Skip to main content

When did Macs become cost competitive?

Well, actually they haven't, but Mac software is. No, it's more accurate to say Mac software is kicking Windows ass.

Microsoft has a pricing plan for Vista that can charitably be described as a "scheme". It also doesn't make a lick of sense to me. To make matters worse, the reality is that if/when you buy a copy of the software you get all versions on your DVD. Your activation code determines which version installs, that's all. What this means is that at any time you can pay for an "upgrade" and unlock additional "features".

What this means is that MS is leveraging their vast majority share of the operating system market. They are also complicating the hell out of buying decisions.

In contrast, Apple is suddenly becoming nimble (in addition to already being arrogant, smug, and conceited). The latest Mac operating system retails at around $150. Period. End of story. Does MS Windows Vista Ultimate Mind-boggling Confused Version do anything that one-size-fits-all Mac OS X doesn't? Not that I've seen. Well, the box is a little spiffier.

This last week, Apple announced an overhaul of the iMac line. It's impressive, but not the big story to me. That rests with iWorks '08, a suite of applications in the same vein as Microsoft Office. Certainly it was originally meant to complete with the crippled and rotten MS Works, but iWorks '08 appears, on first blush at least, to aim right at Office.

And again, it's one-size-fits-all...for $80.

The cheapest version of MS Office 2007 is the Home and Student version, which runs $150 (hunt around and you get can find it for $110). For half the retail price of H&S, a Mac user gets everything Office has to offer and maybe more. Suddenly there's no great worry that MS has delayed the next rendition of Office for Mac.

So when did this happen? Mac hardware is overpriced, period. You can argue that it's elegant, stylish, sweet to touch and use, and smells great after taking out the garbage, but so what? Same may be said about a Lexus, but not all of us live on a Lexus budget, and my VW does the job, thank you very much.

And yet, Mac software, at least in terms of OS and basic applications, is priced at budget-friendly levels. Why the contradiction?

I think it's because making stylish aluminum computer shells can be pretty expensive. There are all sorts of flourishes on an iMac, for example, that must just drive the price upwards. Some are needless complications that while elegant merely add to the possibilities of hardware breakdown (slot-loading optical drive, for example; oh joy when the feed motor breaks down). Also driving the price are the display sizes; the smallest is now 20 inches.

In terms of software, however, we're talking about packaging bits. Literally. And I think the Apple software developers spent their time and effort not expanding features, but paring features down. They cover that essential 10%, that portion that all users need and use all the time, then added just enough to make the package attractive.

Of course, the low cost of the software may be attributable to the high cost of the hardware. I am not going to buy either OS X or iWorks to run on either my DIY desktop or Gateway laptop because Apple says, "Nyet! Not allowed, nekulturny!" Only a Mac user is going to buy either, and Apple has already sucked their marrow via the hardware cost.

Alas, this is all a thought exercise since I'm not about to jump to MacHardware soon, if ever. When it comes to actually doing something they don't do anything I don't already do on my Windows XP PC's. This statement of fact annoys Mac fanboys, who cry, "Begone, foul one!"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,
Post a Comment
Read more

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that
Post a Comment
Read more

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.
Post a Comment
Read more