Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 9th Apr 2009 22:21 UTC
Microsoft After the more-or-less positively received "You find it, you keep it" television advertisements, it seems as if Microsoft is quickly falling back to its previous mistakes of relying on easily countered FUD-like tactics. We already discussed the blog post regarding Linux on netbooks, which was easily countered on virtually every point made. However, it gets even worse: Microsoft has ordered a study detailing what the company calls the hidden "Apple tax" that you are supposedly paying if you go Apple. Now, I'm the first to state that Apple simply doesn't provide the optimal pricing for everyone, but this Microsoft sponsored study is so completely and utterly ridiculous it makes me wonder just who on earth would look at it and go "Yeah, this looks pretty convincing!"
Thread beginning with comment 357898
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: The OS taxes
by hraq on Fri 10th Apr 2009 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE: The OS taxes"
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

" The price that we can provide HP server with OpenSuse, SLES, or Windows is still always significantly lower to Apple's."

Windows servers always cheaper because you need a very advanced administrator to configure even the simplest service tasks ( eg DNS/Active directory/ File server) while with linux you must be a command line expert to do it.
In osx server even a business owner can confiure the server basic tasks and get it ready with little help if any.
Apple has the right to charge for its superior OS because thats the reason why you buy the hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: The OS taxes
by someone on Fri 10th Apr 2009 02:36 in reply to "RE[2]: The OS taxes"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12

Windows servers always cheaper because you need a very advanced administrator to configure even the simplest service tasks ( eg DNS/Active directory/ File server) while with linux you must be a command line expert to do it.
In osx server even a business owner can confiure the server basic tasks and get it ready with little help if any.
Apple has the right to charge for its superior OS because thats the reason why you buy the hardware.


I don't think Apple has ever aimed XServe at the conventional server market. They are mostly marketing it as an internal server to support collaboration between workgroups. The performance of OS X Server needs a lot of work before it can compete with linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: The OS taxes
by ssa2204 on Fri 10th Apr 2009 07:47 in reply to "RE[2]: The OS taxes"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

" The price that we can provide HP server with OpenSuse, SLES, or Windows is still always significantly lower to Apple's."

Windows servers always cheaper because you need a very advanced administrator to configure even the simplest service tasks ( eg DNS/Active directory/ File server) while with linux you must be a command line expert to do it.
In osx server even a business owner can confiure the server basic tasks and get it ready with little help if any.
Apple has the right to charge for its superior OS because thats the reason why you buy the hardware.


Well we are after all a VAR...Value added reseller. Meaning we do support what we sell, kind of the point. So whether the OS is Windows, Linux, Solaris, or OSX, we either will be administering it, or the client has their own admin. Regardless, the last Xserve I touched was in 2005, where we replaced it with a HP DL380 with hot swap 15k SCSI, Suse, and 3yr 24x7 NBD support for significantly less than what a Xserve would have cost. Please do consider the Xserve that was quoted had one 80GB non hot swap IDE drive, and an extra cost a ridiculous $200+ that HAD to be purchased from Apple exclusively due to the drive cage not available anywhere. Apple also had a very pathetic pricing plan for extended warranty support, as opposed to the HP's which was included.

Customer paid several hundred less, still got Apache for web, Bind for DNS, and Samba for file...so what exactly would they have gained via the Apple?

p.s. That server is 4+ years running 24x7 without failure as most HP's are extremely reliable. So again, what would Apple have given that HP+Linux could not have?

Reply Parent Score: 2