Ballmer Scorns Apple As a $500 Logo 1147
theodp writes "Speaking at a conference in NYC, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer did his best to refan the flames of the Mac vs. PC rivalry: 'Now I think the tide has really turned back the other direction [against Apple],' Ballmer said. 'The economy is helpful. Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment — same piece of hardware — paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be.'"
It seems ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
End of the world (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm agreeing with Balmer... so hell has frozen over.
I've better go dump all my money while I can. Maybe I'll get a mac.
As opposed to... (Score:5, Insightful)
As opposed to paying twice for the same, crappy OS...
I suppose it would be better, in a moment like this, to look for free alternatives... right?
and with that same philosophy (Score:5, Insightful)
Buy Apple Stock Now! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously...this guy has a long track record of saying absolutely moronic shit, why does anyone take anything he says seriously? He will fucking kill Google right?
He's not totally wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Ballmer -1 Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Ballmer is just trolling. He knows that Apple offers real value because OS X is a better operating system than Windows, which means that Apple has essentially taken away the high-end PC business away from Microsoft.
He should know that trolling isn't going to bring those high-end customers back to Windows. Maybe he does, who knows?
Microsoft has repeatedly chosen to patch Windows instead of rebuilding it from the ground up as a modern operating system, the way Apple did with OS X. They should have known 8 years ago that this was the wrong strategy.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:2, Insightful)
> ...that the head of Microsoft would apparently put no value on software.
Except we know the value of the software, Apple sells it seperately for $130, or about what an OEM edition of Vista Business adds to a typical Dell.
No, the price difference is so the Faithful can run around flaunting their glowing logo and think they are superior people. Bah.
For $300 less than Apple's solid MacBook offering (Score:1, Insightful)
Dell makes a craptastic laptop.
Ballmer, open an Apple machine (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no match as far as how clean and robust is the build, compared to other top-brand PCs. Absolute absence of flying around cables, top of the line electronic components, maximum care down to the very little details.
But this is a known thing to everyone that actually opened an Apple and other brand-name PCs.
Ballmer,
He has been able to drag Microsoft, once perceived as technology source with fairly large following, down to the nobody-cared status, as far as all the new technologies being introduced.
One failure after another, with Microsoft not being able to push new technologies even in their own niche (see Vista fiasco for one).
Re:Misdirection (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I'd probably be able to SAVE in doing so, since refurbished Macbooks and Mac Pros can run cheaper than new Dells and carry the same quality and warranty policies as their off-the-shelf products. All I know is that my next notebook is absolutely going to be a Macbook or a Macbook Pro. I'm done with Windows-only machines.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:2, Insightful)
You seem to be neglecting the difference between cost and value. Leopard may cost $129, the same as an OEM edition of Vista but I wouldn't take Vista for free (in fact you'd have to pay me a pretty penny to make me take it and use it) but I happily paid a $500 'logo tax' for my copy of Leopard.
Also, if you do the math (and assume it is a $500 logo tax) and use your Mac every day--for three or more years--that's less than $0.50 a day for a substantially better user experience.
Paying $500 for an OS that works, however... (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, I'm no fan of Apple. I have never owned a Mac, and I haven't programmed on one since 1986. But, when you pay $500 extra for a Mac - if you do - you're getting more than a logo. The hardware is significantly better than average PC hardware. But more significantly, the OS actually works. Personally, I hate it - I intensely dislike the fact that when you get under the covers, it looks like UN*X but it isn't UN*X in a lot of ways that matter. It's essentially NeXT Step, and I hated that, too.
But, it works, and Windows really doesn't. Personally, I think Ubuntu or Debian are much more user-friendly and productive, and you don't have to spend $500 extra for them - but you put a Mac OS box next to a similarly specced Vista box and ask, 'will the user of the Mac be $500 more productive over the life time of the machine than the user of the PC?' the answer has to be 'hell, yeah!'
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
The $130 doesn't get you an OS that will run on commodity hardware. First you have to pay the monopoly fee, i.e. the first copy costs $630, the upgrades are $130.
Hardly surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
The price differential exists precisely because the head of Microsoft doesn't understand what it is about Apple software that causes many people to consider an Apple computer to be worth a few hundred bucks more than a similar-spec Windows machine.
Is there a gas leak in here? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't take Vista for free but I happily paid a $500 'logo tax'
Why can't people just prefer apple, and not be fanatical about it? Oh, right, because then that wouldn't justify the increased expense.
Personally I like the hardware and design of the MacBook Pro, the software is nice too, but for me it's not worth the extra coin.
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is where fanboys decide the talking points for the next month or so and shit them all over the internet?
Ballmer needs Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
The Linux desktop is Ballmer's real nightmare... and it is getting closer.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Many differences but... (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all I don't think the price difference is anywhere near $500.
The simple truth is that Apple doesn't make any cheap PCs. They all seem to be well made with good components and with good support. All that really does cost money. I have only owned three apple products and all of them are iPods. They are all well made and have outlasted every other MP3 Player I have owned. My old Nano is just sitting since I got a touch but it works just fine.
Ballmer may be correct. Except that what that means is that people will settle for Windows but they still really want a Mac. That makes Windows what you get when you can not get anything else.
It also means that Windows could loose to Linux since it is even cheaper.
Not a good place to be. They are in the middle.
Plus Apple can always produce a cheaper PC if they want to. Can Microsoft make an OS cheaper than Linux?
Re:Ballmer -1 Troll (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple offers real value because OS X is a better operating system than Windows
Prove it. For me it may be since OSX is UNIX, but the way I see it, for most people one's a stupidly bloated system that runs all their apps, and the other's a stupidly bloated system that only runs special versions of some of their apps.
Apple has essentially taken away the high-end PC business away from Microsoft.
Prove it. I've yet to hear about a large business standardizing on Apple products, I've yet to hear about a serious gamer using Macs, so I'd like to know which definition of "high-end" are you using, and the stats backing up your claim.
Microsoft has repeatedly chosen to patch Windows instead of rebuilding it from the ground up as a modern operating system, the way Apple did with OS X. They should have known 8 years ago that this was the wrong strategy.
Interesting that they still maintain more than 90% marketshare worldwide with that "wrong strategy", though. Despite the horridness of Vista, people *still* appreciate being able to use their older apps on their newer PCs, who would've thought.
Go ahead, mod me down Troll or whatever, for defending Ballmer against a poor Apple apologist here on Slashdot. But facts are facts, and no matter how much you try to deny it, Apple isn't the dominant force in the industry today, Microsoft is so this isn't Ballmer trying to steal Apple's customers, it's simply Ballmer looking down on a competitor's tactics. And he's right.
Loser (Score:0, Insightful)
What a pathetic little shit you must be in real life.
There is no Microsoft computer. (Score:4, Insightful)
But there ARE a variety of Apple computers, each somewhat different than the others. The Mac OS installer is smart enough to know which Mac it's being installed on, and configures itself accordingly.
As for Windows. Well, now. HOW many motherboards are out there? How many different video and sound cards? How many webcams and microphones? How many fiddling little DLLs and drivers?
And Windows has to accommodate them all. Or, rather YOU, the users, have to accommodate them all on your own, by seeking out and downloading the latest drivers for some card made in China using FSM knows what revision of onboard firmware.
MS sells HOW MANY versions of XP and Vista? How many versions of Windows 7 will there be?
Mac OS X. One box, one version. Install on as many Macs as you own. Got the last version of Mac OS X and you just bought the latest? Go ahead, SELL the old one or give it away.
Apple Doesn't Care!
Same with their iLife and iWork application suites.
They WOULD rather that you didn't upload the DVD to Pirate Bay or the like. But they don't make anyone phone home or authenticate an install or give you grief if you don't have the serial number from the box.
ALL my installs of OS X have been from previously owned install DVDs. NEVER a problem. NEVER an authentication from Cupertino required.
Office? Feh! iWork, US$80.00 retail, probably less with an academic discount. iLife, same price.
Other software? Photoshop? Please. Graphic Converter uses most PS plug ins and filters. Outlook Express? I can manually infect my Mac with viruses and trojans without any help, thank you very much.
Mail app or Eudora work just fine for me as email applications. And neither will do anything I don't explicitly authorize.
Internet Explorer? Please! Don't make me laugh, I have chapped lips! Firefox makes IE its bitch 24/7.
Mac OS vs. Windows? Two Words: TIME MACHINE!
So, yeah, Ballmer, you sweaty little monkey, shrieking and throwing your feces at passersby, that logo IS worth the extra money to me.
If only because YOU don't see a penny of it.
Re:Misdirection (Score:2, Insightful)
the Blue Screen of Death
1996 called, he wants his meme back.
Re:Buy Apple Stock Now! (Score:3, Insightful)
As I recall he was laughing at the idea of selling the 1st gen iPhone for $700, and telling them to lower their prices and at least add 3G. And they kind of did, which means Ballmer was kind of right.
been said already... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is definitely the pot calling the kettle black. How much am I paying exactly for all those "Built for Windows" stickers I've had to scrape off?
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:1, Insightful)
did he prove his point, or is it just by happenstance that you're on a MAC and homosexual?
*Yawwwwwn* (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:1, Insightful)
The ironic part is that Ballmer seems not to have considered the Ubuntu folks using his words against him. Windows + MS Office do collectively cost about $500 more than Ubuntu + Open Office. But if you go with Windows and MS Office, you also get... a logo.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:3, Insightful)
CPU notwithstanding, that machine isn't remotely comparable feature-wise to any Mac built in the past five years or so, much less comparable to the MacBook Pro. It only has FireWire 400, its video is VGA-only, and it has no built-in camera. The MacBook Pro has FireWire 800 and dual-link DVI, has a MUCH better GPU, has a built-in camera, etc. The T61p just isn't in the same league.
The advanced docking station would cost you about another $300-$350 to give you DVI, and AFAIK you would still have a much slower GPU (another couple hundred of that cost) and no FireWire 800 or built-in camera (both of which would probably be $30-50 apiece to add). And there went basically every penny of your savings. That $600 can easily be explained away by differences in the hardware even if you ignore things like battery life, case design, etc.
If you don't care about those extra features, that's fine, but don't delude yourself into believing that the money you saved was because the product was made by Apple. You saved money because of the features you chose not to buy....
Apple's margins have to come down (Score:3, Insightful)
The basic problem is that the price point for a computer is now $299. Apple can get away with some brand premium, but not $500 any more.
This won't kill Apple. Their volume products, the iPhone and the various iPods, are down into that price region already.
Also, the era of "bling" is so over. Walk into any jewelry store today. It will be empty of customers. (Or, quite possibly, an empty storefront.)
Re:Hardly surprising... (Score:1, Insightful)
Otherwise a good comment, but Apple hardware isn't even overpriced. Or rather, it may be slightly (but not very much) more expensive than a PC with similar specs, but when you can try both alternatives for a week you begin to notice real differences that the specs just don't (can't) tell you. Very good construction quality, well placed buttons and ports, better trackpad, really good screen... the small details that have a non-trivial impact on your everyday practical productivity. (Not to say Apple hasn't had its share of flaws in products. It has, and the resolving hasn't always been that graceful either.)
Good products often have some qualitative edges over lesser products. That's why you attempt to try before you buy. The specs only give you the quantitative (or categorical) differences. But if I quote Le Corbusier's "God is in details" here you'll all immediately color me a machead. :-) (I'm something of a Linux lover and Windows gamer, but I've been very happy through one iBook and two MacBooks, with quite a lot of hands-on time on PC laptops from Acer, Dell, IBM. Especially on a laptop the design knowhow of a vendor gets emphasized.)
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the hardware is equal the software surely is not. The $130 price point quoted above is for an upgrade -- something Microsoft charges anywhere from $90 to $160 for on the desktop, depending on version. But that doesn't tell the whole story as Macs include a lot more software in-the-box, enough to make it useful without buying anything else. Once I get done buying antivirus ($50) and back-up ($80) software for my Windows PC I'm already eating well into the so-called Apple Tax ... and that's before we talk about maintenance costs. Where Microsoft puts in applications that are clearly checkbox quality, Apple's bundled applications are often superb -- similar to things I have to pay hundreds of dollars for on Windows. All this adds up to significant value in the software package.
But none of this is or was a primary motivator for me. No, it was maintenance costs that drove me to try Apple again in 2001. Windows installations were requiring significant maintenance every 3 months, like clockwork, and total failures requiring from-scratch rebuilds were near universal within 18 months. I had hoped that XP would improve things, and it did from the standpoint of corrupted disks, but malware costs with XP have been out of sight.
OS X has been a dream come true in terms of maintenance -- there are glitches, but so far none have taken more than 90 minutes to solve, most take only a couple of minutes, and the sum total of such glitches over eight years I can count on my fingers (though it does take both hands). I have never had to rebuild a Mac from scratch! I am still amazed at that fact. Time savings in a single year completely swamp any extra money I pay to Apple for hardware.
Then there are the little things. Let's say that fifth year comes around and I buy a new laptop to replace one that's really old-in-the-tooth. Bringing the new one on-line requires connecting it to the old one during set-up and waiting for data to transfer between them. When you get done the new one is a newer, shinier version of the old one -- all applications and documents are transferred neat-as-you-please. The first time I did this my jaw dropped; the process typically takes many hours with Windows because it's effectively impossible to transfer application installations due to the registry.
It's things like that which will keep me buying Macs. Real thought and effort goes into making them work well long-term. Much longer hardware life coupled with much lower maintenance costs equals huge savings in my book.
YMMV, and probably does. I find Windows indispensable in some areas and still have plenty of Windows boxes around. Still, the Macs are workhorses that do their jobs and let me spend my time doing what I bought the computer for rather than just trying to keep it running. I'll take more of that, thanks.
Maybe Win7 will be an improvement. Vista sure wasn't, what a disappointment.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't compare like hardware because Apple doesn't offer anything within their price range. They STILL after over 12 years DO NOT HAVE A HEADLESS MID RANGE MAC.
You have no idea how many sales Apple loses for this very reason. So you either toss away a perfectly good monitor and get an iMac or you pay a ton of money for a PowerMac.
Apple is really screwing themselves. Virtually every single person I know who I've tried to convert to a Mac has refused because they don't want the expensive crap Apple is selling.
Re:Ballmer -1 Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
None of your reasons is meaningful because you fail to consider the fact that Micrsoft used anticompetitive practices and developer lock-in to leverage an inferior product into the dominant consumer and enterprise OS. Businesses use Windows because their IT supports it, developers support it, OEMs support it, ad nauseam. It's not because it's a better product--it's because everyone and their mom has been stuck with it, like lousy VHS tapes. There are numerous examples in our economic history that show that the dominant technology is not always the "best."
What Microsoft has failed to recognize for the past 8 years is that Steve Jobs' Apple Inc. isn't interested in playing that game any more. He is way too busy pushing Apple in the direction of emerging consumer technology. He wants Apple to not lead market share per se, but to lead the direction of the market. That's what the iPod and iPhone did. That's what Jonny Ive's design has done. I find it hilarious that people talk up all these competitors (Nokia, RIM, LG, Samsung, and Palm for the iPhone, and Creative, Microsoft, for the iPod), and say how they now offer better features and hardware than the Apple products they wish to "kill." They forget that before Apple even broke those markets wide open, NONE of those companies made jack SHIT. Where was the Zune before the iPod? Where was the Storm or Pre before the iPhone? Where was any of all this sudden innovation in hardware design before Apple made their mark? The competitors play catch-up because they lack the vision to lead. They are too busy resting on their laurels and squeezing every last dime out of the consumer. If Apple costs more (and I'm not necessarily convinced one way or another), I'm willing to pony up to support a company that has the balls to lead, because in the long run we're all the better for it.
The whole tech industry and the consumers who use their products owe a huge debt of gratitude to Apple for lighting a massive bonfire under the collective asses of all the industry competitors. No other company in the past decade has done more to set a fierce competitive landscape in the realm of hardware, software, and product design. If it weren't for Apple we'd still be stuck with shitty Windows Mobile on 2" tiny non-touchscreen devices that looked uglier than a crack-addled stepmom on an alcohol binge.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's product line up has less offerings than dell, so Dell has some price points that Apple doesn't compete at.
Though they may not realize it I think that's the biggest problem people have with Mac prices. Apple does not offer as wide a range of computer lines as Dell and other OEMs do. You can't get a tower Mac, one that's expandable/upgradeable for under $2000, I just checked the Apple store online and the cheapest Mac Pro is $2499. At the low end there's the Mac Mini, then there's the all-in-one iMac desktops. If you compare the prices of the Mac Pro with similar offerings from Windows OEMs they aren't as expensive as many make out to be though.
Falcon
Re:Misdirection (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because someone has the "right" to do something doesn't make it a fair or acceptable business practice.
Problem is, each of us have a different opinion as to what is "...a fair or acceptable business practice..." BTW - No, MS won't sue anyone for installing Windows on any hardware it will run on. Microsoft is a software company and always has been. If MS tried to define what hardware Windows would run on they'd be out of business.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the price difference is so the Faithful can run around flaunting their glowing logo...
I have to admit that everyone I've met does like the glowing logo a lot. Personally, I can't see it when I use the machine, so I don't care too much.
I do however find it extremely hilarious when I see an Apple laptop in a TV show that the actors are (supposedly) using while the logo is unlit. That one always gives me a little chuckle.
$500 for logo or $500 for a real operating system? (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps Apple buyers are really just paying $500 to avoid Microsoft products. And judging from the loyalty of Apple users, one could easily conclude that they find it to be a good investment.
Re:So which hardware _is_ better? (Score:4, Insightful)
want to know a hint? 90% of people will never upgrade their computer beyond ram and Hard drives.
laptops should show you the truth of that. by the time a computer is old enough to start upgrading parts the entire system is generally not worth it. cpus generally need new motherboards.
I use macs precisely because once I max out the ram the machine will last long enough(4-5 years) that by the time I want to upgrade again I might as well buy a whole new machine. simply because of CPU upgrades alone.
I have built my own machines. I have run windows, and Linux. I have bought from Dell, apple, IBM, and Acer. In the end you have to find a machine that works the way you do. I don't have to fuss with my Macs. I don't have to tweak them. I don't have to download driver updates that crash out the machine(windows and Linux) to maintain what i already have.
Everyone is different. Like some people like to tweak their cars some geeks like to tweak their computers. Some like spending their money on fancy stuff, but most prefer to buy a mid priced car that just works with minimal maintenance.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
What i've found with apple is if you start with a mac and try to find a PC that's as close as possible to it you will indeed get similar prices.
On the other hand if you start with a list of requirements and find both a mac and a PC to fit that list the mac will often end up far more expensive because you have to buy far more than you need in some areas to get what you require in others.
Do you really require server class processors and support for massive ammounts of memory or did you choose the mac pro simply because it is the cheapest mac with exapansion room.
Re:So which hardware _is_ better? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, bunches of people replace laptop batteries but anyhow...
Your rant about drivers and crashes and tweaks is so 1995. You don't *have* to update drivers in windows and, assuming you don't install some stupid spyware, you can pretty much leave a windows box alone and just install the standard updates. Apple does updates too . Nothing to see here, move along.
And still, that's all about the OS. The *hardware* is the same once you discount the pretty case Apple puts it in.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying that denying your family iPods and iPhones constitutes some kind of spousal abuse or child abuse. But I am saying that this attitude is counterproductive as a corporate leader. Your family and your market is telling you something about the kind of products they enjoy using and will pay money for. Instead of listening, and producing products that emulate the best qualities of Apple's products, you're trying to tell your family and your customers that no, you don't really want the things you think you want. You actually want what we're giving you.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
> On the other hand if you start with a list of requirements and find both a mac and a PC
to fit that list the mac will often end up far more expensive..
Exactly. Raise your hand if you NEED a Xeon with ECC memory on your desktop..... and you aren't a a very narrow band of major scientist, engineer, etc. who need lots of throbbing power and yet don't have access to a compute cluster. Almost by definition Apple has restricted their desktops to people spending OPM (and where the other people are idiots) or people with more money than brains.
The Mini is just a sad joke and the i* stuff is all in one crap about as expandable, customizable, etc as a toaster where you upgrade by forklifting in a whole new stack of machines. And people wonder why Apple's corporate penetration is non-existent. Corporations will throw a couple to the art dept if they bitch and whine enough, but that's it.
It's almost like Apple WANTS to keep the Mac a small exclusive club. Which is the truth. Apple is selling a premium brand experience and if it ever threatened to become mainstream the value would disappear.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd understand the first and recommend that people NOT get a Mac if they enjoy playing PC games.
Re:Linux, Macs, and Windows PCs (Score:4, Insightful)
I understand that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data", but my personal experience with post-iMac G3 Apple products is that they haven't been nearly as reliable as the machines I put together myself. My iPods, Apple IIs, and older Macs all keep going like a Timex watch though.
Re:Ballmer -1 Troll (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. They've used that to *maintain* their dominant position, but they attained it by riding on IBM's name *and* recognizing that the PC market was in sore need of openness and competition, instead of every company building their own little island, as Apple et al had been doing until that point.
Ah, so now I see--you're absolutely right. Microsoft didn't steal, lie, and cheat their way into becoming a monopoly. They did it by "innovation,"--embrace, extend, extinguish.
It's about service. (Score:5, Insightful)
My bias: I primarily run Linux (writing this on a Debian workstation), so I suppose I might be more of a "Microsoft basher" than an "Apple fanboy."
However, one thing I will say about Apple is that it has arguably the best customer service of any large company I have ever dealt with in ANY FIELD.
Fortunately, Apple products tend to "just work" and continue "just working" so I don't have to deal with service that much. However, when I have I have been impressed.
When I called Apple support for a particularly obscure software problem, within I got conferenced in with an OS X software engineer who had kernel HFS code in front of him. Keep in mind, this was the standard consumer 800-number level support! How often would this happen at, say, Microsoft?
I broke one of the mechanical components of my iPhone, walked into an Apple store, and within ten minutes walked out with a replacement phone - no arguing, frustration, or upselling attempted. Along the same vein, a friend of mine had a laptop that was YEARS off warranty, and when the DVD drive finally died Apple still offered to repair it at no charge.
I've even gone into the Apple store to look at accessories like earphones and had a salesperson tell me that a different retailer was having a sale that I should check out to save money.
My point I suppose is that the "Apple tax" (or what I would more formally refer to as the "brand premium") is in no small part to pay for having a large number of well-trained (even more with respect to customer interaction than technical skill) employees with sufficient authority to actually deal with problems. Apple takes the attitude that customer satisfaction is more important than low prices - and I thank them for it.
Re:He's not totally wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
How exactly is reading a book any more productive than playing a game? How is it mutually exclusive with family time? What does the world benefit from me writing or painting amateur crap that no one wants to look at?
Time enjoyed is never wasted. Just because you can spend time gardening and get a tomato doesn't make it superior to spending time playing games. I can just buy a tomato, spend my time playing games, have more fun than I would gardening, and I come out ahead.
So really, my point is, playing games is productive time. It's product is fun. Not that I hate gardening or spending time outside. I just get sick of this "my leisure activity is better than your leisure activity" bullshit. No, it's not.
Re:Is there a gas leak in here? (Score:5, Insightful)
I prefer Apple, and I don't have to justify the increased expense to you.
It is worth the extra coin to me, and you can do whatever makes you happy.
What's the problem?
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Macs have been nothing more than commodity PCs in a proprietary case since they switched to the x86/x64 platform.
Yup, a commodity PC with bluetooth std, low power components, display brightness controlled by OS, working power management, extremely quiet, ah I give up, most of you lack the ability to differentiate any two computers from any manufacturer, and will never try.
Look, coffee makers and toasters are commodities too, but there's a helluva difference between $10 and $200 ones. :)
Same goes for about any product, as the price goes up, you generally are looking at totally different features. A $200 toaster ought to bake a freaking casserole for me, perfectly. You can't just write off expensive variants of cheaper products because they all make coffee, they all make toast, they all have four wheels, all show my TV signal, they all have the same system architecture, etc. There's so much more to it, and the most demanded features often get pushed down into cheaper products (the real commodities). Don't underestimate that effect, at some point a dual slot toaster might have been ritzy, who knows
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:2, Insightful)
that the head of Microsoft would apparently put no value on software.
Tell me. What does OSX have that Linux or Windows on a PC doesn't?
Software can be more easily replaced than the whole box.
You're doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't calculate the Mac tax by comparing similar PC and Mac systems, you calculate it by comparing the PC you would buy with the Mac you'd have to buy.
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't calculate the Mac tax by comparing similar PC and Mac systems, you calculate it by comparing the PC you would buy with the Mac you'd have to buy.
After dealing with all the problems I had with Windows PCs as well as Microsoft wanting to treat me like I'm a criminal I did not want to get another Windows PC.
Falcon
Re:Take one apart (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason the HP you compared it too seems so much easier to maintain is because it's a cheap bulky monstrosity, made of plastic and other disposable parts.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I found it amusing to repeat Ballmer's quote, but change it slightly.
Original quote:
Changed slightly:
CEOs of technology companies should be careful not to throw stones in glasshouses.
Re:You're doing it wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
You calculate the value of a PC by how long it lasts (time and usefulness) compared to the price you paid. I still have a useful 2001 G3. After eight years it comes out cheaper than any PC.
When you keep on buying the cheapest you start to forget what value is.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:1, Insightful)
You haven't heard of the Zune... either?
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who the hell actually expands and upgrades their PCs these days, though? This isn't 1997, you can't just buy a computer and just replace the motherboard and CPU every 2 years. Unless you play a lot of video games (in which case Macs are not really an option), I do not see why you would need to upgrade a machine if it had decent specs when you bought it. It's a pain to even add RAM these days, since by the time you get around to it, the type required will already be obsolete and expensive. And really, just about everything you might need to add is available as a USB device.
Re:Take one apart (Score:4, Insightful)
Most people I know don't buy a laptop concerned about opening it up and poking around inside. If I were making the GP statement about Mac laptop chassis, it'd be referring to:
1) Better keyboards than most laptops (this is partially due to better software, but still important)
2) Smaller + lighter
3) Better port positioning. No having to close the lid or lean way over to try to plug things into the back.
4) The trackpad+scrolling (again, partially software-solution with the scrolling, at least it's a lot better than my dell laptop's wonky attempt at having a separate scroll area on the side of the trackpad)
5) The latches and power connector (the magnetic power connector is very handy, and the power brick+extension too, as long as you didnt get the one revision that was huge and super-hot)
I've never needed to open up my mac laptops beyond removing the sony exploding battery to put in the free replacement.
Even so, I wouldn't expect a mac laptop to be as easy to get around inside as a HP or Dell that's twice as big. I'm also not sure I would call a laptop twice as big and heavy "simply better engineered", but I guess it depends on what your priorities are.
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Tell me. What does OSX have that Linux or Windows on a PC doesn't?
Actually a backup capability which really works...
You are not even forced to upgrade to a higher version of the same operating system for a half working restore...
Unix tools out of the box,
No file locking, which makes it important if you do some serious development!
No registry which is the root of many evils in windows.
A system administration frontend which does not try to make you insane by distributing its functionality over 15.000 ui dialogs.
User Access Control which actually works as expected!
A filesystem which does not fragment as hell in serious development tasks.
A real working distributed component framework all the infrastructure is built upon which actually is usable!
It does not thrash my harddisk for minutes after bootup with tasks hidden by the process explorer (happend to me in vista)!
It does not lock my ui half a minute after showing it because it needs to load other things, und just tries to give the impression of being usable while it clearly isnÂt.
It comes with SSH and VNC and Xwindows out of the box.
The file sharing capabilities and printer sharing capabilities are superior thanks to Rendevouz!
Dashboard actually is usable instead if trying to pointlessly shove the widgets into the working area of many people!
It has a browser which follows web standards which are newer than 2003!
It has users who do not insist of using a 10 year old browser despite being numerously the victims of worms and virii induced by the shortcoming of this browser!
Re:Misdirection (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see where you can honestly say you pay an extra $500 for the logo. Every time I check prices of Apples vs. Other brands out there and match them spec for spec EVEN THE SPECS THAT I PERSONALLY DONT NEED I find the cost difference is about +/- $100 - $150. I may be paying $500 for hardware features that I don't need but I am not Paying $500 for the Apple Logo. Spec for Spec Apples prices are comparable to Dells, Lenovos, etc...
Re:It seems ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
> "Here's a bonus tacked on to the top of your salary. It is earmarked for you to spend on our competitors' products. What am I missing?
The PR disaster, of course.
Re:Linux, Macs, and Windows PCs (Score:3, Insightful)
first, 'upgrade' was referring to using drivers that reenable the disabled features of the pro card's drivers.
If a pro card is installed but features are disabled that's stupid, and I don't want to be a customer of said business. All this does is increase the cost.
secondly, unless your photography somehow involves high end opengl 3d acceleration needs, then i think you have been misled about what the 'pro' card gives you
Fact is is that while online graphics may not need much it's totally different for print. High res and deep colour depths are important for some things. If you're getting married and higher a photographer you want your photos to be as good as they can be. The same if you're an ad or commercial photographer or a fine art photographer. Pro photographers can go through tyme, hassle, and money to make sure what they see on their monitor matches what they print. An Eizo [eizo.com] monitor, even a 24" [camerastore.com.au] can cost thousands of dollars. NEC [necdisplay.com] and LaCie [lacie.com] are just as expensive. Monitors with an S-IPS/H-IPS [pchardwarehelp.com] type panel can be quite expensive, but of you make your living in photography or other graphics arts you need such a monitor. Once you have a good monitor you then have to use a colorimeter [amazon.com] like an Eye-one or Huey to calibrate the monitor [photo.net]. If you're also doing the printing yourself and not having a pro lab do it you also have to calibrate the printer. Going through all this you don't want a cheap graphics card driving your monitor.
Falcon