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

Have I mentioned I saw Monsters vs. Aliens?

It’s possible that Pixar is becoming a blight on the world of animation. Yes, they do some really great work ( The Incredibles , Ratatouille ), but they’ve also done some clunkers ( Cars , Wall-E ). Their greatest sin, though, is that they apparently radiate a variation of the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field, so that any other animated film – especially if done with CG – is automatically judged inferior. There is some justification to this, but you don’t see every live action film being compared to, say, the films of Ingmar Bergman (well, except by brooding people wearing dark glasses sitting in dim coffee shops smoking clove cigarettes discussing cinema, damn you ). In the traditional film world, it’s accepted that different artists turn out different products. In the animated world, everyone is supposed to match or surpass Pixar, or so it seems. Needless to say, that’s just a crock. Monsters vs Aliens is to your typical Pixar production as Spielberg is to Scorsese. And I h...
2 comments
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

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 comment
Read more