.
Let's go over this a little bit: When you’re forced to pay hundreds of dollars for security software, OS “updates,”…software that increases speed and productivity…when you need to pay “experts” to fix your OS and your machine…you’re not doing yourself any financial favors.
Hmmm… According to the above, Mac doesn't need security software?
OS "updates" are free (Windows Update). Going to a newer operating system outside of the standard that is currently offered, isn't an "update".
…software that increases speed and productivity? What might this be? Nothing that I have ever found the desire to buy!
Paying "experts" to fix your OS and machine. I can fix my own machine, as well as all my family members that need help, and most of the time I do it with them over the phone!
I buy "new" software that I need, and continue to use "old" software that I have, on newer versions of Windows.
I have 2 laptops, a desktop and a home server for backing everything up, as well as central storage for media sharing without needing to have all machines powered on. All of them integrate effortlessly and can easily be updated by me running into one of the many local retailers that sell compatible hardware and/or software, and I'm upgraded within minutes.
I am running a Mac with Windows XP on a separate Boot Camp partition because I need it for one app. I've learned the interface and can use it fine, but I have to say, I find myself switching back to the Mac partition to do even the simplest things like moving files around and cleaning up. SO MUCH SIMPLER and FASTER on the Mac side. Time saved and and less frustration is worth way more that the bloated "tax" estimate that this article invents.
We've paid a premium for the Microsoft monopoly. Nice to see a predator worried about my pocketbook.
It's sad that Microsoft has to manufacture facts in an attempt to look better.
It's pretty much universally acknowledged that you will pay a bit more for a Mac; but the "hidden costs" of PCs are non-negligible as well.
- Popular anti-virus solutions require a yearly subscription.
- Office doesn't come for free
- Resale value is much lower
- Operating system upgrades are more expensive
- Customer experience is worse
In a way, Microsoft's newest ad campaign will only serve to get stories like this out there, where it isn't the story that carries the most weight, it's the comments below it. Here and on the Microsoft Blog their numbers are soundly thrashed and exposed as incorrect and misleading.
Well there is also the Microsoft Tax, they don't give anything away for free. Linux OS's better than both of them and much cheaper, open office is free and way better than windows office.
Sad Microsoft!!!! They don't get it. I don't own a Mac, but am about to throw my HP laptop out of the window.
1) Microsoft should just focus on making better, more secure products and the customers will come
2) Doesn't microsoft charge hundreds of dollars for software that a practically same as open source stuff out there? like StarOffice?
3)…and by the way, a full version Windows OS costs more than apple OS.
Microsoft is losing its nuts……the emperor has no clothes a las!
Anyone who believes an apple is more expensive than a similar spec pc has never actually owned an apple computer. I've owned both over the years and find that even though I spent more on my apple computer up front the ancillary cost of owning a pc over the years make it a far more pricey expense. This article doesn't talk about the cost of updating the software almost every year for a pc and the cost of antivirus software, antispyware software, etc. And the anitvirus software never works so you have to pay to have the computer cleaned and risk losing valuable files and documents, needless to say your valuable time. So I say, no thank you to the pc and the headaches of constant maintenance and ancillary fees.
I own a Mac and three PC's (one each running Windows 2000, XP, and Vista). Currently I leave my Mac running full time. I turn off my PC's when I am not using them just to avoid, more easily, potential virus threats. (I do have antivirus software and keep my firewalls up-to-date.) I am not avid about Mac's but security has a value. Also, marketing strategy or not, phony and exaggerated comparisons are likely to eventually backfire; one could interpret the ads as, "Look, I can find a cheaply built product and it costs less!"
"…why Limbaugh praises Macs…"
A good Apple endorsement at that. Just goes to show that even someone as unintelligent as he can run one.
Windows is such a worthless POS…
I actually run Ubuntu because I can't afford Leopard OS X , but to be honest, if windows was free and ubuntu cost 50 dollars, I would pay for Ubuntu…
I am a networking major, and I get into the Mac vs Windows debate all of the time. My major requires mostly Windows but I prefer my Mac.
Some of the guys in my class said "oh you are a wuss. You are afraid of the blue screen. You are afraid to troubleshoot."
Why buy software that you know you are going to have to troubleshoot when you can buy something that works right the FIRST time?
Since 1995 we have had 2 Macs, the latest IMac since 2002. During this time we have had to wipe, reformat and reload OS and apps once and have run disk warrior twice!!! We have yet to lose any data and can count the times we had to ctrl-alt-delete to reboot less than the number of my fingers and toes – in 14 years!!!
During this time my sister has had 5 pc's and spent countless times down – just counting the times I'm aware of as we only visit approximately 8-12 times per year. Instead of spending IT tech fees she has just gotten good at determining when her pc is full of crap and about to start causing trouble and she replaces it.
One should ask themselves who paid for the white paper?
@ that idiot Victor Prieto.
You are an idiot my friend. In the computer world things work different then in the car world. For example, for 1500 or less, you can get and MSI GT725 laptop, which runs Blu-Ray, has a 2.53 GHz dual core processor, a 320 gig hard drive, an ATI 4850 graphics card, 4 gigs or ram and not to mention the turbo button that comes with it which with one simple press, OC's your processor by 350MHz when you need that jump in performance. Now in the computer world, that's a pretty nice machine for $1500 and if you were to relate it to cars like an idiot, then it would be Mercedes. So now ask yourself this, would you pay more for a BMW or a lot less for a car that in some ways is even better then the BMW?
P.S. For the record, comparing MAC to the BMW is stupid seeing as BMW has the best engine in the car market, but MAC's don't have the best engine in the market. I can give you several PC's that have more horses under the hood. And seeing as both MAC's and PC's use Intel, who ever has more cores and higher clocks wins. And it's not MACs
I am a technologist and a software developer, 25 years pro experience. I have worked with IBM mainframes, minis, VAX, PCs running DOS, Windows 286->XP, OS/2, BeOS, and Linux, and Macs from System 6->OS X. Up until 5 years ago I did my development work largely on a Thinkpad A31p running XP, and it was…well, livable. I had never been particularly impressed with Apple's older systems: very priciey, and to tell the truth not really that much better than Windows under the hood.
However, Once Apple released OS X, a UNIX-alike with a human face, able to run niche software (music, art, etc) I was sold. I switched my family and work computers to Apple and I haven't regretted it for a moment. There is indeed a bit of a premium on Apple stuff, but as long as I'm working I'm willing to pay it for the very real benefits: ease of use, reliability, relatively good backward compatibility as new versions of the OS are released, and yes, coolness.
(If I were completely strapped and needed some inexpensive computing horsepower I would no doubt buy a cheap PC-type computer and load a version of Linux. For me the only reason to use Windows is to run a needed program that is unavailable for any other operating system)
Chap, I'll tell you why Limbaugh praises Macs. Like Apple fanboys, Rush is full of himself, sneering at anyone that dares to have an opinion other than his own. Why, it's practically unpatriotic to diss an Apple, isn't it?
If the "Apple Tax" is $50 (as one of the above posters mentioned), then the "PC Tax" for anti-virus software is about the same or more, yes? I'd say "stalemate, mate". In any case, all of this rivalry aired in public in the form of advertising makes me dislike both companies all the more. Meanwhile, for all of the brains and technology invested in computer science, the 3rd Laptop Hunter ad amounts to a mundane sales pitch aimed at kids to get their moms to spend $1500 on a computer to play games on. Pathetic.
It's like this… my office has 18 Macs, and three PCs (due to needed software that won't run on the Mac). The Macs? We simply use them… The PCs (Dells)… We use them half the time, the rest of the time we screw around with them trying to get them to work. Microsoft would do well to spend all this promo money on truly improving the usability of its products, rather than trying to cut down those of a FAR superior maker.
Article hits the nail right on the head! No reason to pay the Apple tax, it's ridiculous! Kudos to Microsoft for battling back, and doing a great job!
I have been a windows user for over 25 years. Just bought my 1st Mac…. Macbook Pro 17". My first question is what took me so long, and believe me, I will NEVER go back.
I bought my wife a Macbook 2 years ago, as an experiment. It boots up in 18 seconds and runs perfectly, never had the first problem. Now I suggest Macbooks to anyone who asks. I won't compare it to my Toshiba laptop, its just too old. I like to build custom PCs, but no matter how close I get to the bleeding edge of tech with my rigs, they still can't approach the Macbook. The slowest part of the Macbook is Office for Mac always trying to patch itself. Microsoft's bloated OS simply can't compete and they know it. Vista tanked, too many versions with no real substantial changes and Windows 7 doesn't even get me interested. I'm glad so many people are PCs. The marketing engine that drove the boom of the 90's did a great job. But for the money, Apple is much better than Microsoft/PC. Microsoft and others (Sony, Nintendo) just better hope Apple doesn't release a gaming console.
First of all – check and correct the spelling in you write up. Secondly – the guy has a point. Apples are cool but pricey…
ex ped: If you've spotted a spelling mistake, OH, perhaps you would be so kind as to point it out.
Why do people get so worked up about the specifics of these marketing campaigns? It is meant to be subjective. It is not like those Apple commercials were objective and criticism free. The biggest irony I find in those Apple ads was that it touted the fact it could use MICROSOFT Office, which essentially is something that just brings money back into Microsoft.
And people who start posting stuff about Linux are just trolls as it is irrelevant to this article.
The paper states "less viruses" on a Mac. The correct phrase is "no viruses". Before you say "yes there are", name a successful one!
I think Microsoft is doing these commercials as a payback it owes the hardware companies for the Vista Ready campaign. Its a way of settling their lawsuits. Free marketing for the (3) HP, Intel, and Sony at Microsoft's expense.
What a stupid review, I think Billy Gates wrote this its so distant from making sense…
Its like comparing Saturns with BMWs…
Ooooohhhh mine has 6 cupholders and yours has 4, mine has a I-4 1.6 liter engine and yours has a V6 3.2 liter engine with turbo but I prefer mine and everybody else should because its cheaper, leather and side impact airbags? thats just cool! I dont need cool I'm ok with vynil and dying in a car crash…
Oh but lets compare bikes, who needs a BMW bike when you can have a vespa!? they both have 2 wheels and run on gas! Arent I smart! hahaha I wrote this stupid piece of paper, all 10 pages of it and I got paid a boatload of money and I didnt even proof-reaf my paper, ah haha!
suckersss!
This whole campaign is so very pathetic. Unbiased research shows that Apple computers are very comparably priced on a feature to feature basis, and actually provide greater value when it comes to ease of use, amount of time spent actually using the computer rather than trying to get it to run properly, the amount of "overhead required" such as security software, adware prevention software, maintenance, downtime, time spent learning and trying to overcome the counter intuitive nature of MSFT software, etc. etc. etc. – It is interesting to note that MSFT is not trying to position their own crap in these commercials, but trying to tell us how cheap these commoditized products are. Way to go MSFt – you don't even sell computers! Just drive their makers out of business, or into the world of average commodity products.
This is just Incredible.
Just for fun and as a sanity check of Mr. Keys math and computer skills, I went to HP and Apple websites to get laptops configured as close as possible. I have sold PCs and Mac previously, so I think I have a decent grasp of what was what in options to get them equal to each other.
For the MacBook, I had to upgrade to a 320GB drive and add iWork (HP comes with MS Works).
On the HP I had to add OS version to get to 64bit plus bells & whistles. Add Acrobat so I could save files to PDF. Had to upgrade the screen although it is still 14.1 vs 13.3. Add wireless n+ Bluetooth card, add a bigger battery battery to try and match the Apple's battery life. The HP did not even come with the recovery CD, so I had to get that. The HP did have a free upgrade to 3GB vs Apple's 2GB of RAM. I did not find an option to remove any crapware loaded on the PC.
Most important, for me at least (most consumers will vote with their wallets), was no measure for the fact that you still have to use MS WIndows Vista vs OS X. I have worked on both platforms for over 20 years and Apple still has a better user experience. I am always more productive on a Mac.
The Apple came out to $1323 and the HP came up to, after HP discounts, $1281. So the Apple was $50 more. That hardly seems like a tax when you take in the user interface/Operating System.
This current campaign is smoke and mirrors that MS is trying to distract people away from the OS. It's too bad they never talk about the user interface like the Mac vs PC adds. You can do anything you want with numbers especially when you are getting paid to slant it. You also get what you pay for.
I don't have a lot of faith that most consumers could pick and choose the options to get comparable systems. It's not easy keeping up with the technology changes.
No matter how cute the adds and sarcastic the ad/white paper lingo is used, consumers should try out both OS's and THEN get what they want. Wouldn't that be 'cool'?
Well, I've never been cool, and I absolutely hated macs in the 90s.
But now, since OS X is unix and I get a terminal window, and can put stuff in /usr/local like a regular linux system and don't have a stupid registry, I'm pretty positive on Macs.
If they'd only be case sensitive…
This is why journalistic disclosure is SOOOOO important. I've always suspected that Kay was on the MS payroll because all of his Apple comments had an unnecessary gibe in them. I remember he totally poo-poohed Steve Jobs' iPhone announcement at MWSF 07. I wonder if he writes Steve Ballmer's talking points?
How can any journalist take quotes from Kay, without noting that he's a paid flack. He's not an independent consultant giving an unbiased opinion. He's worse than Enderle, who is a well-known MS flack, or even Dvorak.
And, his comments about Jobs should be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit. He's no medical expert on pancreatic diseases but he's dispensing conclusions based upon what? His dreams for a Microsoftian world?
These comparisons in the latest MS adds don't mention the thinness and lightness of the apple products. Thin and light has always costs more. Also, the vast malware and security risks cost a fortune for pc users in down time and slower computers. my .02
All the brand analysis I have seen confirms that the feelings of being cool and having control are essential parts of the Apple brand experience.
Well, no one would call me 'cool,' but I've been a dedicated Mac user since about 1986 (and I bought my first personal computer in 1978…) For me the brand experience is all about -total quality-, the combination of hardware, software and human factors that make stuff 'just work' the way you expect, and your ability to do what you need to do with a maximum of intuition. It's not about 'cool' (although I don't mind the 'cool factor' 
As a professional software developer for the last 30 years, most of that on Unix variants, the move to OS X (once I got over the user interface changes) gives me the best of both worlds. The intuitive 'just works' Apple experience, and the ability to bring up a command line shell to do things the same way I do them on the machines I've developed on and for…
dave
I wonder why Rush Limbaugh chooses to use and publicly praise Macs? Is it to be cool?
So much for stereotypes.
So whats new?
The Microsoft model has always been to sell through other manufactures and let them commoditise their products and compete on price. These manufactures signed onto this from the beginning and show little interest in change.
Apple has never pursued this model, preferring to take the higher ground.
All the brand analysis I have seen confirms that the feelings of being cool and having control are essential parts of the Apple brand experience.
Leaving aside the obvious inaccuracies in this campaign — and since they are all in Microsoft's favor, why not just call them lies — there are a couple of assumptions the Microsoft Monopoly Machine is making, just within the spin-piece itself, that I think are just as obviously untrue.
One assumption is that you will WANT to read through TAX FORMS at the beginning of APRIL! Wow, that's a good one, a real knee slapper, I must say.
The other assumption is that you will think that figures presented in TAX FORMS are to be regarded as somehow TRUE! Whoa, that's another good one!
I've previously written that Apple's commercials are better than Microsoft's because they're much more entertaining and funnier. But by making these two assumptions, it looks like Microsoft is really trying to catch up, in the funny and entertaining department. Har de har har indeed!
This is an amusing article.
I do a lot of work with Final Cut Pro, which exists only on the Mac. Did I pay a little more for both? Maybe, but I never even compared them to anything else.
I paid a little more for my BMW Z-8, too.
When you have problem with a computer on a MAC you get one company looking at the issue. If it is the operating system, it is Apple. If it is the computer hardware it is Apple. In both cases, Apple shines in helping you solve the problem quickly. With a PC, the PC company tells you it is Windows problems. If you talk with Microsoft they tell you it is hardware makers problem of the USB driver is not selected correctly or some other BS!!! In the end, you are spending tons of time just figuring out the problem. With a MAC, load the software and the drivers end up where they should. I have used PC and MACS in my research lab for 20 plus years. MAC wins hands down in getting to the bottom of problem. Then consider the fact, I have far fewer problems PCs cost me more money per hr than a mac could ever possibly cost. LOVE TO SEE A MAC TO PC COMMERCIAL ABOUT THE BATTLE OF THE WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM BATTLING A PC HARDWARE MAKER BLAMING EACH OTHER WHY APPLE IS REALLY THE MOST RELIABLE AND COST EFFECTIVE COMPUTER PER DOLLAR ON THE PLANET!
When you're forced to pay hundreds of dollars for security software, OS "updates,"…software that increases speed and productivity…when you need to pay "experts" to fix your OS and your machine…you're not doing yourself any financial favors.
It's not a myth among Mac users that our machines and our OS makes life easier for us, and that they "simpy work." Were that the case, Apple would have gone the way of Commodore and Atari in the face of so much overwhelming competition from Microsoft.
There's a reason why Microsoft paid for and sanctioned this so-called "white paper." It's well documented that they're losing market share, mostly to Apple. Even if it's only a few percentage points, this make a significant difference on their bottom line, their prestige, and their brand value, not to mention their pathetic return for investors.
Microsoft continues to hurt itself by bashing Apple and competing with Apple and other companies that do well at producing consumer electronics. I can say it until I'm blue in the face…Microsoft needs to focus their resources on what they do best…enterprise software and support…and they need to let go of their so-called "loss leaders."
Microsoft doesn't need to own the world in order to be successful. History has demonstrated time and time again that those who aspire to conquer to world go down in flames.
Perhaps we can get a series of commercials about the Microsoft Tax on Office. They can compare it against Open Office or Neo Office. Of course you're only "cool" if you spend hundreds of dollars on Micrsoft Office
The bottom line is there is, in reality, a Microsoft/Windows/PC tax. I have detailed knowledge of and experience on both platforms in both a business and personal/family environment. My time is valuable and worth something. The Mac platform has saved me, over time, hundreds of hours – freeing me to do other important things to make money and be with my family. Furthermore, Macs have enabled me to generate a far better product with Apple's iLife and iWork software. The final analysis is that PCs are definitely more expensive in the long run. P.S. As an analogy, I don't buy the cheapest automobile I can find. I buy the better car – one that will require less maintenance, be more reliable and have greater value at trade in. The Mac wins on all these criteria.
I think it is a valid point Microsoft is making. Is Apple worth the tax in these times? Of course, Audi is cooler than Toyota, but who gives a damn? In these times Toyota drives the same distance in the same time with much less fuel and much $$$$ less. Go figure!
Again the design has nothing to do with the price of Apple.
Apple is a software company that needs to sell hardware in order to get the money to make better software.
The price tag of Apple is due to the huge difference betwen Apple OSX and Windows.
OSX has features that make Windows obsolete, buggy and disonest. Why pay for something that doesn't work as id SHOULD?
So le'ts reverse the myth. It's not Apple that has higher prices. It's Windows that has lower prices because it's not as it should be.
I have several Macs (one with XP) and a few PCs (XP and that puky Vista). In my opinion XP is very good (8 of 10 points), but I do not like Vista at all (2 of 10 points).
I've withheld my hostility about my Vista problems, but this moronic move by MicroSoft breaks whatever civility contract I might have felt.
Balmer is unbelievably stupid. I can barely believe that a CEO could stoop so low, but there it is.
Cast your vote by dumping msft. Let's get the jerk fired.
Microsoft has become Exxon paying people to say global warming doesn't exist. If you can't beat em – LIE!
I agree, Microsoft is taking a dangerous step marginalizing the software that is part of the platform. Some parts of Media Center are good, does it really want consumers to say that is valueless? They could huntdown and download their own media programs on Linux, Mac, or PC. Microsoft should be competing on what it adds to the sum of the compenents.
I believe there is an Apple tax. I will gladly pay it over the PC tax that I paid for too many years.
What is the PC tax?
Time and frustration from:
- The crapware put on PCs that bogs down the system (while lowering the price)
- Trying to get problems fixed. It is always "someone else's fault" – hardware, software, or OS – when something goes wrong. And have fun with the overseas tech support on the phone.
- SLOW system start ups.
PC taxes also come from:
- More security concerns, requiring additional expensive software.
- The cost of additional PC software that does not work as well as the iLife and TimeMachine software that comes with a Mac.
My life for the last several months on a Mac has been great. I only wish I had been "cool enough" to stop paying the PC tax years earlier!
It's much easier for them to criticize the competition than to sit down and actually transform MS Windows into a competitive product. All they've got to crow about is price, and the alleged price gap between Windows and Mac is actually pretty small.
I'd rather pay $500 more for Apple than pay with my blood [read high blood pressure] for fighting viruses and bad apps on windows. Since I switched to Mac 5 years ago, I've learned to relax and enjoy working on things that matter with my Mac. Something I had not been able to do in 20 years of using PCs for business.
Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot, which these ads.
Microsoft is positioning itself as "cheap" — leaving the "cool" segment to Apple.
But it doesn't matter if Microsoft gives Windows away for free — we're about to see a surge of Linux/ARM netbooks that will cost around $200 and boost 15 hours of battery life.
So we will have:
A) Windows/Intel: 3 hours of battery life; $400
B) Linux/ARM: 15 hours of battery life; $200
What would you choose?
To Robert
Just finding the ‘hard drive’ on the computer. Really sucked trying to find where my wife saved her school reports.
How did you miss the HD icon on the desktop? There are a number of videos on Apple's site designed specifically for those making the switch from Windows to Macs.
If you find it hard to remember where you save stuff, you can TAG your files. Then search for your tag. I have 8 drives, comprising 4 TB of drive space. By setting tags on files/folders I can easily find an item. Tags also solve a problem I had when filing items that could belong in two folders.
I was a hard-core PC user starting with the first IBM PC. I switched to Macs 2 years ago, and my increased productivity easily pays for the computers in just a few months. Now when I'm working on the Mac, I'm focusing on the task. Gone is tinkering with the PC.