If they're going to include all versions of OS-X, they need to include Windows 2000 as well. The other thing they aren't doing is using the cost of the Professional versions of the Windows OSes, which are more comparable to the OS-X releases than the "Home" versions they use in their analysis.
And they never actually talk about true profit, only revenue... so the headline is misleading.
Oops. Macs don't require virus protection... My mistake....
Windows doesn't require it either. On any windows machine I have ever owned I never put anti-virus software on there, and I've never had a problem with a virus, but then again I'm not an idiot who opens up all those odd email attachments. I find it easier to create a restore CD and just wipe my computer clean every few moths. Windows tends to get bogged down pretty quickly with spyware and things.
Windows doesn't require it either. On any windows machine I have ever owned I never put anti-virus software on there, and I've never had a problem with a virus, but then again I'm not an idiot who opens up all those odd email attachments. I find it easier to create a restore CD and just wipe my computer clean every few moths. Windows tends to get bogged down pretty quickly with spyware and things.
We're talking about an average home user here. Not you or I. And Joe Schmoe needs a yearly anti-virus and anti-spyware subscription. Otherwise he's paying some pro $100 every 6 months to clean off the computer.
.... to take a deep breathe, instead of "saying his clients" that Apple costs to a user much more than Microsoft per year.
Poor Mr. Munster's clients, I sincerely hope they know some math rudiments ("update once a year".... ) and they have the gift of sight so they can read about astonishing M$ delays, M$ vulnerabilities etc. etc. .
Or, maybe he's right! Actually, with a sooooo-low cost per year, a M$ user HAS to suffer incredible diseases with his PC. Maybe it's written in a little part of the Windows' EULA...
(I can still remember when, 2-3 years ago, a W2000 user like me couldn't reach the Windows Update site to download the patch for that damned threat that was infecting ANY PC not provided with a firewall protection.....).
We're talking about an average home user here. Not you or I. And Joe Schmoe needs a yearly anti-virus and anti-spyware subscription. Otherwise he's paying some pro $100 every 6 months to clean off the computer.
true dat. I've gone to fix some of my friends computers and they take about 20 minutes to start up because of all the $h!t that they "accidentally" install. I keep telling them to read the message BEFORE they click the OK button that installs the spyware, but they never listen.
Apple does make more money per user than MS in the OS market simply because they periodically come out with a major new version that has sufficient features for Mac users to reach for their credit card. (I get the family pack and will upgrade to Leopard when it's available.) MS, on the other hand has two real problems.
The first is that they cannot get a major new version out the door often enough new, exciting features to come close to Apple in consumer upgrades. The other is that too many users don't worry about the new version. If 95, 98 or XP Home works OK for them they'll stay with that. Good thing too, as most of these older (2 years old or so) and cheaper PCs won't run Vista very well.
Now throw in the huge percentage of business users who are not going to jump at Vista. They'll take a long time to review it and then will probably stick with what they have for a few years or so.
Basically new versions of Windows gets "market share" by consumers purchasing new computers that have it installed. I just don't see long lines waiting to buy Vista when it went on sale at midnight, like they did for 95. Those days are over.
i've never seen a dumber and more pointless observation EVER!!!
The sky is blue. But it has white clouds. And it's red at night. Therefore, the sky is pro-American. And since God decides the color of the sky, He likes the USA best. So vote Republican!!1!!eleven!1!
Wow, Munster is a great analyst. I would never have figured this out! Hail Munster!
Interesting, how did what he stated seemed obvious?. Gravity is obvious but not until Newton pointed it out. The earth is round is pretty obvious to us unless you were living in 12th century BC. Lots of things are obvious when someone already has done the thinking for you. Heck, that fact that 2 squared = 4 is pretty obvious too (ask the stoneage people). The fact that modern mathematics would not exist without 0 is obvious.. why those damn arabians invented it is a mystery. They should have just not invented 0, after all, it was an obvious thing already.
It always amuses me when apple fans get upset cause the ownership cost of apple computers is higher. SO WHAT?. What's the problem?..
To others in the thread.
The analyst was not stating the ownership cost for every macosX owner.. or even for a typical mac owner. He merely pointed out that apple revenue per user is higher cause they have more upgrades and every upgrade, someone purchases them. The statement is true. Regardless of whether you or anyone do not upgrade as often is irrelevant. Apple revenue per user is still higher (therotically.. i don't believe he actually predicted or even stated apple realized revenue due to their os). You can't have your cake and eat it too..
when apple comes out with an upgrade, the community crows about how successfull it is.. "look at the number of people upgrading" they say.. then when somoeone points out that all those people upgrading implies the cost of mac osX is greater, we all smugly state "Well, you don't have to upgrade every time".. Sure you don't. Then just be prepared to see articles that state "Apple upgrade process not going smoothly.. users tired of paying for upgrades yearly, apple revenue falls, apple stock rating underperform. Advise client to hold or sell". I wonder what then if that headline came out.. Wow, you are happy when everyone upgrades and the rosy news of apple revenue comes out.. but pissed when someone points out that implies that apple makes more per user than windows.. hmmmm.
i've never seen a dumber and more pointless observation EVER!!!
Maybe because PiperJaffray's Munster made a pointless (numerically wrong, too) analysis?
And, for those who say that Mac users get angry when the "Microsoft-is-cheaper-that-Apple" flag is raised to the wind, I simply say that I prefer to pay "such" a price and obtain a product like Mac OS X, than have something like... ehm.... Vista?
The last word: well, I'd prefer that even a LITTLE PART of those Apple's extra earnings would go to a much intense and deeper analysis of the upcoming products, to avoid the last annoying troubles of the Rev.A hardware that we all know.
It always amuses me when apple fans get upset cause the ownership cost of apple computers is higher. SO WHAT?. What's the problem?..
The problem is that it isn't true. It always amuses me that people are so blind that they can't see that paying someone to fix your computer *IS* part of the ownership cost, just as paying an auto repair shop to keep a piece of crap running *IS* part of the ownership cost. What's that you say? You don't pay anyone, you do it yourself? I'm sorry to hear your time is worthless.
Factor in the total cost of ownership, and Macs have been ahead of the game damned near their entire existence... but no, some yahoo points at the price tag and conveniently forgets about the costs down the road that they're getting themselves in for by going with the cheap competition. You get what you pay for.
With the latest round of hardware and pricing, not only is the TCO lower, but the *entry* cost is competitive.
And the hardcore Windroids and Linuxheads hate that. They can't point at the sticker price any more, so they have to come up with garbage like that 'analysis'. Lame.
Apple is able to do this because they are consistently offering value to their customers. Upgrading is an option that I have always chosen because the cost divided by the hours of usage has always been well worth it.
Microsoft has given me no such option for the past 5+ years.
There are little things that over time are worth $$$. For example, Microsoft could've copied the way Apple has the sidebar and incorporated the feature in every open/save/explorer window. They could've done just that and called it XP2 and I would've gladly paid for that. There are like a million little things like that where it's obvious Windows XP was never fully fleshed out before release, that Microsoft could've spent a tiny fraction of R&D on to improve and offer users the option of upgrading.
Meanwhile my Mac keeps getting faster, easier to use, and capable of doing more each year with OS upgrades and new versions of iLife, and it only costs a little in upgrade fees.
Windows doesn't require it either. On any windows machine I have ever owned I never put anti-virus software on there, and I've never had a problem with a virus, but then again I'm not an idiot who opens up all those odd email attachments. I find it easier to create a restore CD and just wipe my computer clean every few moths. Windows tends to get bogged down pretty quickly with spyware and things.
Then either you never go on the internet while in Windows, and never accept a file from anyone else, or you are the luckiest guy around.
There are many "flyby" sites that drop viruses, Trojan horses, spyware, and robots without you knowing. That is a big problem.
Then either you never go on the internet while in Windows, and never accept a file from anyone else, or you are the luckiest guy around.
There are many "flyby" sites that drop viruses, Trojan horses, spyware, and robots without you knowing. That is a big problem.
Opening email is only one way to get infected.
Generally the quickest way to avoid that stuff is to run Opera or Firefox.
I do run a firewall which happens to prevent unauthorized programs from running too, so that's helpful but those that aren't computer savvy might not understand it or accept that type of program.
Maybe because PiperJaffray's Munster made a pointless (numerically wrong, too) analysis?
And, for those who say that Mac users get angry when the "Microsoft-is-cheaper-that-Apple" flag is raised to the wind, I simply say that I prefer to pay "such" a price and obtain a product like Mac OS X, than have something like... ehm.... Vista?
The last word: well, I'd prefer that even a LITTLE PART of those Apple's extra earnings would go to a much intense and deeper analysis of the upcoming products, to avoid the last annoying troubles of the Rev.A hardware that we all know.
This would be a GREAT target to reach, for Apple.
Bye!
The point he was trying to make, was that Apple'a OS is profitable, on a more regular basis than MS's uneven schedule. That's for investment purposes, for those who need more information before they make a decision. It may seem obvious, or even wrong to some (which doesn't meann that THEY are right), but it serves a particular purpose for investors who have to weigh many different factors.
Comments
And they never actually talk about true profit, only revenue... so the headline is misleading.
Oops. Macs don't require virus protection... My mistake....
Windows doesn't require it either. On any windows machine I have ever owned I never put anti-virus software on there, and I've never had a problem with a virus, but then again I'm not an idiot who opens up all those odd email attachments. I find it easier to create a restore CD and just wipe my computer clean every few moths. Windows tends to get bogged down pretty quickly with spyware and things.
The PC I bought came with Lindows
My most sincere condolences.
My most sincere condolences.
Ha ha, no worries, it was SUPER cheap and and just erased it and put a copy of windows on it.
The only reason I bought it was so I didn't have to deal with the slowness of virtual PC
Windows doesn't require it either. On any windows machine I have ever owned I never put anti-virus software on there, and I've never had a problem with a virus, but then again I'm not an idiot who opens up all those odd email attachments. I find it easier to create a restore CD and just wipe my computer clean every few moths. Windows tends to get bogged down pretty quickly with spyware and things.
We're talking about an average home user here. Not you or I. And Joe Schmoe needs a yearly anti-virus and anti-spyware subscription. Otherwise he's paying some pro $100 every 6 months to clean off the computer.
Poor Mr. Munster's clients, I sincerely hope they know some math rudiments ("update once a year"....
Or, maybe he's right! Actually, with a sooooo-low cost per year, a M$ user HAS to suffer incredible diseases with his PC. Maybe it's written in a little part of the Windows' EULA...
(I can still remember when, 2-3 years ago, a W2000 user like me couldn't reach the Windows Update site to download the patch for that damned threat that was infecting ANY PC not provided with a firewall protection.....).
We're talking about an average home user here. Not you or I. And Joe Schmoe needs a yearly anti-virus and anti-spyware subscription. Otherwise he's paying some pro $100 every 6 months to clean off the computer.
true dat. I've gone to fix some of my friends computers and they take about 20 minutes to start up because of all the $h!t that they "accidentally" install. I keep telling them to read the message BEFORE they click the OK button that installs the spyware, but they never listen.
The first is that they cannot get a major new version out the door often enough new, exciting features to come close to Apple in consumer upgrades. The other is that too many users don't worry about the new version. If 95, 98 or XP Home works OK for them they'll stay with that. Good thing too, as most of these older (2 years old or so) and cheaper PCs won't run Vista very well.
Now throw in the huge percentage of business users who are not going to jump at Vista. They'll take a long time to review it and then will probably stick with what they have for a few years or so.
Basically new versions of Windows gets "market share" by consumers purchasing new computers that have it installed. I just don't see long lines waiting to buy Vista when it went on sale at midnight, like they did for 95. Those days are over.
Not a good situation for MS.
i've never seen a dumber and more pointless observation EVER!!!
The sky is blue. But it has white clouds. And it's red at night. Therefore, the sky is pro-American. And since God decides the color of the sky, He likes the USA best. So vote Republican!!1!!eleven!1!
(Do I win?)
Wow, Munster is a great analyst. I would never have figured this out! Hail Munster!
Interesting, how did what he stated seemed obvious?. Gravity is obvious but not until Newton pointed it out. The earth is round is pretty obvious to us unless you were living in 12th century BC. Lots of things are obvious when someone already has done the thinking for you. Heck, that fact that 2 squared = 4 is pretty obvious too (ask the stoneage people). The fact that modern mathematics would not exist without 0 is obvious.. why those damn arabians invented it is a mystery. They should have just not invented 0, after all, it was an obvious thing already.
It always amuses me when apple fans get upset cause the ownership cost of apple computers is higher. SO WHAT?. What's the problem?..
To others in the thread.
The analyst was not stating the ownership cost for every macosX owner.. or even for a typical mac owner. He merely pointed out that apple revenue per user is higher cause they have more upgrades and every upgrade, someone purchases them. The statement is true. Regardless of whether you or anyone do not upgrade as often is irrelevant. Apple revenue per user is still higher (therotically.. i don't believe he actually predicted or even stated apple realized revenue due to their os). You can't have your cake and eat it too..
when apple comes out with an upgrade, the community crows about how successfull it is.. "look at the number of people upgrading" they say.. then when somoeone points out that all those people upgrading implies the cost of mac osX is greater, we all smugly state "Well, you don't have to upgrade every time".. Sure you don't. Then just be prepared to see articles that state "Apple upgrade process not going smoothly.. users tired of paying for upgrades yearly, apple revenue falls, apple stock rating underperform. Advise client to hold or sell". I wonder what then if that headline came out.. Wow, you are happy when everyone upgrades and the rosy news of apple revenue comes out.. but pissed when someone points out that implies that apple makes more per user than windows.. hmmmm.
i've never seen a dumber and more pointless observation EVER!!!
Maybe because PiperJaffray's Munster made a pointless (numerically wrong, too) analysis?
And, for those who say that Mac users get angry when the "Microsoft-is-cheaper-that-Apple" flag is raised to the wind, I simply say that I prefer to pay "such" a price and obtain a product like Mac OS X, than have something like... ehm.... Vista?
The last word: well, I'd prefer that even a LITTLE PART of those Apple's extra earnings would go to a much intense and deeper analysis of the upcoming products, to avoid the last annoying troubles of the Rev.A hardware that we all know.
This would be a GREAT target to reach, for Apple.
Bye!
It always amuses me when apple fans get upset cause the ownership cost of apple computers is higher. SO WHAT?. What's the problem?..
The problem is that it isn't true. It always amuses me that people are so blind that they can't see that paying someone to fix your computer *IS* part of the ownership cost, just as paying an auto repair shop to keep a piece of crap running *IS* part of the ownership cost. What's that you say? You don't pay anyone, you do it yourself? I'm sorry to hear your time is worthless.
Factor in the total cost of ownership, and Macs have been ahead of the game damned near their entire existence... but no, some yahoo points at the price tag and conveniently forgets about the costs down the road that they're getting themselves in for by going with the cheap competition. You get what you pay for.
With the latest round of hardware and pricing, not only is the TCO lower, but the *entry* cost is competitive.
And the hardcore Windroids and Linuxheads hate that. They can't point at the sticker price any more, so they have to come up with garbage like that 'analysis'. Lame.
Microsoft has given me no such option for the past 5+ years.
There are little things that over time are worth $$$. For example, Microsoft could've copied the way Apple has the sidebar and incorporated the feature in every open/save/explorer window. They could've done just that and called it XP2 and I would've gladly paid for that. There are like a million little things like that where it's obvious Windows XP was never fully fleshed out before release, that Microsoft could've spent a tiny fraction of R&D on to improve and offer users the option of upgrading.
Meanwhile my Mac keeps getting faster, easier to use, and capable of doing more each year with OS upgrades and new versions of iLife, and it only costs a little in upgrade fees.
Factor in the total cost of ownership, and Macs have been ahead of the game damned near their entire existence...
Got any data to back that up?
Windows doesn't require it either. On any windows machine I have ever owned I never put anti-virus software on there, and I've never had a problem with a virus, but then again I'm not an idiot who opens up all those odd email attachments. I find it easier to create a restore CD and just wipe my computer clean every few moths. Windows tends to get bogged down pretty quickly with spyware and things.
Then either you never go on the internet while in Windows, and never accept a file from anyone else, or you are the luckiest guy around.
There are many "flyby" sites that drop viruses, Trojan horses, spyware, and robots without you knowing. That is a big problem.
Opening email is only one way to get infected.
Then either you never go on the internet while in Windows, and never accept a file from anyone else, or you are the luckiest guy around.
There are many "flyby" sites that drop viruses, Trojan horses, spyware, and robots without you knowing. That is a big problem.
Opening email is only one way to get infected.
Generally the quickest way to avoid that stuff is to run Opera or Firefox.
I do run a firewall which happens to prevent unauthorized programs from running too, so that's helpful but those that aren't computer savvy might not understand it or accept that type of program.
Maybe because PiperJaffray's Munster made a pointless (numerically wrong, too) analysis?
And, for those who say that Mac users get angry when the "Microsoft-is-cheaper-that-Apple" flag is raised to the wind, I simply say that I prefer to pay "such" a price and obtain a product like Mac OS X, than have something like... ehm.... Vista?
The last word: well, I'd prefer that even a LITTLE PART of those Apple's extra earnings would go to a much intense and deeper analysis of the upcoming products, to avoid the last annoying troubles of the Rev.A hardware that we all know.
This would be a GREAT target to reach, for Apple.
Bye!
The point he was trying to make, was that Apple'a OS is profitable, on a more regular basis than MS's uneven schedule. That's for investment purposes, for those who need more information before they make a decision. It may seem obvious, or even wrong to some (which doesn't meann that THEY are right), but it serves a particular purpose for investors who have to weigh many different factors.