Windows Vista won’t be released until the end of 2006, a Microsoft exec let slip in a presentation on Microsoft’s campus yesterday. The next version of Windows was expected in the second half of 2006, but at a financial analyst conference in Washington, Microsoft senior VP Will Poole revealed it would not appear until the 2006 US holiday season. In related news, a senior Microsoft executive has identified Apple as an obstacle to Redmond’s success.
okay… this article is just retarded. Doesn’t anybody realize that the end of 2006 is still in the expected second half of 2006… No news here!!!
Yea, but it’s the end of the second half instead of the beginning of the second half. I expected to be running Vista a year from now
.
This means Apple will probably release again before Vista.
And linux will be incredibly advanced by then.
Microsoft always announce too early.
Blizzard Ent. always announces too early.
With Leoperd and Intel next year, Apple may take a substantial chunk of MS’s pie.
Apple is doomed now. Microsoft is going to use its OS monopoly and vast cash reserves to bundle an WMA player with Windows and Apple’s iPod sales will fall through the floor. The iTunes music store will be a ghost town once Microsoft makes a exlusive contract with RIAA so that only MS will get to sell songs.
No doubt Vista needs a LOT of work.
I’ll be surprised if they deliver by this new date. I exptect Vista wont be out until 2007.
Am I the only one who thinks Windows XP will look seriously outdated in November 2006?
No not really. Most people are just starting to install XP for the first time. I just got my first XP laptop 2 months ago. And still there are a lot of poeple with 98, ME (shudder), and 2000. The truth is Windows 2000 is good enough for most people, it is stable enough, and it mostly works. Microsoft will need to push something really so much better in order to get the excitement that Windows 95 got. I would say something like Windows and Office and Visual Studio, and some good quality video stuff all packaged into one and sold for $100. Anything short of that there is no real point in getting excited about it.
I only upgraded from Windows 2000 to Windows XP a few month ago.
I am not sure what “look old” mean but, when I switched I cared about 2 things only – speed of start up, and better support for non-unicode characters. Looks don’t matter much. WHen I install XP (for others) Themes are usually the 1st to be disabled. (“net stop themes” arrrrg!)
When I tried installing this on a space 10GB disk, it told me that Longhorn didn’t support Failure Tolerant Disks, and that I should convert it to a dynamic disk if possible. Yet, it didn’t give me the option to do so.
Anyone know how I can get it to install anyway (on this disk) ?
Microsoft’s target date for Longhorn/Vista has been “Holiday Season 2006” since at least April.
See:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1786137,00.asp
Nobody let anything “slip.” This is old news, this has been the official MS line for months. This story is 100% pure crack. The headline and summary should be updated to point this out.
The real question is, will MS really hit that date? I’m sure we all remember the previous ship dates, including but not at all limited to:
Late 2004, circa early 2003
http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=5674
Early 2005, circa 2003
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2134437,00.htm
First half 2006, circa 2004
http://news.com.com/2100-1008_3-5189453.html
I think Vista will ship in 2008, no 2009, maybe 2010 ?
How do i get the vmware Soundcard running under Vista?
The following is my best guess. Thoughtful comments are welcome. Other comments…well…be nice even if you disagee fervently!
The adoption curve for Vista will be;
* December 1, 2006: Release for early adopters and many home users. Most corporations opt for Windows XP Pro because it is a known quantity. A few Vista-specific or Vista-enhanced programs are released to showcase the new Windows release. (These are not just C#/CLR apps but Vista-specific using C# and CLR where appropriate.)
* Mid. 2007: First patch release that corporations are happy with. Slow deployment to corporations starts. The Vista-enhanced programs are back ported to XP and 2000. Some apps are given Vista-specific additions to make them seem like full-fledged Vista programs though they largely are retrofits.
* End 2007: Corporate adoptions increase.
* Mid 2008: Windows server with Vista code base is released. Vista-specific internal client end corporate apps come around. These are not the same as C#/CLR apps under previous versions of Windows and are deployed to small groups of people as most people still use XP or 2000.
* End 2008: First full-fledged Vista-specific commercial apps come around. Corporate server-based apps that are Vista-specific are being developed and deployed. Neither of these will have a fall-back mode that allows them to run on XP or 2000.
* Mid 2009: All Windows app development focuses on C# and CLR with Vista as the target. XP and esp. 2000 are depreciated and rarely tested.
* 2010: New release of Windows beyond Vista is released as beta. It is a small enhancement from Vista and has only a few enhancements that were dropped from Windows Vista plus a few extras that can’t easily be speculated about.
Personally, I hope that Microsoft just gives up reinventing unix/Unix and just does what Apple did; unix-based with extra refinements and propriatory extentions.
Unfortunately, that idea — both obvious and practical on so many levels — can not be implemented till after Vista. Till then, we will see Microsoft attempt to out unix unix with a better command shell and other unix-style enhancements.
I think you’re underestimating the impact that OS X on x86 will have on the market place.
By moving to x86, Apple’s hardware is just as likely to be considered as a corporate purchase any any other PC manufacturer. As long as Apple continues to price its hardware the same (and sometimes less) then comparably equipped PCs, there wont be any reason to not consider them. These companies will have the security of knowing that they can run Windows on this hardware but know that they can also have a backup alternative in OS X should security continue to be a problem for Windows. Apple stands to make some serious gains when it makes the transition.
I think you’re underestimating the impact that OS X on x86 will have on the market place.
I’m not underestimating OSX’s impact on the x86 market place at all; I didn’t even mention OSX except as an aside and then not by name;
(quoting what I wrote) “Personally, I hope that Microsoft just gives up reinventing unix/Unix and just does what Apple did; unix-based with extra refinements and propriatory extentions.”
None of that is a snub on OSX. It does not degrade what Apple did. OSX is unix-based. It does have extra refinements on the unix model. It does have propriatory extentions layered on the unix model. None of this discusses the impact that OSX will or will not have on the market that Microsoft sells into; x86 PCs.
That said, Apple is not in the same market. They are selling Macs — not PCs. That Macs use x86 processors is only important to a small number of people. Most will not care beyond a superficial level that the CPU is the same. Those that do — and I’m one of them — will have specific reasons why this is a good or bad thing.
That said, Apple is not in the same market. They are selling Macs — not PCs. That Macs use x86 processors is only important to a small number of people. Most will not care beyond a superficial level that the CPU is the same. Those that do — and I’m one of them — will have specific reasons why this is a good or bad thing.
What you are missing is that the x86 architecture will allow the machines to dual-boot or concurrently run Windows via a hypervisor. Suddenly having Macs on the desks in the design department at MegaCorp isn’t going to give the IT department quite the same kind of heart attacks. I see this all the time, where Macs aren’t welcome because your box won’t be able to run XYZ custom app to file your timecards, handle your accounting, etc. x86 Macs will allow IT departments to think of Mac boxen as “Windows boxen plus.”
By no means do I expect Macs to sweep the enterprise, at least not anytime soon. There are reasons for that as long as my arm. But I have no doubt that the x86 nature of the new Macs will help.
What you are missing is that the x86 architecture will allow the machines to dual-boot or concurrently run Windows via a hypervisor. Suddenly having Macs on the desks in the design department at MegaCorp isn’t going to give the IT department quite the same kind of heart attacks. I see this all the time, where Macs aren’t welcome because your box won’t be able to run XYZ custom app to file your timecards, handle your accounting, etc. x86 Macs will allow IT departments to think of Mac boxen as “Windows boxen plus.”
What does any of that have to do with anything that I wrote?
Maybe you should post to another thread instead of attempting to argue a point that I have no interest in.
“That said, Apple is not in the same market. They are selling Macs — not PCs.”
Actually they will be selling PCs, which coincidentally will also be Macs.
I think you are right that, the adoptation to Vista will be slow on the corporate desktop. The major driving force for an update would be Microsoft dropping support for previous versions. If I remember correctly support for XP will be dropped around 2011, and this is when we will see the effects of Vista.
Today the most common OS on the corporate desktop is win2k. The big question is really if companies will upgrade win2k to Vista directly, or if they switch to XP first. My guess is that they will due to lower hardware requirements.
Microsoft’s target date for Longhorn/Vista has been “Holiday Season 2006” since at least April.
See:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1786137,00.asp
Nobody let anything “slip.” This is old news, this has been the official MS line for months. This story is 100% pure crack. The headline and summary should be updated to point this out.
The real question is, will MS really hit that date? I’m sure we all remember the previous ship dates, including but not at all limited to:
Late 2004, circa early 2003
http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=5674
Early 2005, circa 2003
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2134437,00.htm
First half 2006, circa 2004
http://news.com.com/2100-1008_3-5189453.html
Sorry for the dupe above, moderators please correct…
Personally, I hope that Microsoft just gives up reinventing unix/Unix and just does what Apple did; unix-based with extra refinements and propriatory extentions.
Unfortunately, that idea — both obvious and practical on so many levels — can not be implemented till after Vista. Till then, we will see Microsoft attempt to out unix unix with a better command shell and other unix-style enhancements.
Yes.
I honestly expected them to do the same bold move as Apple did with introducing OSX.It would have justyfied all the release postponing and the vast majority would have said all well that ends well.Furthermore they most problably would have eliminated most critique,(if implemented UNIX correctly),you can’t bash a core on which your OS also steams with a clean conscience (look at OSX,attracts far less bashing than all windows).
Or they could have gone with a reimplementation of VMS, beneficiating from its following and its aura of security, stability, reliability, and keeping the possibility to gladly bash all things UNIX 😉
It seems reasonable that if you already have one beta out, that it will be ready for consumption in 2006; instead of 2007.
well… before the all-MacIntels Apple, but still late…
It’s sad waiting so much, but that could be a good news as IE7 could be released a lot earlier (if not, maybe with more compliance in CSS, PNGs and Acid2)…
…Not that I’m “waiting” for IE7 (I do use Firefox, IE renders a lot faster, but I do prefer FF…), but it’s good a higher share of internet users with better compliance (still far from perfect seeing yesterday’s Preview)… it’s for web designers and for everyone who uses the web.
So when will a sizeable proportion of existing XP users (ie 30 % for example) be using Vista at home? – 2008 – 2009 ?
That gives plenty of time for desktop Linux and Mac-OSX to become increasingly user-friendly and familiar to the general computing public……
FTA:
“Microsoft has confirmed its new operating system, Windows Vista, won’t now ship until the last quarter of 2006 – and a senior executive has identified Apple as an obstacle to Redmond’s success.”
and
” Poole also regards open source as a challenge, and noted the iPod “halo effect”, which is boosting Mac sales.
“It’s enabling Apple to more effectively go after PC users and sell them future Apple products,” Poole said. ”
Apple is not an obstacle to MS’ success. Apple has what 2-3% of the desktop and with the growth/sucess of the iPod; what an extra percent could be added (being generous). So lets say that Apple now has 3-4% of the desktop. So, how is a company that holds less than 5% of the desktops being an obstacle?
MS is competing with their own products not Apple.
FYI: This isn’t a bash on Apple.
Sidenote: Now is Apple allowed OS X to run on the generic X86 hardware. In addition, we were looking at this in the past, say a quarter or two, I would have a different perspective.
“Apple has what 2-3% of the desktop”
You, like so many people on this board are mistakenly intechchanging market share with install base. In certain circumstances, a company can have 99% install base and 1% market share. The 2-3% figure is the market share figure.
Apple’s install base is much larger than its market share. Don’t confuse them.
As long as Apple continues to price its hardware the same (and sometimes less) then comparably equipped PCs, there wont be any reason to not consider them.
What leads you to believe that Apple will change its current policy of keeping the highest profit margins in the PC hardware business? Even with x86 they’re selling a “value-added” type product – commodity PC components plus Apple design and usability. That kind of model requires margins that are always going to be higher than Dell or HP.
More importantly, Apple currently doesn’t engage the enterprise market very well. Anyone working in IT in an enterprise environment understands this. I don’t think they’re going to change their ways on a dime, either.
But I agree that it’s an encouraging development, and certainly opens up all kinds of options, especially in the SMB – small and medium-sized business – space. And there’s a great opportunity for long-term enterprise growth, depending upon how hard they decide to butt heads with Microsoft. It’ll be fascinating to watch how Apple plays their cards over the next couple of years.
“What leads you to believe that Apple will change its current policy of keeping the highest profit margins in the PC hardware business?”
Nothing. Apple retains its large margins not by pricing its hardware disproportionatly with the PC industry. They do so by limiting the number of configurations you can buy thus requireing you to by more and pay more. If a PC were equipped with the exact same (or as close as possible) components in hardware, software and operating system, the two would be equally priced… and in many instances, the Mac would cost less.
“Even with x86 they’re selling a “value-added” type product – commodity PC components plus Apple design and usability. That kind of model requires margins that are always going to be higher than Dell or HP.”
And they achieve that by limiting the number of configurations you can buy thus requiring you to buy more and pay more. That doesn’t mean that their hardware is disproportionatly priced. It means that PC manufacturers simply allow you to buy less and spend less.
“Apple currently doesn’t engage the enterprise market very well.”
Only because they just started.
They wouldnt have hired Daniel Robbins if this werent the case. The more developers that M$ soaks up in an attempt to understand the FOSS community, The more I wonder just how long its going to be before M$ trys to buyout everyone in the community. Bastards.
As confirmed by Apple, Mac OS X for Intel will only run on Apple hardware. (You forget so easily, m-kay… Apple is not a software company, it’s a hardware company.)
Yes, OS X will only run on Apple hardware. That means that when companies are set to by new PCs, they will be just as (more) inclined to buy Macs, because the Intel Macs will be indistinguishable (function-wise) to all the other PCs, but Apple’s PCs will also be able to run OS X… unlike all the other PCs.
> As confirmed by Apple, Mac OS X for Intel will only run
> on Apple hardware.
They will require Apple-authorized Intel CPUs, but every other part of the PC will be normal commodity hardware.
> They will require Apple-authorized Intel CPUs, but every other part of the PC will be normal commodity hardware.
so… I think that it will be possible to run MacOS X on other hardware than Macs. While Darwin is Open Source, there’s nothing difficult in “disabling” feature like detecting if installed CPU is authorized or not.
Well the release was always targeted for the second half and this is still the second half so nothing as changed here.
I think people assumed it was going to be in the middle of the second quarter. This might as well be regarded as the 3rd quarter.
Second HALF… not quarter…
You’re right… I got my naming conventions mixed up. Anyways, what I was getting at is that it might as well be regarded as fight quarter (or first half) of ’07
fight quarter = first quarter
What does any of that have to do with anything that I wrote? … Maybe you should post to another thread instead of attempting to argue a point that I have no interest in.
You were talking about how only a very small number of people will care about the x86 move in any non-superficial sort of way. I pointed out a very important, very large group of people who will care – enterprise IT departments – and explained why. You also asserted that “Apple is not in the same market. They are selling Macs — not PCs” – my post also served to point out that, with the x86 move, they are in essence selling both, which again, might be very important in enterprise IT. Maybe you should post to another thread if you are unable or unwilling to keep up or have a civil conversation.
Your original post:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11390&threshold=-5&limit=…
My (quite relevant) response:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=11390&threshold=-5&limit=…
Lol Apple does not compete against pcs, And changeing to the x68 does not mean they now compete, Being able to dual boot is not really a benifit in most shops i have seen,, You still will fall into the extra price of dual booting, You still get to pay the added price of the apple, And THEN have to buy the RETAIL VER of windows, That adds about $250 ontop of the cost of the box.
“Lol Apple does not compete against pcs, And changeing to the x68 does not mean they now compete”
Why not. The Intel Mac will do everything that the Dell PC can do. In essence, it *IS* a PC. The difference comes that The Mac (unlike the PC) can also run OS X. As long as the Mac retains its price advantage (or price equality) with PCs, it most certinly is competing in the same space.
“Being able to dual boot is not really a benifit in most shops i have seen”
Maybe because the advantage of dual booting into Linux didn’t provide enough reason to want to dual boot or maybe it was the dual boot execution process. Lets wait to see how Apple handles the matter before you assume that it will be identical to the dual boot setups you’ve seen in the past.
“You still get to pay the added price of the apple”
Well, if we’re honest about pricing, you’re not having to pay any additional price over that of a comperably equipped PCs. The Mac may actually be less expensive when compared with a comperably equipped PC. The Mac may require you to buy more and pay more, but the way you said it made it sound like Mac cost more than comperably equipped PCs.
“And THEN have to buy the RETAIL VER of windows”
Well, then there goes the Apple price advantage. They will then be priced equally rather than the Mac costing less than the comperably equipped PC.
You were talking about how only a very small number of people will care about the x86 move in any non-superficial sort of way. I pointed out a very important, very large group of people who will care – enterprise IT departments – and explained why. You also asserted that “Apple is not in the same market. They are selling Macs — not PCs” – my post also served to point out that, with the x86 move, they are in essence selling both, which again, might be very important in enterprise IT. Maybe you should post to another thread if you are unable or unwilling to keep up or have a civil conversation.
This is beyond the pale. Macs AREN’T x86 PCs even if they use 98% of the same hardware. In a corporate environment to treat them as such would not make any sense at all. Only a small group of non-corporate uses are likely;
* Paying for x86 Macs to use as Windows PCs when there is a larger group of ready-to-run Windows PCs is silly.
* Paying for x86 PCs to use as Macs won’t work in a corporate environment even when it’s hackable to do so since you won’t be able to get support.
That’s why what you wrote has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. You focused on your own agenda and ignored everything else I did write about. That’s really rude.
PS: If you reply, please remember to hit the reply link so people can find it.
* Paying for x86 Macs to use as Windows PCs when there is a larger group of ready-to-run Windows PCs is silly.
I was specifically talking about areas where Mac policy is a problem in enterprise IT, such as design departments. These creative professionals either already use Macs and are off the IT grid or are forbidden from using Macs, but would rather use Macs if the IT dept. could be convinced. x86 Macs will help meet those requirements for these individuals and departments for the reasons I’ve outlined (usually custom software that all employees are required to use). I’ve seen these problems first-hand many times, and have no doubt that x86 Macs will help. These discussions are already taking place, I was a part of one at a Fortune 100 installation a couple weeks ago. But as I’ve said now a dozen times, none of this means x86 Macs will sweep the enterprise – only that the door is cracking open.
* Paying for x86 PCs to use as Macs won’t work in a corporate environment even when it’s hackable to do so since you won’t be able to get support.
There’s nothing “hackable” about this; Apple says the boxes will run Windows, and enterprise departments have their own Windows licenses and already provide their own support. I’m not talking about junior’s PC in the basement.
You focused on your own agenda and ignored everything else I did write about. That’s really rude.
I was replying to one of your assertions, as someone who actually has first-hand experience that your assertion is incorrect. And I did it without being rude or uncivil, as you seem incapable of doing.
“Macs AREN’T x86 PCs even if they use 98% of the same hardware.”
Actually, the x86 Macs will in fact be x86 PCs. The only difference is that Apple’s x86 PCs will be able to run OS X.
“In a corporate environment to treat them as such would not make any sense at all.
I don’t see why not. They’ll be just as cost effective and will give busineses one more desktop/server oriented OS to choose from.
“Only a small group of non-corporate uses are likely”
We’ll see.
Nothing. Apple retains its large margins not by pricing its hardware disproportionatly with the PC industry. They do so by limiting the number of configurations you can buy thus requireing you to by more and pay more.
We know from deductions based on Apple’s financial statements that their margins average about 28%, ranging from 20 to 40% depending upon model and options, with eMacs and such at the low end, and PowerMacs at the high end. We similarly know that companies like Dell operate with margins closer to 10% across the board.
That’s a big difference. Differences like that don’t come from limiting configurations. Apple spends $1.00 and charges $1.28, Dell spends $1.00 and charges $1.10. The argument you’re making is an old saw among Mac advocates – and it has merit, if you’re talking about “total value.” You can certainly make an argument, for example, that a Mac is so much better in various ways (the OS, the software, the quality, the support, the design – what have you) that it’s worth paying the higher margins. This is, in fact, the very backbone of Apple’s business model! And it works.
“That’s a big difference. Differences like that don’t come from limiting configurations.”
Yes, actually it does because it forces the consumer to buy more and spend more. For example… If I want to buy the least expensive computer Dell sells I can pay as little as $200. If I want to buy the least expensive computer Apple sells I must pay $500. The two systems are hardly comparable. The Mac is equipped with more… maybe more in software… maybe more in hardware… maybe both. But the Mac *IS* equipped with more so therefore you pay more. If the PC were equipped with the same indentical equipment it would cost the same or more.
“Differences like that don’t come from limiting configurations. Apple spends $1.00 and charges $1.28, Dell spends $1.00 and charges $1.10.”
That’s simply not true. Dell makes its money by selling in unlimited configurations and at low prices but sells lots of them. They can achieve high profits by moving lots of volume. Apple too sells its equipment at the same price, but they require you to buy more because they limit the number of configurations you can buy.
“You can certainly make an argument, for example, that a Mac is so much better in various ways (the OS, the software, the quality, the support, the design – what have you) that it’s worth paying the higher margins.”
That’s not true either. You’re not paying more simply for it being a better computer… though many would agree that it IS genuinely better. You’re paying more because you’re getting more…. be it specs, OS or bundled software.
Apple’s install base is much larger than its market share. Don’t confuse them.
People talk about marketshare rather than installed base because it’s much easier to get hard numbers for marketshare. Numbers for installed base are very soft, and while it’s true that Macs are generally longer lived than PCs, most of the installed base numbers I’ve seen for Macs have been based on bad assumptions and are highly inflated. Lots of Mac advocates are walking around claiming they’ve got 16% of the installed base, and that’s just fantasyland stuff. There’s just no way to believe that’s anywhere close to reality when marketshare was mired below 3% for a long time and general purpose web sites usually show 2-5% of hits from Mac-based browsers. (My guess is the true % of installed base is somewhere between 5 and 10, probably closer to 5, but honestly my numbers are just as much of a phoney-baloney guess as everyone else’s!)
But Mac fans have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to marketshare – those numbers are on the rise, not just keeping up with the growth in the overall market but substantially exceeding them. IDC says it looks like it’ll be 4.5% this year. That’s substantial growth and bodes well for the future.
That’s simply not true. Dell makes its money by selling in unlimited configurations and at low prices but sells lots of them. They can achieve high profits by moving lots of volume. Apple too sells its equipment at the same price, but they require you to buy more because they limit the number of configurations you can buy.
I honestly don’t mean to be insulting here, but I don’t think you really understand the concept of margins. We’re talking past each other. The arguments you are making are based on memes in Mac advocacy and have nothing to do with reality: if Apple spends $1.00 and charges $1.28, but Brand X spends $1.00 and charges $1.10, it means that Apple is charging more for the same outlay of expenses. The specifics of the products, their configurations, or comparisons between them don’t matter when it comes to overall margins. Volume doesn’t matter; Dell’s business plan doesn’t matter. It’s about margins. See any financial statement Apple has ever released for more details. This is their business model.
“The arguments you are making are based on memes in Mac advocacy and have nothing to do with reality
C’mon. Stop being condasending.
“if Apple spends $1.00 and charges $1.28, but Brand X spends $1.00 and charges $1.10, it means that Apple is charging more for the same outlay of expenses.”
But Apple doesn’t mark up their computers. Thats what I’m telling you. The easiest way to find this out is to custom build a PC with the exact same components in hardware and software and operating system and then see what the prices are. On the low end Apple’s prices are comperable. However, as you go up the scale, Apple has traditionally been less expensive.
I know what you’re saying… I know how margins work. I’m just telling you that Apple doesn’t price their computers more than the competition. It seems that way because there aren’t as many options to choose from which allow you to buy less and thus spend less like you can if you were to buy an x86 PC.
But Apple doesn’t mark up their computers. Thats what I’m telling you.
You can believe what you want to believe. However the facts are very clear. When Apple spends $1000 on hardware they, on average, turn around and sell that hardware to the consumer for $1280. When most other companies spend $1000 on hardware they, on average, turn around and sell that hardware to the consumer for $1100. These aren’t made-up numbers, they are widely known throughout the industry, and they are the only numbers that can be compared in an apples-to-apples (no pun intended) comparison. As I already stated many messages back, none of this means that the “total value” of a Mac isn’t worth the extra margin. I’m typing this on an iBook right now, in fact.
C’mon. Stop being condasending.
Honestly, it wasn’t my intention to be condescending. I apologize if it came across that way. I’m dropping out of the thread now.
“You can believe what you want to believe.”
Its not about believing or non believing. That’s simply what the numbers are.
“When Apple spends $1000 on hardware they, on average, turn around and sell that hardware to the consumer for $1280. When most other companies spend $1000 on hardware they, on average, turn around and sell that hardware to the consumer for $1100.”
If so, its also because they’re giving you less too. When the two computers are matched up spec for spec, the Mac typically comes out less. I’ve done these comparisons time and time again. And the only time their not equal prices or the Mac doesn’t come out less is when an item on the PC wasn’t matched up to the Mac because the person specing the PC said that such and such item wasn’t necessary. Necessary or not, its one fewer spec item and to do a fair comparison they need to be matched as closely as possible. Unfortunately, comparing a Mac to another OEM PC makes for a bad comparison because the none of the OEM PCs have an exactly spec’d PC to match the specs of the Mac so a custom built PC must be compared against the Mac.
“As I already stated many messages back, none of this means that the “total value” of a Mac isn’t worth the extra margin.”
You have that only partially right… The Mac *IS* a better computer in most instances but Apple isn’t charging you more for it. They’re getting more for it, but only because they’re giving you more.
You’re missing his point.
He’s not talking about spec. He’s talking about cost. It’s clear enough.
For every $1100 a PC manufacturer sells equipmment for they get $1000. For Apple they get an extra $180. Whether the Apple stuff is better or not for the price (which I don’t agree with anyway) is not the point. The point is that their margin is bigger and so you’re paying more for your equipment.
“He’s not talking about spec. He’s talking about cost. It’s clear enough.”
A PC *can* cost less in the way that a cheap plastic razor costs less than a nice electric one. When I refer to spec, I’m saying that if you get two electric razors of equal quality and feature set, the Mac razor is going to cost less than the PC electric razor. At worst it will cost the same. Apple simply doesn’t sell a cheap plastic razor with minimum features. It only sells the nicer electric ones. Does that analogy help you understand?
“For every $1100 a PC manufacturer sells equipmment for they get $1000. For Apple they get an extra $180.”
And I’m saying that this is simply not true.
“Whether the Apple stuff is better or not for the price (which I don’t agree with anyway) is not the point.”
Agreed. The Mac *IS* better… but does so for less or the same money.
“The point is that their margin is bigger and so you’re paying more for your equipment.”
Apple’s margin is bigger because they don’t allow you to buy less and spend less like you can with a PC.
Higher spec’d PCs have higher margins. Apple simply doesn’t sell low spec’d PCs… THAT’s how they achieve higher margins. Its not because their computers are more expensive than a comperably equipped PC.
“Higher spec’d PCs have higher margins. Apple simply doesn’t sell low spec’d PCs… THAT’s how they achieve higher margins. Its not because their computers are more expensive than a comperably equipped PC.”
Please don’t tell me that the 700Eur Minis are high specs PCs. And yet in Europe 700Eur are a lot of money, they buy you quite a good Desktop.
“Please don’t tell me that the 700Eur Minis are high specs PCs.”
For a the lowest class system Apple sells, its way better than Dell’s (for example) lowest class system.
You may be able to buy a PC with better components in the areas that you specifically are looking for, but if you were to equip a PC with the exact same components in hardware, software and OS the PC would still be more (at best the same) as the Mini.
“You may be able to buy a PC with better components in the areas that you specifically are looking for, but if you were to equip a PC with the exact same components in hardware, software and OS the PC would still be more (at best the same) as the Mini.”
I am totally unconvinced.
For staters in the US you pay $700, but here in Europe we pay 700Eur=$840
What can you buy with 700Eur?
Here is a quick example, but I could find tons more, and possibly even better value:
http://hpshop.eprice.it/Category.pasp?txtCategory=C1195%5F100~*…
The problem with comparisons like this is that you’re essentially asking the Mac to compete on configurability. We’ve already established that the Mac is less configurable. To see which computer is actually less expensive, you would need to custom build a PC to meet the exact specifications of the Mac… since it can’t be done the other way around. When that happens, the Mac is the same price or less expensive thanthe PC.
“To see which computer is actually less expensive, you would need to custom build a PC to meet the exact specifications of the Mac…”
I can assure you, for 800Eur I have seen PCs built by small companies which were absolutely fantastic.
And BTW, Minis are even more expensive than I thought:
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/italystore.woa/90813/wo/yq4…
“I can assure you, for 800Eur I have seen PCs built by small companies which were absolutely fantastic.”
I’m sure they were. A PC allows you to allocate your money towards the parts that are most important to you while scrimping on those you don’t.
Thats a very valuable asset, and in many respects, is one that makes it more enduring to Apple’s strategy to some. However, it doesn’t mean that its less expensive than a comparably equipped Mac because what the PC you’re probably comparing against the Mac is doing… is being great in some areas and poor in others. Again, that’s not a fair comparison which indicates which is the least expensive. Its a comparison which shows which of the two is the most flexible.
“And BTW, Minis are even more expensive than I thought: “
And still the same price (or less expensive) than a PC that was equally equipped in hardware, software and operating system.
And still the same price (or less expensive) than a PC that was equally equipped in hardware, software and operating system.
Your assertion doesn’t make it so; in fact, as someone who has purchased literally hundreds of PCs and Macs I’d be willing to call this an extraordinary claim that flies in the face of all of my experience. Apple makes no claims like the claims you’re making (they make claims of having better TCO, never lower upfront cost), and their financial statements layout a very different business model that contradict your claims. Others in the thread have reacted the same way. If you’re going to continue to make this assertion, I humbly request that you back it up.
“Your assertion doesn’t make it so”
I’m sorry if you misunderstood me. I wasn’t implying that my assertion made it so. Rather, I was trying to communicate the fact that the numbers made it so.
“in fact, as someone who has purchased literally hundreds of PCs and Macs I’d be willing to call this an extraordinary claim that flies in the face of all of my experience.”
Those that think otherwise are typically comparing OEM PCs to Apple Macs. In doing so, what they’re doing is basicly comparing processor, hard drive, ram and graphics card to the exclusion of all the other things which might come additionally on the Mac. Or they get one component better on the PC to the exclusion of another. What it all boils down to is that PCs allow you to buy less and spend less or buy different and get different. That however doesn’t indicate that the PC is actually less. As a matter of fact, when you compare a PC with the exact same comonents (or as close as possible) in hardware, OS and software the prices will come out the same… and sometimes the Mac costing less.
“Apple makes no claims like the claims you’re making”
The reason is because the point is made moot by the PCs ability to buy less and spend less. You’re able to buy the things you want and nothing more which means you’re not paying for things you (think) you don’t want. Its a very redeeming quality and something that ought not be undermined, but its also incorrect to suggest that Macs are more expensive when compared to a comperably equipped PCs.
“they make claims of having better TCO”
Well, Macs ALSO have better TCO but not to the exclusion of better or at least the same price.
“nd their financial statements layout a very different business model that contradict your claims.”[i]
You might think so because they have a high margin on their computers… higher in fact than most PC manufacturers. That of course is because Apple limits the number of PCs you can buy thus restricting a person who wants a certain level of computer to actually pay more buy requiring them to buy more.
[i]”Others in the thread have reacted the same way.”
If so, its because its a commonly held belief. The numbers however don’t lie nor can they be deceived into believing an alternate reality.
“If you’re going to continue to make this assertion, I humbly request that you back it up.”
Here’s an editorial I published back in January of this year. The numbers may be slightly off now, but the same theme applies. It helps explain what I’m trying to community and that which you seem to be having dificulty grasping:
Sometime last year, I wrote an editorial comparing the price of Apple’s new iMac G5 with a comparably equipped PC to see which of the two was less expensive. Apple has a reputation for selling “premium-priced” hardware and I’ve found that not to be true as Apple’s prices are in fact less expensive. To the surprise of many, the iMac turned out to be nearly $250 less than an equally equipped DIY PC.
Apple’s incorrect premium-priced reputation was best summarized by osViews’s editor’s prelude to my editorial: “The reason for [the false reputation] stems from the fact that Apple doesn’t allow you to build your own computer from commodity parts. But that doesn’t make PCs less expensive… though it does make the Mac less configurable.”
Apple sells a limited number of computer configurations. As a result, the company has managed to secure larger margins than average… though not because their computers require you to pay more, but because they require you to buy more. In essence, they didn’t offer a low-end machine thus allowing you to buy less and get less as you can with the large assortment of PC suppliers as well as the opportunity to build your own.
With Apple’s introduction of the Mac mini early this week, the company has finally started competing in the low-end computer market. This caused me to ask the same question as I did before… “How does Apple’s latest computer stack up against a comparably equipped PC?”
Same as before, I started by building a PC at Dell’s web site to match the specs listed on Apple’s Mac mini. The problem with this strategy is that Dell doesn’t offer an equivalent system. You can buy a config with less and pay less, or you can buy one with more and pay more. So to make the comparison fair, it had to be made against a DIY PC.
So how does Apple’s new computer stack up?
Here are the specs of the lower-end Mac mini:
1.25GHz PowerPC G4
256MB of PC2700 (333MHz) DDR SRAM
ATI Radeon 9200 with 32MB of DDR SDRAM
40GB Ultra ATA
Slot-loading Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
One FireWire 400 port; two USB 2.0 ports; DVI output; VGA output (adapter included)
Built-in 10/100BASE-T Ethernet and 56K V.92 modem
Mac OS X version 10.3 ?Panther
iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD and GarageBand), AppleWorks, Quicken 2005 for Mac, Nanosaur 2, Marble Blast Gold
Price: $499
—
Here are the specs of a comparably equipped DIY PC
Intel Pentium 4 2Ghz CPU…………….$145
P4S800 (SiS 648FX) Series P4 Motherboard…………….$63
256MB of PC2700 (333MHz) DDR SRAM…………….$51
ATI Radeon 9200…………….$90
40GB Ultra ATA…………….$56
DVD-ROM/CD-RW…………….$60
Case/PSU…………….$40
Windows XP Professional…………….$199
Adobe Photoshop album (Compares with iPhoto)…………….$50
Windows Movie Maker (Compares to iMovie)…………….$0
Ulead DVD MovieFactory (Compares with iDVD)…………….$40
Fruity Loops (Compares with Garage Band)…………….$80
Microsoft Works (Compares with Apple Works…………….$50
Quicken 2004…………….$60
Nanosaur 2…………….$15
Marble Blast Gold…………….$15
Hardware Price: $505
Hardware and Software price: $1,022
In my last editorial comparing the iMac and a DIY PC, I read reviews of my article from other sources redoing my comparison but leaving out software and then bringing down the cost of the PC as a result. This seems to be a common practice amongst PC hardware review sites and I think it’s a mistake. Software is an area where Apple ads value to their hardware. I think their mistake can be attributed to the fact that most bundled software on PCs is shareware or junkware, so factoring in equivalents to Apple’s iLife is so easily overlooked.
Regardless, to appease those that only look at hardware, I ran the figures both ways. The Apple hardware comes out less in both scenarios. The price comparison reiterates that Apple doesn’t charge the supposed “premium” that is often equated with their systems. Can we finally do away with the fallacy that implies that Apple charges a premium for their computers?
A $350 headless box from Dell or HP will have better specs than a Mac mini and additional hardware. Whether the software bundle is comparable or not is debatable; we can certainly argue all day whether you should be adding $20 to your mini price for Solitaire and other silliness. More importantly, your original comment was about Macs becoming more acceptable in corporate environments because they’re ‘the same price or cheaper’ than PCs – but your software prices show a complete ignorance of the enterprise environment and how software is purchased in them. Not only are they not paying $199 for XP Pro, they’re not even paying close to the $79 upgrade you’d need for the $350 box I mention as a home user; and GarageBand and MarbleBlast certainly don’t come into the picture. The additional licenses required for one additional box are almost neglible.
I like Macs. I own them. I buy hundreds of them. It’s part of my job. But your post has no connection to the reality of corporate IT. There’s are great arguments that Macs have higher total value and better TCO, although that can certainly be argued around the edges (when you’re supporting thousands of desktops, there are lots of factors involved). But nobody, not even Apple, makes claims about lower upfront cost. Because they’d be laughed out of the CFO’s office.
“I’m sure they were. A PC allows you to allocate your money towards the parts that are most important to you while scrimping on those you don’t.”
Sorry, but that is plain not true. With 800Eur I can have a PC built which has every single part clearly better than the best Mac Mini.
“Sorry, but that is plain not true. With 800Eur I can have a PC built which has every single part clearly better than the best Mac Mini.”
I’m sorry if you’re thinking that what I’m saying is that a PC couldn’t be made better than a mac mini. That’d be rediculious for me to say that. What I’m saying is that a PC can’t be made equally (and certinly not better) than any Mac without costing more or at least the same… assuing you’re comparing equally in hardware, bundled software and operating system.
What I’ve found happens when people make these comparisons is that they would say that such and such PC has such and such piece of hardware which more than makes up for the fact that it is lacking such and such part etc. Of course, that’s not what I’m saying. THAT comparison bases the prices on flexability rather than raw price. We all know that with a PC you can buy less and spend less and of course also buy more and spend more but that doesn’t make the PC less expensive. It makes it more flexible… or more configurable. The Mac is actually the less expensive of the two when compared equally… as close as possible in hardware, software and operating system.
“assuing you’re comparing equally in hardware, bundled software and operating system.”
If you add bundled software and operating system into the equation that makes things too complicated to compare.
People might argue that:
1)They use Windows XP Home and only free software. That is a cheap option.
2)They use Linux. That would be my case, it is more than satisfactory for me and the cost is 0 cents.
One of my main objection of putting a price tag on bundled software is that I might not need it.
It is what happened with my present desktop PC: it came with Windows XP Home and plenty of extra (commercial) software: because I don’t use any of it, it hasn’t any value for me.
True, people who buy a Mac, do so mainly because of the Mac software. But because the Mini is aimed mainly at people who have never used a Mac, what happens if they don’t like the OS? (and that is entirely possible)
At least if you bought a PC with Windows, you can replace it with literally hundreds of free or open source operating systems.
It’s a hard comparison to make. But I do think you’re right that Mac’s price per quality/features are quite fair. The trouble is that many don’t value quality at all.
It’s a hard comparison to make. But I do think you’re right that Mac’s price per quality/features are quite fair. The trouble is that many don’t value quality at all.
Yeah, there are lots of arguments that the Mac is a better value. Higher resale value, longer useful life. Not everyone will agree, but a strong argument can be made. But lower upfront costs than an equivalent PC? Not even Apple is silly enough to make this argument.
“But lower upfront costs than an equivalent PC? Not even Apple is silly enough to make this argument.”
Perhaps they should. It’s a genuine selling point. Perhaps the reason why they don’t is that people still see the ability to buy less and spend less a greater asset than buying able to buy more and spend less… at the expensive of initial configurability.
“It’s a hard comparison to make.”
I don’t see why. You can equip a PC with nearly the identical components as that which come standard in any Mac.
“But I do think you’re right that Mac’s price per quality/features are quite fair. The trouble is that many don’t value quality at all.”
You, like so many others on this board think that the Mac is able to justify its supposedly higher price by having better quality. That’s not waht I’m saying. Yes, the Mac typically *IS* better quality, but it also costs the same (sometimes less) than a comperably equipped PC.
Lol Apple does not compete against pcs, And changeing to the x68 does not mean they now compete, Being able to dual boot is not really a benifit in most shops i have seen,,
How many shops have you seen? Do they have design departments? Frankly, I’ve seen IT policy related to Macs seen as a problem in dozens of large enterprise scenarios. Typically it involves creative professionals within a larger enterprise. In many cases they’re either completely off the IT grid or Macs are forbidden. Dual-booting Macs may very well solve this problem, and get Macs back in the door in many of these installations. (But as I’ve now said a couple of times, I don’t expect x86 Macs to sweep the enterprise by any stretch of the imagination.)
And THEN have to buy the RETAIL VER of windows, That adds about $250 ontop of the cost of the box.
Do you think enterprise customers are spending $250 on a retail version of Windows? That’s just not how it works.
Vista Beta1 is actually so buggy that it feels more like an alpha.
It can’t “see” some important hardware, like some soundcards (I mean that for the OS that piece of hardware doesn’t exist, so of course you can’t install a driver).
Compatibility with existing software is also a nightmare.
Now I can’t understand this half-baked approach: either you create a totally new OS and don’t care about compatibility at all or you keep trying to be compatible forever, which of course is an impossible task.
I expect that even when Vista will be released, it’ll take a couple of years before it runs decently, as it happened to XP.
In the meantime a lot of people will have really enough of it.
MS has a track record for delivering software late.
Promising a new released in 15 months…Anyone with software development experience (as a living) knows that it’s easy to slip by a month in this case.
MS don;t want to make it public but Vista will only appear in 2007….Or else we will have something like 95OSR2 or 98SE….which corrected flaws of the rushed out versions.
On-topic, I’ll briefly say that I’m not surprised that late 2006 is the watchword for Vista. Microsoft really would have been better off introducing their new paradigm gradually with a release schedule similar to that of the OS predominantly featured in the comments so far, Mac OS X.
Not only could they have undercut Apple on retail and OEM pricing, but they would have kept their Licensing 6.0 customers happy and been seen to have turned over a new leaf. But oh well.
Getting back to the Apple discussion, I’m curious to see no-one has mentioned the fact that most of Connectix’s (and, presumably, now Microsoft’s) customers for VirtualPC for Mac were people who use Macintosh native applications in their work, and boot Windows to access the occasional Windows-only corporate application. This is something that’s happening right now.
The transition to an 80×86-compatible processor will enable Microsoft to provide VirtualPC as a virtualiser, rather than an emulator, with the performance gains that entails. Even if Microsoft don’t, someone else will. Wine probably isn’t far behind, if this is anything to go by:
http://www.winehq.org/?issue=278#Apple,%20Intel,%20Wine,~*~…
This will make it easier for Macintosh, not more difficult.
On-topic, I’ll briefly say that I’m not surprised that late 2006 is the watchword for Vista. Microsoft really would have been better off introducing their new paradigm gradually with a release schedule similar to that of the OS predominantly featured in the comments so far, Mac OS X.
In a way that is what they’re doing – they’ve already spun off many of the interesting Longhorn features as “WinFX technologies.” Avalon, Indigo, WinFS…
i think both are right – Dpple does have higher margins, so if you only look at their products that way – they are more expensive. but they cut their costs by only providing a limited choice, thus allowing a higher margin while not increasing the price. They DO, however, have costs DELL does not, like having to pay for the development of their operating system. DELL doesn’t pay much to Microsoft for this… also, Apple definately pays more attention to design, and design costs money.
overall, it is hard to say who is more expensive – it is very well possible a really comparable DELL would be as expensive as a comparable Apple, as DELL would then also have to pay for the custom design, and offers more choice. but if Apple was forced to offer as much choice as DELL did, DELL would be cheaper, as they have lower margins and higher volumes.
The main reason why Macs are such a better value than Wintel PCs is because of the bundled software, OS X Tiger and iLife. Get a Dell PC and your sure to get a truckload of crapware which you’ll spend a couple hours uninstalling (don’t forget to reboot every single time). With a Mac you get the iLife suite which is really *really* nice and useful. All these people arguing about the value of a PC purchase based solely on hardware specs — c’mon! Have you seen the hardware requirements for Vista? Avalon is basically a half-assed clone of OS X Quartz (which has been around for five years now) but the difference is that OS X which all its drop shadows and transparency goodness runs very smoothly even on my 5 year old G4 laptop! I’d like to see Vista’s desktop on a five year Dell laptop — ain’t gonna happen. So if you really want to compare fairly, please include the SOFTWARE (including the OS) in the discussion. Comparing hardware specs alone is pretty pointless. Hooray! I have a 3 GHz P4 Dell — I can work sooo much faster now! First task: Install a bunch of anti-spyware, anti-virus junk that will cut my PC’s performance in half. Don’t forget reboot again with each installation — sheesh! Second task, go buy some *useful* software to manage my photos, make movies and DVDs, etc, etc.
Old news from earlier this year!
Since we have no bad news trying to make Microsoft look bad, lets take some old news and make it new.
Anti-Microsoft despiration