09 Apr 2009
Microsoft has sponsored a white paper looking at the higher price of Mac computers as part of an ongoing campaign against Apple on the basis of cost.
What price cool? was written by Roger Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies Associates, and asserts that Macs are more expensive to purchase initially and come with higher running costs. This means that Apple users pay $3,367 (£2,258) more than PC users over a five-year period, according to the paper.
"The biggest tax is, of course, the hardware. But the software re-buy, which is less evident, is pretty important," wrote Kay.
"It's zero on the Windows side, because most XP programs work in Vista and will continue to work in Windows 7. The Mac side, however, is pretty pricy because the [users] have to buy a lot of expensive software - more than $1,000 [£670] worth - just to do the things they're used to doing. But upgrades and service fees also widen the gap between the two worlds over time."
By fortuitous coincidence the report ties in with Microsoft's current advertising campaign, in which two buyers examine what laptops they can get on budgets of $1,000 and $1,500 (£670 and £1,006).
However, the figures have been described as biased by some in the industry for making overly onerous use of Apple upgrades.
For example, Kay includes a $99 (£66) upgrade of iLife after three years, which is not mandatory, and the full costs for Apple's MobileMe option when savvy users could be using free services that give the same functionality.
The costing chart also omits the lack of malware that targets Apple computers, meaning that PC users have to pay more for security and the clean up of infected machines.
Latest stories from Operating Systems
Related articles
Related jobs
Poll
Are you confident that the UK's IT infrastructure is secure from attack in the wake of the Flame malware revelations?
Orange and Intel talk us through the ins and outs of their San Diego smartphone
Connect with V3.co.uk
Social networking is almost ubiquitous. This white paper examines the benefits and risks and it looks at the different ways companies can reconcile them
The importance of understanding your infrastructure
Are you looking for a new positing within the Testing...
A leading global provider of critical information to...
Want to work for one of the most dynamic, creative environments...
Want to work for one of the most dynamic, creative environments...
Keep up to date with the latest products, services and technologies from the world's leading IT companies. IThound.com brings you over 2,000 white papers, case studies and analyst reports.
Do you agree?
You all have it wrong...
First of all, I'm a PC guy but that has nothing to do with this argument. The facts are there (no matter how majorly bias they are, and I'll agree that they are) but the point of this isn't to see "who is better" the name of the game is advertising and the point is to get consumers to buy their products. In an economy where everyone is strapped for cash, or at least not looking to blow some extra cash for a computer that does things they don't need, consumers are looking for good cheap buys. That is who they targeted in there advertisement, and weather you agree with them or not, they did a good job. :/ Just that simple.
Posted by: Rick Taylor 22 Apr 2009
It Costs More Because You Get More
MS can complain about the cost of optional upgrades to iLife as soon as they have an equally-functional equivalent (their freebie downloads don't even come close). In the mean time, most PC users have to deal with shoddy pre-installed software bundles of "lite" software that vary from brand to brand. MobileMe *is* a rip-off at its current price, but then again it's optional (and nobody uses it anyways).
Posted by: J 18 Apr 2009
Enough is enough
Read it and weep. Or reap. I don't care about how much you love your ugly, unmanageable and clunky Zune. I don't care about the lies you write about how the Windows OS is bug- and virus- free. I've been in this business for some time now, so I used to it, and I've tired of you and people like you. I don't care that you've been brainwashed to believe that the total cost of ownership between an Apple machine and a Microsoft robot saves you so much money. Like it or not, it doesn't work that way. Facts are facts. If you don't like the taste of the medicine, that's your problem, not mine. I don't care that you ignore the fact that Microsoft's management is, at best, in disarray and, at worst, inconceivably incompetent. I don?t care about your ludicrous belief that Macs don?t suffer from bugs, germs, worms, Trojan horses or Trojan condoms just because there are fewer Macs around than there are Windows robots. You can be as stupid as you want to be, and you can be in as much denial as you want to be. That?s none of my business. I also don?t care that you believe that having a moron as your CEO is the best way to go. Great job on the Seinfeld ad campaign, and on the ?I?m a PC? campaign. More money well lost. ?We?ve got millions to spend, why not just throw it away? Who cares about stock-holders?? Oh-by-the-way?The ?I?m a PC? campaign did wonders for both the company and the investors. (Great trading price for the past five years or so, by the way. Sorry you lost your house because of Microsoft. Even sorrier that you could have retired early in Costa Rica had you had any faith in a company that delivers what it promises. Your stupidity and stubbornness is not my problem.) If I?m attempting to make any point at all, then it?s this: The stupidity and abject stubbornness of Microsoft investors and consumers has only served to place Microsoft in untenable the position in which they now find themselves. They, and you, are left with nothing else but to attack competitors in ways that only make them look foolish and weak. They and you did it to yourselves. As an Apple user and investor, all I can say is, ?Thank you very much wrong-headed decisions. I no longer need to work for a living at a relatively young age, my children will be well taken care of from here on in, and I can live the rest of my years knowing that I chose the right side of the ledger. David Fessler
Posted by: SkateNY 11 Apr 2009
time is money
Aside from the fact that windows comes in many flavors costs 3 times more than Mac OSX to get ultimate edition and you have to regularly have to scan windows for malware worms trojans etc etc. Happily i've switched to Mac and Linux and can spend more time working on them rather than spend time updating all the security software first. Time is money and thats money saved.
Posted by: martin Tooke 11 Apr 2009
Right...
That is a crap argument. You spend way more on repairs on windows based pc's alone. All the issues i have had with my mac are covered in my apple care. As for software, mac software is far cheaper than most Microsoft software. This really is ridiculous, instead of focusing on the issues of their operating system they are targeting other companies. What is funny is the fact that if Apple did drop their prices, people would ditch microsoft, and they would lose significant market share over the next few years. Apple create far better products and their operating system is faster, less of a memory hog and more intuitive to use. I don't care about the "Apple Tax" because i know im getting my moneys worth. Beautiful Machine, Fast Operating System, Intuitive user interface, better build quality, great support & care, and a longer lasting machine that i enjoy using. Microsoft's Windows need to be rewritten from the ground up. All they are doing now is putting lipstick on a pitball, with the new release, which is funny because they are trying to copy Apple...ie widgets, tab flow, rich user interface, animations.
Posted by: Dev 10 Apr 2009
Well spotted - self-serving white paper damages MS brand
White papers are all very well, but Microsoft is devaluing the industry's most valuable PR resource. More worryingly, Microsoft is devaluing its own brand, pursuing 'cheap' as its primary unique selling point. The point about a brand is that it is a promise to the customer. If you keep fulfilling the promise, your customers keep believing it. If you don't, your product is devalued, no matter how objectively 'good' it is. The truth about computers is that most users do not find them to be cheap, and very few Microsoft home users (the most likely to be swayed by 'cheap') have found Windows to be the uncomplicated, trouble free proposition that they were promised. Most have endless stories about trips to PC world, viruses, things which suddenly stopped working for no apparent reason. Add that to MS's new brand promise of 'cheap' and you get 'cheap and nasty'. Disappointed Windows users hear that there's an alternative which is loved by its users, and costs a bit more. From their point of view, the logical choice at that point is not difficult to work out. www.martinturner.org.uk
Posted by: Martin Turner 09 Apr 2009