It's a tough call for a company. Put in all that work on the Mac product, and get no money for it.
Would you do that if it were your company? I would have to think hard about it.
I guess I wasn't making myself quite clear enough.
My proclomation is that many PCrs would love to move to Macs but unfortunately the addtional cost of outlaying for the Mac version of their favorite softwares is killing the deal. I would also imagine that many would be enticed by the possibility of having both versions on the same machine, and being able to vet the software themselves.
As such, If it were my decision, I would make the following offerings available :
Single sets of both versions, say for example @ $400 each
A Box Set to include versions for both OSs using a single license key on the same machine, say for example @ $500
A choice to upgrade a single or combo set
or
Switch their current single license at the upgrade price
For Adobe, Microsoft and Quark, the opportunities becomes highly profitable, i.e., get their current users who haven't upgraded yet to do so, and/or sell both versions to the same customer.
For current users, an opportunity to continue with their choice of software without loosing everything they had previously invested in.
one of the problem in world wide growth for apple is fixed price ( 1$= x foreign currency) not many people can afford when $1000 converts into some big sum ...
i bet in the world wide Apple numbers there could be lots of mac minis and low end iMacs and Mac Books.
i do not know how HP, Dell, Acer and other big companies price their producs in different regions.
but one thing apple products are identical in all the regions (the specs are same)
That is probably why Apple does not rate worldwide. Unfortunately worldwide, especially in Asia, is where the big growth is happening.
Considering that Apple manufactures nearly all its products now in China, it seems remiss that they don't have at least a reasonable share of that huge and growing market as well as the Indian market.
After some respite from the high prices , here in Australia, it is starting to look bad value yet again now as the US$ slowly sinks in the west. The tighter exchange rates we had 10 months ago are looking a lot less fair now that the $A approaches parity with the US$.
In compensation we seem to be get more and more frequent deals on Apple products. 10% with other equipment thrown in and mark downs on AppleCare or associated iPod purchases. The retailers have been sweetening the deal with genuine interest free periods, that made me buy my last iMac.
Is that just local or is it also happening in the States?
I guess I wasn't making myself quite clear enough.
My proclomation is that many PCrs would love to move to Macs but unfortunately the addtional cost of outlaying for the Mac version of their favorite softwares is killing the deal. I would also imagine that many would be enticed by the possibility of having both versions on the same machine, and being able to vet the software themselves.
As such, If it were my decision, I would make the following offerings available :
Single sets of both versions, say for example @ $400 each
A Box Set to include versions for both OSs using a single license key on the same machine, say for example @ $500
A choice to upgrade a single or combo set
or
Switch their current single license at the upgrade price
For Adobe, Microsoft and Quark, the opportunities becomes highly profitable, i.e., get their current users who haven't upgraded yet to do so, and/or sell both versions to the same customer.
For current users, an opportunity to continue with their choice of software without loosing everything they had previously invested in.
I understand what you're saying, I just don'r see it.
Companies stopped producing kits with both versions in the box some years ago. I don't see people upgrading because of it. If people want to upgrade, they will take that opportunity if they switch over anyway. If they don't want to spend more money on software, they won't do it.
If someone really wants to move to the Mac, as many are doing, then they take the plunge.
I can't see manufacturers making any more money, because I don't see enough people being persuaded enough by it to upgrade so they can move to the Mac. No doubt, a few will, but not enough.
It costs about the same to develop for the Mac as it does for the PC, without charging for that, they are effectively getting half as much for each version, while spending twice as much on development. More on support, advertising, etc. I think the ratio would be poor enough so that it would cost them money.
Allowing one to switch with an upgrade might be a better idea. I can go with that.
I understand what you're saying, I just don'r see it.
Companies stopped producing kits with both versions in the box some years ago. I don't see people upgrading because of it. If people want to upgrade, they will take that opportunity if they switch over anyway. If they don't want to spend more money on software, they won't do it.
If someone really wants to move to the Mac, as many are doing, then they take the plunge.
I can't see manufacturers making any more money, because I don't see enough people being persuaded enough by it to upgrade so they can move to the Mac. No doubt, a few will, but not enough.
It costs about the same to develop for the Mac as it does for the PC, without charging for that, they are effectively getting half as much for each version, while spending twice as much on development. More on support, advertising, etc. I think the ratio would be poor enough so that it would cost them money.
Allowing one to switch with an upgrade might be a better idea. I can go with that.
I have been using Mac since 1984 and can't remember too many if any that put both operating system verssions in the same box, with the exception of one.*
Certainly the likes of Adobe, Microsoft (Office) and Quark would lose nothing. Customers would still have the choice to upgrade either way. Some for sure would take advantage of having both if the combo price were right. And of course, those considering moving to the Mac environment would not have to pay the burden of doubling their software costs to make a full transition.
*That being FileMaker, another great Apple product.
I have been using Mac since 1984 and can't remember too many if any that put both operating system verssions in the same box, with the exception of one.*
*That being FileMaker, another great Apple product.
I have a legit copy of Photoshop 4 or 5 somewhere that included both platforms on the same CD. The Mac version isn't useful anymore, because it is for OS 9.
I have been using Mac since 1984 and can't remember too many if any that put both operating system verssions in the same box, with the exception of one.*
Certainly the likes of Adobe, Microsoft (Office) and Quark would lose nothing. Customers would still have the choice to upgrade either way. Some for sure would take advantage of having both if the combo price were right. And of course, those considering moving to the Mac environment would not have to pay the burden of doubling their software costs to make a full transition.
*That being FileMaker, another great Apple product.
Adobe had done it with Photoshop, and others, for a while when they moved over to Windows. There were a number of others, but I have to think about the names.
I have a legit copy of Photoshop 4 or 5 somewhere that included both platforms on the same CD. The Mac version isn't useful anymore, because it is for OS 9.
As I said, I can't remember "too many" that did.
The bottom line is that I have bought 2 full licensed copies each of Adobe CS and MS Office running on my Mac. One for Tiger and the other for Windows XP. However, I only had to buy one copy of FileMaker because it includes both OS versions with the same activation key.
Prior to the introduction of Boot Camp and Infusion, I had to buy a PC to create and cross develop for the two different OS's. Now my son is using the PC to play games.
Now that I have an Intel Mac, I haven't bothered, and don't intend, to upgrade Adobe CS or MS Office on the Windows side. I would if the costs to do so weren't double. I do know from my contacts in the graphic industry and my previous experience in my agency business, it was one or the other.
Since I can only use one application at a time, even though I can have them open on both OS's simultaneously and only on the same machine, I can't for any reason understand why other companies are not following Apple's FileMaker distribution strategy, particularly if the activation code could also be tied into the computers ID so that the application could not be activated on a two separate computers.
Certainly considering the current state of the economy and with the growing movement towards the Mac, such a cross-platform distribution strategy would interest not only the business community, but also, the educational arena, both of which I have vested interests in.
The bottom line is that I have bought 2 full licensed copies each of Adobe CS and MS Office running on my Mac. One for Tiger and the other for Windows XP. However, I only had to buy one copy of FileMaker because it includes both OS versions with the same activation key.
Prior to the introduction of Boot Camp and Infusion, I had to buy a PC to create and cross develop for the two different OS's. Now my son is using the PC to play games.
Now that I have an Intel Mac, I haven't bothered, and don't intend, to upgrade Adobe CS or MS Office on the Windows side. I would if the costs to do so weren't double. I do know from my contacts in the graphic industry and my previous experience in my agency business, it was one or the other.
Since I can only use one application at a time, even though I can have them open on both OS's simultaneously and only on the same machine, I can't for any reason understand why other companies are not following Apple's FileMaker distribution strategy, particularly if the activation code could also be tied into the computers ID so that the application could not be activated on a two separate computers.
Certainly considering the current state of the economy and with the growing movement towards the Mac, such a cross-platform distribution strategy would interest not only the business community, but also, the educational arena, both of which I have vested interests in.
You think it will give them an economic advantage, but obviously, they don't agree. The idea of selling software isn't to give the user the ability to pay less. There is no benefit to that for them. The fact that they don't offer this make more people buy when they need to move OS's than don't.
If you are a professional needing programs, you will buy the regardless. If you aren't, why should they supply them for free?
It does no company benefit when someone moves to a different OS. I'm quite sure that most would prefer to only develop for one OS, as the costs are far less.
Apple wants to get Filemaker out there, and they are willing to do this. most of the time, they even conceal that it is an Apple program, which is why it's sold under the Filemaker Inc. label.
Why don't you ask some manufacturers why they don;t do as you ask?
Since I can only use one application at a time, even though I can have them open on both OS's simultaneously and only on the same machine, I can't for any reason understand why other companies are not following Apple's FileMaker distribution strategy, particularly if the activation code could also be tied into the computers ID so that the application could not be activated on a two separate computers.
That's not good for a great many people, people that have a one copy on a desktop, and another on their laptop. That is what's behind Adobe decision to allow 2 activations on it's modern software.
Even then that creates issues for more than a few people. If you have used both activations, and you suffer a HD loss, you cannot activate again until you get a new activation number from Adobe. If your need for that number falls outside of Adobe business hours, you are out of luck. If you are migrating from to a new computer, you must de-activate while online, then be online with the new machine to re-activate.
This type of activation also prevents using the program from a cloned backup, becaue the activation number will not transfer to the backup, unless you are using backup software that does it block by block. That means not being able to use most full featured backup programs, and having to use CCC because it's the only program that does block by block, AFAIK.
I understand that companies want to restrict unauthorized use of their software, but the practice of doing it with a loss of customer service in the bargain is not the way that I favor. Putting roadblocks in the way of your customers is not going to win you any friends.
Comments
It's 1am and I can't think right
If Apple is 8.5 and Acer is 9.4-how is Apple higher?
It's 1am and I can't think right
For the US market Apple is 8.5 while Acer is 8.1. Worldwide Acer is 9.4 and Apple doesn't show in the top 5, which puts them somewhere below 4.4%.
For the US market Apple is 8.5 while Acer is 8.1. Worldwide Acer is 9.4 and Apple doesn't show in the top 5, which puts them somewhere below 4.4%.
Ah, this time, you beat me.
It's a tough call for a company. Put in all that work on the Mac product, and get no money for it.
Would you do that if it were your company? I would have to think hard about it.
I guess I wasn't making myself quite clear enough.
My proclomation is that many PCrs would love to move to Macs but unfortunately the addtional cost of outlaying for the Mac version of their favorite softwares is killing the deal. I would also imagine that many would be enticed by the possibility of having both versions on the same machine, and being able to vet the software themselves.
As such, If it were my decision, I would make the following offerings available :
- Single sets of both versions, say for example @ $400 each
- A Box Set to include versions for both OSs using a single license key on the same machine, say for example @ $500
- A choice to upgrade a single or combo set
- Switch their current single license at the upgrade price
For Adobe, Microsoft and Quark, the opportunities becomes highly profitable, i.e., get their current users who haven't upgraded yet to do so, and/or sell both versions to the same customer.or
For current users, an opportunity to continue with their choice of software without loosing everything they had previously invested in.
one of the problem in world wide growth for apple is fixed price ( 1$= x foreign currency) not many people can afford when $1000 converts into some big sum ...
i bet in the world wide Apple numbers there could be lots of mac minis and low end iMacs and Mac Books.
i do not know how HP, Dell, Acer and other big companies price their producs in different regions.
but one thing apple products are identical in all the regions (the specs are same)
That is probably why Apple does not rate worldwide. Unfortunately worldwide, especially in Asia, is where the big growth is happening.
Considering that Apple manufactures nearly all its products now in China, it seems remiss that they don't have at least a reasonable share of that huge and growing market as well as the Indian market.
After some respite from the high prices , here in Australia, it is starting to look bad value yet again now as the US$ slowly sinks in the west. The tighter exchange rates we had 10 months ago are looking a lot less fair now that the $A approaches parity with the US$.
In compensation we seem to be get more and more frequent deals on Apple products. 10% with other equipment thrown in and mark downs on AppleCare or associated iPod purchases. The retailers have been sweetening the deal with genuine interest free periods, that made me buy my last iMac.
Is that just local or is it also happening in the States?
I guess I wasn't making myself quite clear enough.
My proclomation is that many PCrs would love to move to Macs but unfortunately the addtional cost of outlaying for the Mac version of their favorite softwares is killing the deal. I would also imagine that many would be enticed by the possibility of having both versions on the same machine, and being able to vet the software themselves.
As such, If it were my decision, I would make the following offerings available :
- Single sets of both versions, say for example @ $400 each
- A Box Set to include versions for both OSs using a single license key on the same machine, say for example @ $500
- A choice to upgrade a single or combo set
- Switch their current single license at the upgrade price
For Adobe, Microsoft and Quark, the opportunities becomes highly profitable, i.e., get their current users who haven't upgraded yet to do so, and/or sell both versions to the same customer.or
For current users, an opportunity to continue with their choice of software without loosing everything they had previously invested in.
I understand what you're saying, I just don'r see it.
Companies stopped producing kits with both versions in the box some years ago. I don't see people upgrading because of it. If people want to upgrade, they will take that opportunity if they switch over anyway. If they don't want to spend more money on software, they won't do it.
If someone really wants to move to the Mac, as many are doing, then they take the plunge.
I can't see manufacturers making any more money, because I don't see enough people being persuaded enough by it to upgrade so they can move to the Mac. No doubt, a few will, but not enough.
It costs about the same to develop for the Mac as it does for the PC, without charging for that, they are effectively getting half as much for each version, while spending twice as much on development. More on support, advertising, etc. I think the ratio would be poor enough so that it would cost them money.
Allowing one to switch with an upgrade might be a better idea. I can go with that.
I understand what you're saying, I just don'r see it.
Companies stopped producing kits with both versions in the box some years ago. I don't see people upgrading because of it. If people want to upgrade, they will take that opportunity if they switch over anyway. If they don't want to spend more money on software, they won't do it.
If someone really wants to move to the Mac, as many are doing, then they take the plunge.
I can't see manufacturers making any more money, because I don't see enough people being persuaded enough by it to upgrade so they can move to the Mac. No doubt, a few will, but not enough.
It costs about the same to develop for the Mac as it does for the PC, without charging for that, they are effectively getting half as much for each version, while spending twice as much on development. More on support, advertising, etc. I think the ratio would be poor enough so that it would cost them money.
Allowing one to switch with an upgrade might be a better idea. I can go with that.
I have been using Mac since 1984 and can't remember too many if any that put both operating system verssions in the same box, with the exception of one.*
Certainly the likes of Adobe, Microsoft (Office) and Quark would lose nothing. Customers would still have the choice to upgrade either way. Some for sure would take advantage of having both if the combo price were right. And of course, those considering moving to the Mac environment would not have to pay the burden of doubling their software costs to make a full transition.
*That being FileMaker, another great Apple product.
I have been using Mac since 1984 and can't remember too many if any that put both operating system verssions in the same box, with the exception of one.*
*That being FileMaker, another great Apple product.
I have a legit copy of Photoshop 4 or 5 somewhere that included both platforms on the same CD. The Mac version isn't useful anymore, because it is for OS 9.
I have been using Mac since 1984 and can't remember too many if any that put both operating system verssions in the same box, with the exception of one.*
Certainly the likes of Adobe, Microsoft (Office) and Quark would lose nothing. Customers would still have the choice to upgrade either way. Some for sure would take advantage of having both if the combo price were right. And of course, those considering moving to the Mac environment would not have to pay the burden of doubling their software costs to make a full transition.
*That being FileMaker, another great Apple product.
Adobe had done it with Photoshop, and others, for a while when they moved over to Windows. There were a number of others, but I have to think about the names.
Ah, Jeff got me there. Away too long.
I have a legit copy of Photoshop 4 or 5 somewhere that included both platforms on the same CD. The Mac version isn't useful anymore, because it is for OS 9.
As I said, I can't remember "too many" that did.
The bottom line is that I have bought 2 full licensed copies each of Adobe CS and MS Office running on my Mac. One for Tiger and the other for Windows XP. However, I only had to buy one copy of FileMaker because it includes both OS versions with the same activation key.
Prior to the introduction of Boot Camp and Infusion, I had to buy a PC to create and cross develop for the two different OS's. Now my son is using the PC to play games.
Now that I have an Intel Mac, I haven't bothered, and don't intend, to upgrade Adobe CS or MS Office on the Windows side. I would if the costs to do so weren't double. I do know from my contacts in the graphic industry and my previous experience in my agency business, it was one or the other.
Since I can only use one application at a time, even though I can have them open on both OS's simultaneously and only on the same machine, I can't for any reason understand why other companies are not following Apple's FileMaker distribution strategy, particularly if the activation code could also be tied into the computers ID so that the application could not be activated on a two separate computers.
Certainly considering the current state of the economy and with the growing movement towards the Mac, such a cross-platform distribution strategy would interest not only the business community, but also, the educational arena, both of which I have vested interests in.
As I said, I can't remember "too many" that did.
The bottom line is that I have bought 2 full licensed copies each of Adobe CS and MS Office running on my Mac. One for Tiger and the other for Windows XP. However, I only had to buy one copy of FileMaker because it includes both OS versions with the same activation key.
Prior to the introduction of Boot Camp and Infusion, I had to buy a PC to create and cross develop for the two different OS's. Now my son is using the PC to play games.
Now that I have an Intel Mac, I haven't bothered, and don't intend, to upgrade Adobe CS or MS Office on the Windows side. I would if the costs to do so weren't double. I do know from my contacts in the graphic industry and my previous experience in my agency business, it was one or the other.
Since I can only use one application at a time, even though I can have them open on both OS's simultaneously and only on the same machine, I can't for any reason understand why other companies are not following Apple's FileMaker distribution strategy, particularly if the activation code could also be tied into the computers ID so that the application could not be activated on a two separate computers.
Certainly considering the current state of the economy and with the growing movement towards the Mac, such a cross-platform distribution strategy would interest not only the business community, but also, the educational arena, both of which I have vested interests in.
You think it will give them an economic advantage, but obviously, they don't agree. The idea of selling software isn't to give the user the ability to pay less. There is no benefit to that for them. The fact that they don't offer this make more people buy when they need to move OS's than don't.
If you are a professional needing programs, you will buy the regardless. If you aren't, why should they supply them for free?
It does no company benefit when someone moves to a different OS. I'm quite sure that most would prefer to only develop for one OS, as the costs are far less.
Apple wants to get Filemaker out there, and they are willing to do this. most of the time, they even conceal that it is an Apple program, which is why it's sold under the Filemaker Inc. label.
Why don't you ask some manufacturers why they don;t do as you ask?
Apple should thank Vista for the current situation. PC sales are down all over.
PC sales did very well around the world in general, rising 15%. In the US is was only 5%, but thats mostly due to the economic situation, not Vista.
Since I can only use one application at a time, even though I can have them open on both OS's simultaneously and only on the same machine, I can't for any reason understand why other companies are not following Apple's FileMaker distribution strategy, particularly if the activation code could also be tied into the computers ID so that the application could not be activated on a two separate computers.
That's not good for a great many people, people that have a one copy on a desktop, and another on their laptop. That is what's behind Adobe decision to allow 2 activations on it's modern software.
Even then that creates issues for more than a few people. If you have used both activations, and you suffer a HD loss, you cannot activate again until you get a new activation number from Adobe. If your need for that number falls outside of Adobe business hours, you are out of luck. If you are migrating from to a new computer, you must de-activate while online, then be online with the new machine to re-activate.
This type of activation also prevents using the program from a cloned backup, becaue the activation number will not transfer to the backup, unless you are using backup software that does it block by block. That means not being able to use most full featured backup programs, and having to use CCC because it's the only program that does block by block, AFAIK.
I understand that companies want to restrict unauthorized use of their software, but the practice of doing it with a loss of customer service in the bargain is not the way that I favor. Putting roadblocks in the way of your customers is not going to win you any friends.