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

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...
1 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

We pause now for a minor rant…

“My car has a flat tire.” “You should buy a new car.” Every time I hear President Obama and other Democrats talking about “health care reform,” that’s what the conversation sounds like. A health care crisis is declared and the only solution is to replace the entire system. At most, around 15% of the American population is without health care insurance. Ignoring the fact that for most of them, this is a matter of choice, it also means that 85% are insured. And of that 85%, something like 70+% like their current coverage and don’t want the government to touch it. So for the vast majority, the current system works and works great. Yet, because of the minority for whom it allegedly does not...toss it all, start again. Admittedly, regardless of insurance coverage, it all costs too much, but again, the only accepted approach to controlling costs are to throw out everything and turn it all over to the government. Tactics that are proposed to address specific cost issues are not consid...
Post a Comment
Read more