What is this idiot doing! Mr. Munster is trying desperately to keep the myth strong that Apple is Way more expensive than PCs. And that the tremendous delays in Microsoft's ability to release a working OS, is actually because M$ are a bunch of good guys looking out for our spending concerns! WoW! This makes Shaw WU look like a genius! I wonder how much M$ paid Munster to say that useless crap. Or they just told him they would "make him go away" if he did not comply.
to raise your rant above the idiotic level, please specify what FACTS you are challenging.
It seems like most of you are all irate that Mr. Munster is suggesting that Apple is more profitable per user than Microsoft. His point is that investors should view this as a positive thing and decide to invest in Apple. Wouldn't that be a good thing for all of us (Mac fans, that is)? Of course.
He is saying that because Apple offers more frequent (worry about the exact details on your own) upgrades to Mac OS X, that they are reaping more frequent revenue spikes. That's all he meant. He never said, "Apple sucks because they release OS upgrades too often and all those Mac users are just sheep. Get a real computer!"
Try reading these analyst posts with their intended purpose in mind.
Umm...... I think most people here missed the point of Munster's analysis.
He's not saying it is more expensive to own a Mac. And he's not dissing the Mac at all.
He's praising Apple for generating more revenue per customer than Microsoft. And in his analysis of Apple (we only get AI's summary), this means more profitability. (This is not always the case, but it is in Apple's case). This analysis is meant to encourage people to invest in AAPL.
It's not a particularly startling insight. Most Mac users have known that we've upgraded around 4 times while XP has been out.
If you think about it, this actually means it's much more expensive to own Windows. For instance, my wife's mother bought a computer in 01. When XP came out they bought a box of it retail. They then bought another Dell (and another copy of XP) for her husband. in 03, the both bought new computers (two more copies of XP). Her husband bought another comp last summer (another copy), and she got a new one for Xmas (another copy). That makes six times that they've bought the same operating system (even if they didn't realize it).
It's not that Munster is wrong; it's that it's very obvious, and a not a particularly useful metric (if you want to sound intelligent about financial matters, it's always better to use a word like "metric" rather than a mundane one like "measure" ). It's not necessarily useful because it is a measure of the potential revenue per customer ("revenue opportunities," if you will) in a static, one-dimentional world (where people's computers last forever). It's an relatively complex calculation to figure out something that is not necessarily related to the real world.
A simpler calculation would have given him (and us) a more accurate and useful number:
[XP revenue in a given year]
divided by
[estimated discrete number of XP users that year, not including pirates]
compare this number to
[OSX revenue in a given year]
divided by
[estimated discrete number of OSX users that year, not including pirates]
Then determine which company generates more revenue per customer in the real world. This automatically takes into account the multiplicity of ways in which people (legitimately) get their individual copies of an OS. Then repeat this calculation for several years, and then you'd start to see a trend, allowing you to figure out what happens to each company's revenue when an update is released. Do it on a quarterly basis, and then break it down for different businesses (consumer, corporate, government, education, etc.) to see their different behaviors, and you'd really have some tools that would allow you to predict the future revenue numbers with a pretty good deal of accuracy.
It's easy to figure out. You just have to have the numbers in front of you (and a calculator if you're lazy), and about 2 hours of free time.
...Which I don't since I'm an English teacher, not a high-paid analyst.
The thing about Windows is, you CAN avoid viruses without anti-virus software... but you have to be knowledgeable and spend the time educating yourself and keeping on top of the latest flaws and patches and workarounds. Most people will never become that kind of expert--and most people don't want to have to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luca Boccaccini
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.
Very true. However, don't forget that rev A issues are not an Apple problem--the same issue applies to any product (even cars) from any company. It's simple math: no matter how many people have tested your product, MORE will test it when it goes on sale. And the more people test, the more problems will be found. Then they will be fixed in future revisions. So mathematically, rev A products will always have more problems, no matter what Apple does. In addition, rev A problems are often a bad components (plastic, capacitors, etc.) from some supplier--and nothing can be done to make that impossible. All Apple can do is repair those issues when they happen, and switch to a better component.
Now, SOME issues are bad engineering, and Apple could work on those for sure.
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.
Opera and Firefox, in particular, have been shown to have the same problems.
There is a good article in InfoWorld by Tom Yager on some reasons why MS is more subject to these problems than the Mac OS. It's a good read.
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.
Lets do a pro con
Hmm, yes, macs are easier to maintain but the software for macs are more expensive or did that not factor into your equation of "cost of ownership"?. I would not argue the cost of ownership too strongly if I were you.
Macs have fewer software (which figures into cost of ownership). Running windows on a mac so you can get the software not available for the mac means you pay for two operating systems (which figures into cost of ownership). Even if software exist for the mac, the pc version is usually cheaper. For a business, Mac technicians (network specialist, help desk, etc) cost more than PC brethren cause they are fewer than them.
The Cost of ownership is a very complex equation, far too complex for a discussion group.
Umm...... I think most people here missed the point of Munster's analysis.
He's not saying it is more expensive to own a Mac. And he's not dissing the Mac at all.
He's praising Apple for generating more revenue per customer than Microsoft. And in his analysis of Apple (we only get AI's summary), this means more profitability. (This is not always the case, but it is in Apple's case). This analysis is meant to encourage people to invest in AAPL.
It's not a particularly startling insight. Most Mac users have known that we've upgraded around 4 times while XP has been out.
If you think about it, this actually means it's much more expensive to own Windows. For instance, my wife's mother bought a computer in 01. When XP came out they bought a box of it retail. They then bought another Dell (and another copy of XP) for her husband. in 03, the both bought new computers (two more copies of XP). Her husband bought another comp last summer (another copy), and she got a new one for Xmas (another copy). That makes six times that they've bought the same operating system (even if they didn't realize it).
It's not that Munster is wrong; it's that it's very obvious, and a not a particularly useful metric (if you want to sound intelligent about financial matters, it's always better to use a word like "metric" rather than a mundane one like "measure" ). It's not necessarily useful because it is a measure of the potential revenue per customer ("revenue opportunities," if you will) in a static, one-dimentional world (where people's computers last forever). It's an relatively complex calculation to figure out something that is not necessarily related to the real world.
A simpler calculation would have given him (and us) a more accurate and useful number:
[XP revenue in a given year]
divided by
[estimated discrete number of XP users that year, not including pirates]
compare this number to
[OSX revenue in a given year]
divided by
[estimated discrete number of OSX users that year, not including pirates]
Then determine which company generates more revenue per customer in the real world. This automatically takes into account the multiplicity of ways in which people (legitimately) get their individual copies of an OS. Then repeat this calculation for several years, and then you'd start to see a trend, allowing you to figure out what happens to each company's revenue when an update is released. Do it on a quarterly basis, and then break it down for different businesses (consumer, corporate, government, education, etc.) to see their different behaviors, and you'd really have some tools that would allow you to predict the future revenue numbers with a pretty good deal of accuracy.
It's easy to figure out. You just have to have the numbers in front of you (and a calculator if you're lazy), and about 2 hours of free time.
...Which I don't since I'm an English teacher, not a high-paid analyst.
Yours is probably the most intelligent response to Mr Munster I have seen. I have no idea how Mr Munster did his analysis but his use of "revenue per user" is very misleading if you think of it the way you presented your counterargument. As you noted, even though XP was not updated, XP revenue per user still rose. The only problem I see with your analysis is that buying extra computer is not equivalent to upgrading operating system. Imagine a mac household that did the exact same thing. Not only would they have bought a new mac at the same frequency as the windows household, but then, they would have had to turn around and upgrade that mac, thus giving apple multiple revenue on the same computer. I suspect that is why Mr Munster kept his analysis simple although your counter argument certainly shows it's complex. (i am speaking after reading a summary of his analysis. It's entirely possible that Mr Munster took that into account and found it a neglible factor.. ie, mac users buy additional computers at same rate as windows users, thus cancelling out the effect).
Hmm, yes, macs are easier to maintain but the software for macs are more expensive or did that not factor into your equation of "cost of ownership"?. I would not argue the cost of ownership too strongly if I were you.
Quote:
Macs have fewer software (which figures into cost of ownership).
Okay, unless you're going to claim that more software drives down the avg price of the *competent* app, this is nonsensical. Ten Yugos do not a BMW make.
Quote:
Running windows on a mac so you can get the software not available for the mac means you pay for two operating systems (which figures into cost of ownership).
And a small fraction of users will need that.
Quote:
Even if software exist for the mac, the pc version is usually cheaper.
Not in my experience, but *shrug*. I mean, here you're assuming *only* cross-platform apps, not comparable apps of equal functionality. In my experience, I can usually find a high-quality replacement app on the Mac for much less than a Windows counterpart. What is considered 'pro' level on Windows is considered barely above shareware on the Mac in many cases. What's Visio running these days, price wise? OmniGraffle kicks its butt, IMO, and is significantly cheaper. Examples exist both ways, so it really evens out from my perspective.
Quote:
For a business, Mac technicians (network specialist, help desk, etc) cost more than PC brethren cause they are fewer than them.
And fewer of them needed...
Quote:
The Cost of ownership is a very complex equation, far too complex for a discussion group.
*shrug* We're obviously not going to convince each other, so what the hell.
Can we just all agree that it sucks to have these paid updates pushed down our throats every twelve to eighteen months? Sure, you can choose not to buy them, but a lot of software ends up requiring the latest.
Can we just all agree that it sucks to have these paid updates pushed down our throats every twelve to eighteen months? Sure, you can choose not to buy them, but a lot of software ends up requiring the latest.
Pushed down our throats? No software requires an update unless you CHOOSE to update the software to a newer version. Your current software doesn't stop running. And even if you do want to upgrade your software and not upgrade your OS, most apps WILL run on the previous OS.
And if an app DOES need a new OS it's because it uses new features. New features are why you pay for an upgraded app... or an upgraded OS. But you DON'T have to.
What's an example of an app you could not use at all without buying a new OS update? I'm sure it happens--and must have been aggravating for you--but it's not so commonplace as to be called pushing it down out throats. Not when the cost is $66 per year (18 months average, $99 shelf price at Amazon) AND optional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse
The Cost of ownership is a very complex equation, far too complex for a discussion group.
I think we can touch on some valid points nonetheless
But you're right--and here's a pretty in-depth analysis:
Hmm, yes, macs are easier to maintain but the software for macs are more expensive or did that not factor into your equation of "cost of ownership"?. I would not argue the cost of ownership too strongly if I were you.
Macs have fewer software (which figures into cost of ownership). Running windows on a mac so you can get the software not available for the mac means you pay for two operating systems (which figures into cost of ownership). Even if software exist for the mac, the pc version is usually cheaper. For a business, Mac technicians (network specialist, help desk, etc) cost more than PC brethren cause they are fewer than them.
The Cost of ownership is a very complex equation, far too complex for a discussion group.
Show us the pieces of software that you can compare the Mac and PC versions of as to price. What you are saying is simply not true on average. There will always be softwarte that is more expensive on either the PC or the Mac. But without a fair number of comparisons, it's just hearsay. And two or three carefully selected titles is not enough.
Show us price comparisons between Mac and PC service companies as well, while you're at it.
Let's also understand that MS has said, several times over the years, and just recently, that they have had NO intention of going this long between major OS upgrades.
Every MS OS upgrade since 95 has been late, some for more than a year, not including Vista, which will be at least 2.5 years late, and much reduced from what it should have been.
So, if MS was on time for all of their upgrades, Vista would have come out in 2001, and we would have seen two more after that, with the second coming out just about now.
Therefore, to look at the two platforms and say that Mac users pay an OS tax isn't fair. It's just that MS has been so far behind on its schelules that it hasn't been able to "tax" its users at the same rate.
But, if anyone has been paying attention to what's been going on at MS lately, they would have noticed that Ballmer has said that Vista is the last time that MS will attempt such a large upgrade all at once, and that after Vista is out, their next upgrades will be smaller, and come much sooner.
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!
Comments
I would hardly call this guy a 'Windroid' or 'Linuxhead'.
Got any data to back that up?
Google is your friend.
Apple sees more profit per OS user than Microsoft
alternate headline, for this user-oriented website:
"Apple's MAC OS X costs users more than twice as much as Windows"
He is an analyst trying to convince INVESTORS that Apple is a good investment.
What he is trying to say is that every switcher is another customer that will potentially be buying future upgrades.
Apple has grown its userbase considerably since Tiger was released.
Apple's software revenue will spike following the release of Leopard.
His calculations are flawed but his conclusion is correct.
What is this idiot doing! Mr. Munster is trying desperately to keep the myth strong that Apple is Way more expensive than PCs. And that the tremendous delays in Microsoft's ability to release a working OS, is actually because M$ are a bunch of good guys looking out for our spending concerns! WoW! This makes Shaw WU look like a genius! I wonder how much M$ paid Munster to say that useless crap. Or they just told him they would "make him go away" if he did not comply.
to raise your rant above the idiotic level, please specify what FACTS you are challenging.
He is saying that because Apple offers more frequent (worry about the exact details on your own) upgrades to Mac OS X, that they are reaping more frequent revenue spikes. That's all he meant. He never said, "Apple sucks because they release OS upgrades too often and all those Mac users are just sheep. Get a real computer!"
Try reading these analyst posts with their intended purpose in mind.
He's not saying it is more expensive to own a Mac. And he's not dissing the Mac at all.
He's praising Apple for generating more revenue per customer than Microsoft. And in his analysis of Apple (we only get AI's summary), this means more profitability. (This is not always the case, but it is in Apple's case). This analysis is meant to encourage people to invest in AAPL.
It's not a particularly startling insight. Most Mac users have known that we've upgraded around 4 times while XP has been out.
If you think about it, this actually means it's much more expensive to own Windows. For instance, my wife's mother bought a computer in 01. When XP came out they bought a box of it retail. They then bought another Dell (and another copy of XP) for her husband. in 03, the both bought new computers (two more copies of XP). Her husband bought another comp last summer (another copy), and she got a new one for Xmas (another copy). That makes six times that they've bought the same operating system (even if they didn't realize it).
It's not that Munster is wrong; it's that it's very obvious, and a not a particularly useful metric (if you want to sound intelligent about financial matters, it's always better to use a word like "metric" rather than a mundane one like "measure"
A simpler calculation would have given him (and us) a more accurate and useful number:
[XP revenue in a given year]
divided by
[estimated discrete number of XP users that year, not including pirates]
compare this number to
[OSX revenue in a given year]
divided by
[estimated discrete number of OSX users that year, not including pirates]
Then determine which company generates more revenue per customer in the real world. This automatically takes into account the multiplicity of ways in which people (legitimately) get their individual copies of an OS. Then repeat this calculation for several years, and then you'd start to see a trend, allowing you to figure out what happens to each company's revenue when an update is released. Do it on a quarterly basis, and then break it down for different businesses (consumer, corporate, government, education, etc.) to see their different behaviors, and you'd really have some tools that would allow you to predict the future revenue numbers with a pretty good deal of accuracy.
It's easy to figure out. You just have to have the numbers in front of you (and a calculator if you're lazy), and about 2 hours of free time.
...Which I don't since I'm an English teacher, not a high-paid analyst.
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.
Very true. However, don't forget that rev A issues are not an Apple problem--the same issue applies to any product (even cars) from any company. It's simple math: no matter how many people have tested your product, MORE will test it when it goes on sale. And the more people test, the more problems will be found. Then they will be fixed in future revisions. So mathematically, rev A products will always have more problems, no matter what Apple does. In addition, rev A problems are often a bad components (plastic, capacitors, etc.) from some supplier--and nothing can be done to make that impossible. All Apple can do is repair those issues when they happen, and switch to a better component.
Now, SOME issues are bad engineering, and Apple could work on those for sure.
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.
Opera and Firefox, in particular, have been shown to have the same problems.
There is a good article in InfoWorld by Tom Yager on some reasons why MS is more subject to these problems than the Mac OS. It's a good read.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterpri...dows_inhe.html
Google is your friend.
Sometimes.
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.
Lets do a pro con
Hmm, yes, macs are easier to maintain but the software for macs are more expensive or did that not factor into your equation of "cost of ownership"?. I would not argue the cost of ownership too strongly if I were you.
Macs have fewer software (which figures into cost of ownership). Running windows on a mac so you can get the software not available for the mac means you pay for two operating systems (which figures into cost of ownership). Even if software exist for the mac, the pc version is usually cheaper. For a business, Mac technicians (network specialist, help desk, etc) cost more than PC brethren cause they are fewer than them.
The Cost of ownership is a very complex equation, far too complex for a discussion group.
Umm...... I think most people here missed the point of Munster's analysis.
He's not saying it is more expensive to own a Mac. And he's not dissing the Mac at all.
He's praising Apple for generating more revenue per customer than Microsoft. And in his analysis of Apple (we only get AI's summary), this means more profitability. (This is not always the case, but it is in Apple's case). This analysis is meant to encourage people to invest in AAPL.
It's not a particularly startling insight. Most Mac users have known that we've upgraded around 4 times while XP has been out.
If you think about it, this actually means it's much more expensive to own Windows. For instance, my wife's mother bought a computer in 01. When XP came out they bought a box of it retail. They then bought another Dell (and another copy of XP) for her husband. in 03, the both bought new computers (two more copies of XP). Her husband bought another comp last summer (another copy), and she got a new one for Xmas (another copy). That makes six times that they've bought the same operating system (even if they didn't realize it).
It's not that Munster is wrong; it's that it's very obvious, and a not a particularly useful metric (if you want to sound intelligent about financial matters, it's always better to use a word like "metric" rather than a mundane one like "measure"
A simpler calculation would have given him (and us) a more accurate and useful number:
[XP revenue in a given year]
divided by
[estimated discrete number of XP users that year, not including pirates]
compare this number to
[OSX revenue in a given year]
divided by
[estimated discrete number of OSX users that year, not including pirates]
Then determine which company generates more revenue per customer in the real world. This automatically takes into account the multiplicity of ways in which people (legitimately) get their individual copies of an OS. Then repeat this calculation for several years, and then you'd start to see a trend, allowing you to figure out what happens to each company's revenue when an update is released. Do it on a quarterly basis, and then break it down for different businesses (consumer, corporate, government, education, etc.) to see their different behaviors, and you'd really have some tools that would allow you to predict the future revenue numbers with a pretty good deal of accuracy.
It's easy to figure out. You just have to have the numbers in front of you (and a calculator if you're lazy), and about 2 hours of free time.
...Which I don't since I'm an English teacher, not a high-paid analyst.
Yours is probably the most intelligent response to Mr Munster I have seen. I have no idea how Mr Munster did his analysis but his use of "revenue per user" is very misleading if you think of it the way you presented your counterargument. As you noted, even though XP was not updated, XP revenue per user still rose. The only problem I see with your analysis is that buying extra computer is not equivalent to upgrading operating system. Imagine a mac household that did the exact same thing. Not only would they have bought a new mac at the same frequency as the windows household, but then, they would have had to turn around and upgrade that mac, thus giving apple multiple revenue on the same computer. I suspect that is why Mr Munster kept his analysis simple although your counter argument certainly shows it's complex. (i am speaking after reading a summary of his analysis. It's entirely possible that Mr Munster took that into account and found it a neglible factor.. ie, mac users buy additional computers at same rate as windows users, thus cancelling out the effect).
Hmm, yes, macs are easier to maintain but the software for macs are more expensive or did that not factor into your equation of "cost of ownership"?. I would not argue the cost of ownership too strongly if I were you.
Macs have fewer software (which figures into cost of ownership).
Okay, unless you're going to claim that more software drives down the avg price of the *competent* app, this is nonsensical. Ten Yugos do not a BMW make.
Running windows on a mac so you can get the software not available for the mac means you pay for two operating systems (which figures into cost of ownership).
And a small fraction of users will need that.
Even if software exist for the mac, the pc version is usually cheaper.
Not in my experience, but *shrug*. I mean, here you're assuming *only* cross-platform apps, not comparable apps of equal functionality. In my experience, I can usually find a high-quality replacement app on the Mac for much less than a Windows counterpart. What is considered 'pro' level on Windows is considered barely above shareware on the Mac in many cases. What's Visio running these days, price wise? OmniGraffle kicks its butt, IMO, and is significantly cheaper. Examples exist both ways, so it really evens out from my perspective.
For a business, Mac technicians (network specialist, help desk, etc) cost more than PC brethren cause they are fewer than them.
And fewer of them needed...
The Cost of ownership is a very complex equation, far too complex for a discussion group.
*shrug* We're obviously not going to convince each other, so what the hell.
Google is your friend.
Great argument.
Can we just all agree that it sucks to have these paid updates pushed down our throats every twelve to eighteen months? Sure, you can choose not to buy them, but a lot of software ends up requiring the latest.
Pushed down our throats? No software requires an update unless you CHOOSE to update the software to a newer version. Your current software doesn't stop running. And even if you do want to upgrade your software and not upgrade your OS, most apps WILL run on the previous OS.
And if an app DOES need a new OS it's because it uses new features. New features are why you pay for an upgraded app... or an upgraded OS. But you DON'T have to.
What's an example of an app you could not use at all without buying a new OS update? I'm sure it happens--and must have been aggravating for you--but it's not so commonplace as to be called pushing it down out throats. Not when the cost is $66 per year (18 months average, $99 shelf price at Amazon) AND optional.
The Cost of ownership is a very complex equation, far too complex for a discussion group.
I think we can touch on some valid points nonetheless
But you're right--and here's a pretty in-depth analysis:
http://securityawareness.blogspot.co...tions-and.html
Lets do a pro con
Hmm, yes, macs are easier to maintain but the software for macs are more expensive or did that not factor into your equation of "cost of ownership"?. I would not argue the cost of ownership too strongly if I were you.
Macs have fewer software (which figures into cost of ownership). Running windows on a mac so you can get the software not available for the mac means you pay for two operating systems (which figures into cost of ownership). Even if software exist for the mac, the pc version is usually cheaper. For a business, Mac technicians (network specialist, help desk, etc) cost more than PC brethren cause they are fewer than them.
The Cost of ownership is a very complex equation, far too complex for a discussion group.
Show us the pieces of software that you can compare the Mac and PC versions of as to price. What you are saying is simply not true on average. There will always be softwarte that is more expensive on either the PC or the Mac. But without a fair number of comparisons, it's just hearsay. And two or three carefully selected titles is not enough.
Show us price comparisons between Mac and PC service companies as well, while you're at it.
Every MS OS upgrade since 95 has been late, some for more than a year, not including Vista, which will be at least 2.5 years late, and much reduced from what it should have been.
So, if MS was on time for all of their upgrades, Vista would have come out in 2001, and we would have seen two more after that, with the second coming out just about now.
Therefore, to look at the two platforms and say that Mac users pay an OS tax isn't fair. It's just that MS has been so far behind on its schelules that it hasn't been able to "tax" its users at the same rate.
But, if anyone has been paying attention to what's been going on at MS lately, they would have noticed that Ballmer has said that Vista is the last time that MS will attempt such a large upgrade all at once, and that after Vista is out, their next upgrades will be smaller, and come much sooner.
Sounds just like Apple, doesn't it?
Not that Vista is quite as "large" as they had once planned
The Chinese have a name for it:
"The torture of many small cuts."
It seems to be appropriate, don't you think?
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!
Red, white and blue? Hmmm. Could mean FRANCE!