Microsoft pays for inaccurate "Apple Tax" study, issues 3rd TV ad - Page 8

Originally Posted by Foo2

"Free" doesn't mean they're any good, comprehensive, or a royal treat to install and run.


Big whoop.

Microsoft sells 10X more OS licenses than Apple and they still charge what for it? So much for the economies of scale.

Originally Posted by tonton

You either have not installed and used and run anti-virus software before, or you do not consider your time to be of any value.

Hours of work per month installing, configuring and running something otherwise completely unproductive is not "free". Slowing down your system while you run a scan or update the engine or definitions is not "free".

Originally Posted by UltimateKylie

LOL... AVG among others is 100% free. Takes less than 10 minutes to install. Its rated extremly high. So yes it is good and comprehensive.

In addition I can tell it to scan and update at 2 in the morning when i'm long gone from my computer and it won't waste me time. But actually I have scans disabled because all I really care is the active shield that monitors as websites download content etc.. I haven't had a virus in years on any of my Windows machines.

As for economics or scale... its common knowledge that Apple makes most of its profits from Hardware and not Software. In addition keeping constantly upgraded costs more with OS X as there are much more frequent paid updates. I think this all goes to further my point that you are over exagerating the costs of Windows.

Originally Posted by UltimateKylie

LOL... AVG among others is 100% free. Takes less than 10 minutes to install.

Originally Posted by mrochester

What anti-virus software do you use that takes hours each month installing, configuring and running? Just install something like AVG or Avast, which after a 30 second installation requires no further interaction for as long as you use it - and they are both free too! Avast uses 40mb of RAM to run in the background on my laptop, and since I'm packing 3GB of RAM, I'm not really concerned about how terribly my performance is degraded by anti-virus software.

Originally Posted by tonton

The hit on an underpowered laptop is not due to RAM, but to processor cycles. And the laptops Microsoft is "promoting" in this ad campaign -- the laptops you guys claim compete against Apple -- are all underpowered and a "hit" is definitely felt.

You honestly never have to touch Avast after you install it? How much do you use your machine for things other than gaming?

Originally Posted by tonton

So... once again, your time is worthless, then.

I am not rich, but I earn a pretty fair $30 per hour. Ten minutes doing something I don't want to do is $5 to me, dude. Maybe you're odd and actually enjoy installing stuff. I don't. so for me, there's the Mac.

And installation isn't the only time cost of using anti-virus programs. Once again, I guess your time is worthless. Mine is not.

I do use Anti-virus when I'm forced to use Windows. I much prefer Avast over AVG. I've used both. They both slow down your system when performing updates, and it's annoying. Occasionally I've been forced to run a full scan, or worse, a boot time scan. When there are things I want to do on the machine, that costs time, which is money.

Originally Posted by addabox

Apple doesn't sell a shrink wrapped version of OS X? Huh.

Originally Posted by UltimateKylie

THE FACT is that Apple does not sell a retail version of Mac OS X that can be installed on any computer. In fact all version of Mac OS X are considered an upgrade.

Originally Posted by xpc

Point taken & made, but that wasn't the purpose of my post, I was

1. Referring to a comparison of capable systems, running enthusiast to pro grade software.
2. Referring to total system costs, in an enthusiast (even moderate) sector.

Enthusiasts are "consumers" too, and brand loyalty is earned daily, not assumed (at least in my playbook)

As for the costs, if you can you get a HD consumer camcorder, memory, DSLR, dual printers, required accessories and year's broadband for less than $5k with a Mac or brand-name PC capable of working with them decently, let me know!

theft is not allowed in this scenario

Originally Posted by roehlstation

Rating AVG High is like determining which pile of dog poo smells least bad.

I've seen it run on far too many $300 Best Buy specials to be convinced it is any good. Not only does it make the computer unusable for the first 10 minutes or so after startup. it still does not protect against some of the most common and most vile spyware (AKA the Anti-Virus 2009 and all variations of it)

Other people buy Macs because they don't want to have to worry about anti-virus and anti-spyware software bogging down their system with endless scans and definition updates.

Originally Posted by JupiterOne

AVG detected the virus and told him it was there, but never prevented him from getting it nor could get rid of it. Is this typical of AVG?

Originally Posted by Foo2

If AVG isn't consuming any resources, then it isn't doing anything.

No antivirus software is comprehensive.

Where is Apple's profit on hardware when one buys a Mac OS X upgrade?

Originally Posted by mrochester

Good news for you then, because definition updates require no interaction and very minimal resources, and active sheild means you don't need to actually run scans. So count that reason out

Originally Posted by mrochester

It only needs the resources when it needs to do something

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of OSX sales come attached to Apple hardware.

Originally Posted by jazzguru

I used AVG free for years on my Windows machines, and about 6 months ago I switched to Avira free since it uses a lot less resources. It still uses resources, though. Especially during system startup and definition updates. They're automated, yes, but they still use resources and the effect on the system is notable. To suggest that anti-virus programs use minimal resources is inaccurate.

Active shield is not fool-proof. If it were, anti-virus programs wouldn't even have a "scan system" feature. On my Windows machines I run a scan at least once every couple of weeks.

In addition, I also run Windows Defender, which is completely automated, but again, that's one more application using resources to protect your machine against malicious software.

I also run the disk cleanup and defrag utilities once every couple weeks.

This constant maintenance has become second nature to me, but the time adds up. For all its attempts to be a better OS, Windows still requires a lot of attention on the part of the end user to keep running smoothly and do what you need it to do.

Plugging in a USB flash drive for the first time and waiting for 30 seconds while Windows informs you through various annoying pop-ups that it has recognized, is installing, and has installed your USB drive is more than just a mere nuisance to some people.

Some would rather plug in the drive, have an icon appear on the desktop almost instantaneously and GO!

All these little things add up and contribute to the entire OS experience. Macs are a very worthwhile alternative for many people who don't want to have to worry about all those little "nuisances".

Originally Posted by Foo2

Then I guess you're sure it's doing something [useful] because it is after all consuming resources.


Oh, sorry, you are wrong. There is no attachment. Every Mac comes with the latest version of Mac OS X Ultimate. When it is purchased--if it is purchased--a Mac OS X upgrade comes later--perhaps 18 months or more later since that's roughly the product cycle for new versions from Apple.

A tier 1 hardware manufacturer like Apple can not afford to subsidize multiple generations of OS updates. How many hardware manufactures give away OS updates? Even M$ struggles with giving OS downgrades.

Originally Posted by mrochester

I can see where you're coming from, but it does these things once, and never again. How is that so damned terrible and impossible to live with that you need to spend hundreds more for an Apple computer? Are there seriously people out there who have such an irritable personality that they can't stand 20 seconds of a USB device installing? Wow, is all I can say if there are.

Originally Posted by jazzguru



Well to me, the USB thing wouldn't be such a bother. Like I said, I personally own machines running Windows. It obviously depends on the individual and what he/she wants. If you're using a machine mostly for entertainment (surfing the net, gaming, youtube, IRC, video streaming, IM, Facebook, etc.) then no, you're probably not going to care that your only USB flash drive takes 20+ seconds to be installed the first time you plug it in.

However, say you're using your computer to conduct scientific research, and your samples of whatever it is you're studying are on 50 separate USB drives of various makes that have been submitted by people involved in the study. You're looking at up to 25 minutes of your time just installing the things. Is the 25 minutes worth it? To some people it may not matter. To others, that 25 minutes is time that could be spent on something more productive. Granted, this is a far-fetched example.

But I'm just trying to point out that it is not for me or you to decide what someone else should consider worth their time and investment. It is up to the individual. I'm sure there are many people out there who have bought Macs and decided it was a terrible investment for them. There are also many people out there who have bought Macs and wished they had bought one sooner.

Originally Posted by mrochester

The cost of OSX is factored into the hardware sale. The hardware sale nets Apple a massive return,

which they can subsequently use to subsidise the cost of future OS updates, just like they do with the iPod Touch.

Originally Posted by Foo2

Just like premium hardware from any other tier 1 manufacturer: not enough to sustain OS development.


That's where you've run astray.

Originally Posted by mrochester

So you have every confidence that if Apple ever allowed OSX to run on any hardware from any manufacturer, the price would remain the same? I'm more inclined to think that if that were the case, the cost of the software would go up to cover the loss of hardware revenue and extra support required.

Originally Posted by Foo2

You are the one claiming the net profit Apple makes on its hardware is sufficient to pay for the continued development and support of future Mac OS X versions (while still keeping investors happy). I just don't see that, b/c Apple's hardware prices are not out of line with premium hardware from any other tier 1 manufacturer and b/c of what M$ charges for primary licenses and upgrades despite having 10X the market share of Apple.

Disclaimer: I am not invested in AAPL or MSFT.

Originally Posted by mrochester

I think your logic is a little bit twisted there. So you're saying that if it came on a $3000 computer, it would suddenly be a good product even though nothing had changed about it? I've used it for many years prior to switching to Avast, and it's been fine. It's amazing how many people think that because a product is free it is automatically rubbish, and that the paid for product is obviously much better.

Originally Posted by roehlstation

Doesn't matter, I've done something like 2,500 virus removals on systems in the shop I work at over the last 3 years, I'm still finding multiple infections on systems running AVG. People bring in the computer because they say it runs slow. I remove the viruses with ESET NOD 32, runs better but slow, remove AVG and installed NOD 32, there was night and day difference, and this happens EVERY TIME i've done it.

But AVG will run faster on a more expensive PC because it likely won't have a 1.3 GHz Celeron Processor with 512 MB RAM.

Originally Posted by mrochester

That's the main reason I switched from AVG because it's got a bit bloated. Avast is quick and slim.

Originally Posted by mrochester

But it's very well known that Apple's profit margins are very high, so it's not at all obsurd to think some of that goes to the continued developement of OSX, which as a result means they can sell it for less.

In comparison, Microsoft makes absolutely nothing from the sale of hardware, so its entire profit and development costs have to come from the sale of the software.

So really, it's a no brainer that a copy of Windows is going to be £100 more expensive than a copy of OSX. However, you probably paid over £100 less for your non-Apple computer in the first place.

Originally Posted by Foo2

You say Apple's profits are so much higher, but you've not shown this to be supernormal compared to other premium hardware manufacturers nor shown how Apple's profit margin from a 4% world-wide market share is high enough to support future Mac OS X development and support while leaving enough to satisfy investors.


Right, you think M$ puts so much effort into its Genuine Advantage Program because it gives Windows away to hardware OEMs?


huh?

Originally Posted by mrochester

Apple makes hardware and software. The 2 are interlinked. Therefore, it wouldn't be outrageous to suggest that they money they make selling the hardware is used to develope the software.

In contrast, Microsoft makes only the software, so their entire development costs and profits have to come from that software sale.

Net result of this is, the Microsoft software is more expensive than the Apple software.

Originally Posted by Foo2

If Apple uses its hardware profits to develop future versions of Mac OS X, how does it manage to design and build those gawd awful unibody MacBooks, iMacs and Mac Pros? How does Apple get Nehalems a month before anyone else? How does Apple have the money to pursue new markets?


nonsequitur

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Let 'em.

The more MS portrays Apple as the premium brand, the more interesting and desirable it becomes. Conversely, all this advertising MS is doing actually makes them look like the bargain-basement brandyou don't choose, but have to settle for. Which would be true, anyway.

Originally Posted by UltimateKylie

LOL...Apple doesn't even offer downgrading if for some reason someone prefered Tiger over Leopard.. oddly enough I thought Tiger was more stable but thats another story.

And to those of you who claim $2800 is not a high price even for Apple when Sony (which is a premium brand) can offer you more at roughly the same size display for about $1600 then you have reality issues. I mean with Apple you go from somewhat reasonable to ultra expensive so fast you don't have to time to blink. The 2.0 MacBook is somewhat reasonable but god forbid you want more than 1280x800 pixels. I mean i'm not a pro, but I can see the use even in browsing, emailing, and IM for more the 1280x800 pixels.

Another odd thing I noted... go look at Sony for example. Its the opposite of Macs in the fact the generally the smaller you get the more expensive the laptop is. Where as with the Macbooks its the reverse (If you don't consider the Air).

My BF for example won't get a 13", he prefers larger screen and is laptop is mostly used as a desktop but sometimes taken out on the road. He is also a movie buff. Not that he creates them, but loves to watch them especially oldies and Woody Allen films. He would love a 17", he loves style as well but there is no way he could justify $2000+ when all he would ever do is email and watch movies. I tried to give him my 13" MacBook instead of selling it and he refused... saying the screen was too small. Me on the other hand, I love 13" but wouldn't mind more pixels. The Sony Z series offers 1600x900 in 13.1" notebook... who knows I'm sure in the future pixels will get more dense on the MacBooks as well.

And for those of you who claim that OS X is so much better... Leopard has had a ton of issues and still does in regard to networking. I was even told to reinstall Leopard from Apple Support for a networking issue. I thought such advice was only something Dell and HP gave... What I will gave Apple is they have good support that speaks English and they are likely to go above and beyond. As I said in an other post... HP, Dell, Toshiba love to give you the run around.

I do see value in iLife, but at the high end its really hard to justify what is becoming $1000 of difference especially if all you want is a 15" screen. I don't see why Apple couldn't do a consumer 15" notebok. Its really one size fits all in Apple's consumer notebook strategy and where I do 100% agree with Microsoft in their "Life with out walls" campaign. People do want a little more flexibility. And all any fanboi does is throw a huge hissy fit when some suggests Apple could be more flexible. Its like soviet russia. I must follow 100% and I obviously disagree with communism if I suggest one point to improve it.

I do think these ads are stupid and sorta lame. But on the other hand is big win with these threads full of spin, lies, and huge hissy fits. It just further proves that Apple is like BMW and most don't want to be associated with people that look down. Alot of people might dream about a BMW, but even rich people buy a Ford or a Hyundai to not be seen as snotty...
Some of you say it doesn't matter... but it matters enough for you to appearently get upset about it and ridicule them.

I mean you would think Microsoft raped your children the deep hatred you have for them. Its like your goal is to topple their marketshare but then you argue in a circle that it isn't what Apple wants and the Apple is premium. Which one is it? Is Apple Premium and Microsoft Windows always the somewhat inferior but for the masses or is Apple gonna change its strategy and actually overtake Windows?

I just know I hate fanbois and I know Steve Jobs hates them too...

Originally Posted by UbiquitousGeek

How do Mac users know if they have a virus if they don't run antivirus? Simple. Unlike Windows, Mac OS X isn't transparent to the user. Malware can't just hide from a competent user.

Oh, gee, I don't know... Gigabit ethernet? 802.11n? iSight? (Your shitty webcam isn't the same.) A magnetic latch? Backlit keyboard? Sudden Motion Sensor? Unibody design? Multi-touch trackpad? LED backlit display? Less than an inch thick? Weighs 4.5 lbs.? Better battery life? Optical digital audio in/out? Bluetooth? DisplayPort? Slot loading optical drive? (No tray to break.) Better sounding speakers?

If you ask me, you just got your ass handed to you. I didn't even touch on your Dell's software inadequacies.

Originally Posted by Blah64

What you really mean is: Yes.

We have 5 year old Macs that work fine with Leopard (there is no Snow Leopard yet). In fact, the iMac G4/1.0 17" was introduced in Feb 2003, and that's over 6 years ago. And it's fully supported by Leopard, and runs just great. My kids get hand-me-down hardware, and it just keeps working and working and working. And getting better with each new OS release - which conveniently comes in affordable family packs.

And if you're really saying you haven't seen 5 year old PC hardware that can't run Vista, you're either a fking liar, or ignorant beyond belief. Go read a few articles instead of coming in here and leaving post after post of troll bullshit.

Originally Posted by addabox

No, I called him a liar because his post was pretty much a compendium of MS talking points, he apparently chose to register on a Mac enthusiast site even though he specifically stated that he disliked our company, and he made some highly suspect claims about his experience of Windows as a pristine nirvana.

I have to ask myself why someone who is enjoying using their PCs would ever see the need to seek out Mac users to school them in the error of their ways.

You, on the other hand, without knowing me, have elected to question how I was raised, based on my failure to conform to your vision of the world.

Which just makes you an asshole.

Originally Posted by Foo2

You've not dealt with Sony.



If you know of Snow Leopard, then you know it isn't an option now or maybe ever, but Leopard runs just fine on my 7-year-old PowerBook G4. When Leopard debuted, my PB was well over 5 years old. And your point was?

Originally Posted by filebunch

I've worked with Apple and PC computers (PC by day, Apple by night).

There is nothing truly bad with either platform. But lets make a comparison.

If you need to buy a car, you can buy a Hyundai or a BMW--both will get you to where you want to go, but one is inexpensive, the other is not. Yet folks still buy BMW's for whatever reason. Some might perceive the BMW to be better; some may say it's a waste of money and I could have the Hyundai and some cash in my pocket.

The lower end PC is the Hyundai. It will get you where you want to go, but maybe slower, clunkier and in less style. The best PC is a Cadillac. Windows Vista Basic is a four cylinder, Premium a V-8.

The Apple is a BMW. Nicer design, pretty to look at, possibly better engineering a better engine in all model lines. Is it worth the extra money? To some yes. Does it look better in the driveway? Better than most PC's. Is the OS better? I have to say yes. Does it cost more to repair? Sure.

Microsoft recent ad campaign, a good one, depicts the Hyundai buyer. There will always be lots of Hyundai buyers.