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

1235718

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 343
    tadunnetadunne Posts: 175member
    Apple are just not in the low end market and you know what I'm glad..



    Being in the low end market will increase market share but won't increase their profit, it will only add to their support costs and therefore could reduce profits in the long term and reduce everyones overall mac experience as they try and reduce the support costs.



    Most PC manufacturers have forgotten it's better to sell less for more than sell more for less..and they are paying for it.. economies or scale don't work when theres so many people making the same thing. It only works for the apple with iPod because they own the market.



    I don't think that if apple did make a low end machine they could achieve an monopoly as the world it just too invested in windows. 10-20% is the sweet spot for Apple.
  • Reply 82 of 343
    elliots11elliots11 Posts: 270member
    OS X seems to run more efficiently on the same hardware, so you get more speed from equivalent hardware vs. windows. Sometimes OSX gets even faster speed on slower hardware than Windows. That's worth some money. The simplicity and lack of problems is worth some money, and the design is definitely worth a bit. Is it worth what they're charging? I don't know, and since there's really no competition I can't say.



    One thing is for sure, Apple does overcharge on some things, and if they could rein that in a little bit, I'd sure appreciate it and buy more stuff. Not exactly laptop or desktop related, but look what they're charging for this plug to usb iphone charging cube:



    http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB...mco=MjQzNTIxNw



    It's $30 for an accessory that should cost maybe $6. This is the type of thing that, Mac evangelist I may be, I can't really justify to anyone. And it reduces switchers.
  • Reply 83 of 343
    shookstershookster Posts: 113member
    Quote:

    Microsoft has paid one analyst to create a report that portrays Windows PCs as less expensive



    If they really wanted a fair and reasoned comparison, they would have asked him to write a report comparing the price differences of comparable PCs and Macs. But since they asked him to write it with the conclusion already pre-established, the report is entirely worthless.
  • Reply 84 of 343
    People still fail to recognise the usefulness of a multi OS machine.
  • Reply 85 of 343
    nizynizy Posts: 24member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tigerpro View Post


    Unfortunately for Microsoft, is that they do not realize the popularity of the Mac has nothing to do with Apple's marketing (that only helps with exposure). Most switchers, according to what I have observed, have been "converted" by word of mouth or hands on experience with another Apple product (iPod, iPhone, etc.). Those forces aren't going to be swayed by these kinds of generic commercials.



    You hit the nail on the head there mate! Its no coincidence that rising Mac sales follow on from the enormous success of the iPod and more recently the iPhone. Some of my friends are iPod owners that have been converted to Macs solely because of their experience with the iPod!



    As for the ads/report, they are completely ridiculous and biased toward MS and their partners. The addition of mac items that don't appear on the PC side is just stupid. So a Mac user has to buy office (and upgrade it) yet a PC user doesn't? Maybe he expects the PC user to illegally download it?



    MS seems to be advertising themselves as the cheap alternative. The problem is that Apple offers a far superior product, which is why there's the so called "Apple Tax". Its like MS is a Hyundai and Apple is a Mercedes - the Hyundai is most likely a cheaper car, does most of what you want it to, but if you want the better quality (better engineering, more features, style, comfort etc) you go for the Mercedes! And of course that Mercedes costs a premium too just like Apple.
  • Reply 86 of 343
    imamboimambo Posts: 2member
    Since I first used my buddy's Mac Mini back in 2007 in order to record some music with Garage Band, I have been impressed with the quality of engineering put into such a small tool.



    For this reason I went out to reach several Apple/Mac professionals in order to learn more about Apple desktops, laptops and servers in general, and how they could be used to replace Windows PCs in both personal/home and work/office environments.



    I consistently encountered this situation: when challenged with technical performance questions, Apple/Mac representatives and consultants became quite defensive, impatient and were not able to produce consistent statistics/details for the performance of Mac Minis, iMacs and MacBook Pros.. They suggested I just go ahead and purchase the equipment and then figure it out on my own whether they would work for me.



    The explanation I was able to obtain from them was that Macs work very well with whatever they were designed to work with in the first place, and using other applications/hardware was basically a hit or miss, depending on the third-party software or hardware vendor. I only found one gentleman - whom I understand used to work as a programmer for Apple and now has his own consulting business - who had the patience and was willing to answer all my questions and demonstrate the tool's capabilities and limitations.



    What I got from these experiences is that Macs in general are affordable, great quality low to mid-level "workstations", with some built-in flexibility, are somewhat expandable, and seem to be low-maintenance.



    After going through the aforementioned experience and because I have been involved with Windows PCs for many years, non-computer-professional people do come to me asking for recommendations on what to buy new or upgrade their existing computers to.



    When they ask me "what about a Mac?", I tell them: "first I would like to ask you what are you planning on using your new computer for," and most of the time I get: "I want something fast for going online, chatting, web-browsing, watching online videos, keeping track of my pictures and videos, word processing and some basic games." I tell them that they cannot go wrong by purchasing a MacBook, a Mac Mini, or an iMac - with some minimum specs - according to their budget and ambition.



    These people go running to check prices online or to the Apple Store, Micro Center or Best Buy, and some call me all excited from the store and tell me they found the Mac's I suggested, and they make the purchase right there and then, if they can afford it. Others tell me over the phone that the rep at the store showed them a "nicer looking"/"faster"/"bigger screen" Windows-based computer for about the same price they would pay for the Mac, which would accomplish at least the same as the Mac.



    In the end, brand name tax or not, in my experience, most people I have come across just get the tool they can afford, can at least perform the minimum tasks they expect, and accomplish it in the most comfortable manner available within their budget.



    Now, regarding my own ambition, I have my sights set on the first 17" MacBook Pro with Nehalem processor that becomes available. I will likely run Windows 7 as my primary OS in order to use all the pro software I already own for PC, which has been working fine for me these past couple of years on my not-so-solid Dell Latitude running Windows Vista. I like the expected quality and performance of the MacBook Pro's components, design, size, weight, features and feel. I only wish they had the option of a graphite case instead of the metal.



    I just wanted to share this with everyone because the impression I get is that most posts generalize the situation in favor or against one or the other. I know it is human nature that each one of us wants to deliver the definitive opinion/answer to a problem/situation, but maybe we should each strive to stick to specific first-hand personal experience instances, which, to my thinking, can benefit those readers who need it most, so they can make up their own mind.



    I believe we will all benefit positively from all of these marketing wars.



    Not a sermon, just an idea.



    Cheers!
  • Reply 87 of 343
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    3D apps?



    You mean GAMES. GAMES aren't "3D apps."



    Sorry, most Mac users could care less about Crysis. Some of us have outgrown them.



    Macs were BORN to run Aperture, Final Cut Pro, and all the Pro grade "3D Apps" out there. Macs run all the graphics-intensive apps we need. And they are the industry standard. Macs are all about 3D apps.



    no, silly mac biggot, some of us use and or support users of real apps, CAD packages, AfterEffects, hell, even 3dsmax
  • Reply 88 of 343
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,744member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Boogerman2000 View Post


    I'm a Mac guy but I find these ads to be very effective, no? Think again my Apple brothers, these ads are targeting the majority.



    Since when was the majority ever part of Apple's Mac demographic?
  • Reply 89 of 343
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    3D apps?



    You mean GAMES. GAMES aren't "3D apps."



    Sorry, most Mac users could care less about Crysis. Some of us have outgrown them.



    Macs were BORN to run Aperture, Final Cut Pro, and all the Pro grade "3D Apps" out there. Macs run all the graphics-intensive apps we need. And they are the industry standard. Macs are all about 3D apps.



    Do you even know what "3D" means?



  • Reply 90 of 343
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by meeksdigital View Post


    The "Windows - Life without walls" thing still has me really confused - how the f*ck do you have windows if you don't have walls? Idiots...



    Life without walls is Life without restrictions or Life without boundaries. But then your just being an idiot.



    The funny thing, as idiotic as the adverts are they have won on two points. Number one, everyone including every apple blog/forum is talking about them. I mean, its great viral marketing to keep discussing them. Now next time some mac users go shopping they may have point number two nagging at them.



    Number two is the value of PCs. This Sony Vaio FW is a great laptop with ATI 3650 (comparable to the Nvidia 9600) is scable upto 2.9 Ghz and 8GB of Ram. Comes with an optional large 8 hours battery (5.5 hour default). Comes with 1920x1080 screen and Blu-ray. Hell a Blu-ray drive for a Mac will set you back like $400... the base on www.sonystyle.com which comes with free Blu-ray is only $839. Even if I go all the way upto 2.9 Ghz (the base is 2.0 Ghz) I am still only $1699. So the value is extremely clear if you are in the market for a 16" or 17" laptop. Is Mac OS X worth over $1000? Hell you could get a Mac Mini and still come out better...



    So we as Apple users really should just ignore it... attacking it makes us look elitist and just further gives more free publicity.



    Apple needs to decide if they want to continue to be a premium brand and how to market it. Or honestly I think they could come down in price.
  • Reply 91 of 343
    tadunnetadunne Posts: 175member
    on a related point..



    Bought my macbook about 3 years ago for about 700 quid. Sold it on ebay for 400 quid. oh so it's cost me 100 quid a year, not bad..
  • Reply 92 of 343
    kabkab Posts: 1member
    Yep, and what about the time cost of recreating lost documents when Windows crashes and you lose everything? Have to deal with Windows at work, but I'm smart...got a mac at home and have never lost a document!!
  • Reply 93 of 343
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KAB View Post


    Yep, and what about the time cost of recreating lost documents when Windows crashes and you lose everything?



    Exactly! Because Macs never crash, and their hard drives never fail!!!11!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KAB View Post


    but I'm smart...



  • Reply 94 of 343
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,744member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wilco View Post


    Exactly! Because Macs never crash, and their hard drives never fail!!!11!











    Taken for all in all . . . there is no comparison whatsoever between a Windows PC and a Mac running OS X in terms of stability.
  • Reply 95 of 343
    wilcowilco Posts: 985member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Taken for all in all . . . there is no comparison whatsoever between a Windows PC and a Mac running OS X in terms of stability.



    Coming from the guy who thinks FCP is a 3D app...
  • Reply 96 of 343
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    PC's cheaper than Macs.



    Whodathunkit.



    Doesn't get me hot to buy a PC right now.



    I will trudge through with the better user experience, the superiority of the iLife suite, and the ability to run Windows if I absolutely have to.



    It will be tough but I can do it.
  • Reply 97 of 343
    In the last table in Year 3 both machines get an ATI Radeon HD4870, why does the PC one cost $260 and the Apple one cost $350 ?
  • Reply 98 of 343
    Microsoft's Apple Tax post is just pathetic.
  • Reply 99 of 343
    akhomerunakhomerun Posts: 386member
    This is all more MS spin of course...



    I'd like to point out that there's more of a Microsoft tax than anything. If I want a PC with Linux installed on it, unless I get a specific Linux model (limiting my choices to less than what Apple offers), part of the purchase price of my computer goes directly to Microsoft even though I don't want to use Windows at all.



    That's what I call a Microsoft tax.



    I don't see how they can justify spending way more money on peripherals for the mac as an "Apple tax."



    Finally, I really really don't understand why they are trying to market Windows based PCs as the cheaper option. Everyone knows that Windows PCs are cheaper than Macs, but more and more consumers are feeling like the extra cost of a Mac is justified because they are looking for a quality machine.



    Microsoft really needs a new ad agency.
  • Reply 100 of 343
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 1,875member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dlux View Post


    And to a certain extent, I'm glad they buy Windows. Let Microsoft enjoy their patronage, and all that comes with it.



    The funny thing is, Microsoft already has them as customers! They're afraid of losing them. Most people who do their homework and are willing to spend over $1000 on a computer, usually do in fact choose Macs. A study was done a while ago that found 60% of computers sold over $1000 are Macs.



    Furthermore, most people don't want to lug around big-ass laptops. 12" - 13" sized screens are perfect for casual, consumer oriented computer use. These ads portray bigger screens as being better, but they make the entire computer bigger as well. Bigger mobile device does not equate to better unless there's a specific need for it. (In all these ads, Microsoft seems to push bigger screens... do you think they're also trying to keep people from buying netbooks as well?)



    Another thing, doesn't Microsoft have mobile users to worry about? Why are they worried about Macs when they're getting clobbered by Apple, RIM, and Nokia (and soon Android) in the mobile space.
Sign In or Register to comment.