Why does Microsoft charge so much when Apple charges much less for OS updates?

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

ozziegn

The man behind the curtain...
Joined
Jan 13, 2001
Messages
17,533
first off, this discussion is strictly intended for mature audiences. flame starters please stay out.

I'm sitting here wondering why is it that Apple can roll out new, software OS updates like the upcoming Snow Leopard release for only $29 which Microsoft feels the need to charge three or four times for their new OS updates or launches?

this is one of the main reasons why I think so many people commit software piracy against MS simple because they feel the need to pork the PC crowd for every last dime they can. obviously Apple is in the business to make money too but they seem like they do a much better job and obviously do it for alot less when it comes to their OS updates or launches.

please discuss your "mature" thoughts.
 
Microsoft doesn't charge for updates :confused: They charge for new OS's. And they sold Win7 Home Premium upgrades for $50 for a while, to upgrade from both XP and Vista. $50 to upgrade from an 8 year old OS or a 3 year old OS.

They have great deals for students too, I just got 2 Win7 Pro X64 licenses for $19.
 
When Microsoft starts charging for Service Packs, let's revisit this topic. Until then, it's a moot point, because, you can't compare apples to oranges (pun intended).

Besides, you can pay $29 for an update to Apple, to run on an already FAR over-priced computer, or pay Microsoft $50 to upgrade to an entirely new OS, on a much much cheaper computer.

So, who's wasting money again?
 
Windows upgrades don't contribute much overall to sales and aren't really priced to make existing users upgrade. PC users tend to only upgrade when buying a new computer. The difference in prices also reflects the lifetime of the product.

A Windows OS will receive first class support at various SP levels for years. The lifetime of the product is many, many years.

Apple pretty much dumps support past 1 prior major revision, where first party software no longer supports older OSs.

In this scenario, Apple has several updates at $29-$49 over the same lifespan of a Windows version where MS has one update for $99 or $199 at list price, with discounts available.
 
So going from Vista to Win 7 is completely new? come on, let's be realistic here. it's not a completely new OS. going from XP to Vista was a completely different story and we all know how much of a flop that was. XP was far better than Vista could have ever been and yet MS once again felt the need to pork their customers for ridiculous prices.

also, I don't doubt there are those $50 student MS discount things but once again, let's be real. what are the odds in someone going to a retail store front and buying a Win 7 upgrade DVD for $50? slim to none. go to BB or OD and find a Win 7 DVD for $50. it isn't going to happen.
 
ozziegn said:
also, I don't doubt there are those $50 student MS discount things but once again, let's be real. what are the odds in someone going to a retail store front and buying a Win 7 upgrade DVD for $50? slim to none. go to BB or OD and find a Win 7 DVD for $50. it isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...
Did you miss the $39 ones being sold by MicroCenter? Newegg, and any popular online retailer had been selling them for $50 for quite some time before the promotion ended. You can also buy a family pack as well. I don't know if Apple has anything like that, but I doubt it.

Speaking of what Apple doesn't have, how about TechNet?

And since you didn't seem to do much research before posting this, do yourself a favor and read into the comparisons of Vista and Windows 7 before writing W7 off as just a minor upgrade.
 
ozziegn said:
So going from Vista to Win 7 is completely new? come on, let's be realistic here. it's not a completely new OS. going from XP to Vista was a completely different story and we all know how much of a flop that was. XP was far better than Vista could have ever been and yet MS once again felt the need to pork their customers for ridiculous prices.

also, I don't doubt there are those $50 student MS discount things but once again, let's be real. what are the odds in someone going to a retail store front and buying a Win 7 upgrade DVD for $50? slim to none. go to BB or OD and find a Win 7 DVD for $50. it isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

No flames huh? Interesting?

Let's be honest, 99% of Windows sales come from people buying the computer with Windows preloaded.

For the retail market, Microsoft releases an O/S much more infrequently then Apple. I am not an Apple user, but from what I understand, Apple charges for Service Packs as well as O/S releases. Microsoft released XP SP2 which was almost an entire new Operating System for free!

The other reason why retail costs more then OEM, is due to the support costs. OEM's pick up the tab to provide support. (When I sold OEM licenses, I had to support the customer, or pay Microsoft for each call.) When a user buys retail, they have so many calls for free.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
The Apple updates are more like service packs. Also there are more of them. End of story IMO.

OSX Updates Since the Beginning:
Code: 
1.0 	Hera      March 16, 1999
10.0 	Cheetah    March 24, 2001
10.1 	Puma 	September 25, 2001 	
10.2 	Jaguar 	August 24, 2002 	
10.3 	Panther  	October 24, 2003 	
10.4 	Tiger 	April 29, 2005 	
10.5 	Leopard   October 26, 2007 	
10.6 	Snow Leopard 	 August 28, 2009

Windows OS Changes in the same period:
May 1999 	            Windows 98 SE
February/September 2000  Windows 2000/ME (Business/Consumer Focused)	
October 2001 	         Windows XP 	
January 2007 	         Windows Vista 	
October 2009 	         Windows 7
 
Last edited:
DeaconFrost said:
Did you miss the $39 ones being sold by MicroCenter? Newegg, and any popular online retailer had been selling them for $50 for quite some time before the promotion ended.
Click to expand...

I guess I did miss those deals. I ordered Win 7 Pro upgrade for $99 which I thought was a decent deal. I ordered it because I have a few programs that are only offered in Windows flavor which means I do use it on my Mac.

You can also buy a family pack as well. I don't know if Apple has anything like that, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

yes, Apple has a $49 family pack that allows up to something like five computers with one EULA.
 
Grentz said:
The Apple updates are more like service packs. Also there are more of them. End of story IMO.
Click to expand...

you're right, Apple's updates are like SPs but they also almost always provide new features that people use in the real world. features that are useful to the average Joe.
 
ozziegn said:
So going from Vista to Win 7 is completely new? come on, let's be realistic here. it's not a completely new OS. going from XP to Vista was a completely different story and we all know how much of a flop that was. XP was far better than Vista could have ever been and yet MS once again felt the need to pork their customers for ridiculous prices.

also, I don't doubt there are those $50 student MS discount things but once again, let's be real. what are the odds in someone going to a retail store front and buying a Win 7 upgrade DVD for $50? slim to none. go to BB or OD and find a Win 7 DVD for $50. it isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Well, there we have it folks, just a troll. Lets all move on.
 
Similar discussion occurred on this board a few weeks back, if I recall.


Genuine 'answer' is twofold:


Apple does charge customers for minor 'updates' whilst Microsoft makes those available freely for Windows users.

Apple can 'absorb' development costs for Mac OS better than Microsoft can absorb windows development costs anyways, because Apple is selling a hardware/OS combination, rather than a standalone product designed to run on the hardware other companies manufacture. MacOS is, even when sold standalone, part of a 'package' and licensed only to be used on Apple hardware.


It isn't a genuine 'competitor' to Windows, so comparisons such as this are less than useful and quite meaningless. If you want to directly compare, you'd really need to also argue that everybody other than Microsoft should be prohibited from making systems to run Windows!
 
ozziegn said:
yes, Apple has a $49 family pack that allows up to something like five computers with one EULA.
Click to expand...
Then if you wanted a mature debate, THAT'S what you should have been presenting as evidence. That would lend to a better debate, rather than expecting us to believe Microsoft OS's cost more in the long run.
 
ozziegn said:
So going from Vista to Win 7 is completely new? come on, let's be realistic here. it's not a completely new OS. going from XP to Vista was a completely different story and we all know how much of a flop that was. XP was far better than Vista could have ever been and yet MS once again felt the need to pork their customers for ridiculous prices.

also, I don't doubt there are those $50 student MS discount things but once again, let's be real. what are the odds in someone going to a retail store front and buying a Win 7 upgrade DVD for $50? slim to none. go to BB or OD and find a Win 7 DVD for $50. it isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

As I'm sure you're aware, despite Vista being an awesome OS, it never caught on.

So people (in general), won't be upgrading from "Vista" to Win7. They'll be upgrading from XP to Win7.

MacOS for the same time period
OSX - (Baseline)
OS 10.1 $179 July 18, 2001
OS 10.2 $199 May 6, 2002
OS 10.3 $199 June 23, 2003
OS 10.4 $199 June 28, 2004
OS 10.5 $199 June 6, 2005
OS 10.6 $29
-----------------
$$$$


WindowsXP - (Baseline)
Vista (Most of the US population skipped)
Win7 $49 if you were an early upgrader.
-----------------
Much less expensive over the same time period.

And there were plenty of free significant upgrades throughout this time... XP SP2 was a huge one, but there were plenty of others.
 
ozziegn said:
I'm sitting here wondering why is it that Apple can roll out new, software OS updates like the upcoming Snow Leopard release for only $29 which Microsoft feels the need to charge three or four times for their new OS updates or launches?
Click to expand...
The main thing is that Windows has no hardware attachment. Apple profits on hardware sales, which allows them to release new OSs at a lower cost than Microsoft.

ozziegn said:
...this is one of the main reasons why I think so many people commit software piracy against MS simple because they feel the need to pork the PC crowd for every last dime they can.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Microsoft's pricing schemes are horrifically inflated. There's really no getting around that. If you're smart, you'll find ways around paying full price, but it can be assumed that the majority of people buying Windows upgrades will be paying the retail prices.

repoman0 said:
And they sold Win7 Home Premium upgrades for $50 for a while, to upgrade from both XP and Vista.
Click to expand...
Only for 14 days. The deal might come around again, but it may not.

DeaconFrost said:
Besides, you can pay $29 for an update to Apple, to run on an already FAR over-priced computer, or pay Microsoft $50 to upgrade to an entirely new OS, on a much much cheaper computer.
Click to expand...
These are the only two options? I'm aware of some fantastically expensive PCs myself. I'm also aware of a couple of very competitively-priced Macs. Some of them are expensive, while others are fairly inexpensive or in comparison or comparably priced to similar offerings from major vendors.

As for Windows being $50...see above. If you want to go out and buy Windows 7 today, you won't be paying $50.
 
Apple charges for new versions of OSX that generally offer nothing more than Microsoft's FREE service packs do for Windows.

If MS was to charge say... $30 for the right to install a service pack, then you could compare the two companies.
 
phide said:
These are the only two options? I'm aware of some fantastically expensive PCs myself. I'm also aware of a couple of very competitively-priced Macs. Some of them are expensive, while others are fairly inexpensive or in comparison or comparably priced to similar offerings from major vendors.
Click to expand...
With PCs, you have choice. Not everyone needs to spend $1000+ just for a basic laptop. Not everyone needs to spend $1200 for a basic desktop. You don't have the inexpensive options that you do on the PC side. Those inexpensive options are perfectly suited for 95% of the computer users out there.
 
ozziegn said:
So going from Vista to Win 7 is completely new? come on, let's be realistic here. it's not a completely new OS. going from XP to Vista was a completely different story and we all know how much of a flop that was. XP was far better than Vista could have ever been and yet MS once again felt the need to pork their customers for ridiculous prices.

also, I don't doubt there are those $50 student MS discount things but once again, let's be real. what are the odds in someone going to a retail store front and buying a Win 7 upgrade DVD for $50? slim to none. go to BB or OD and find a Win 7 DVD for $50. it isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

I was going to make a meaningful post in this thread; but after reading this I can see you are just trolling. The post you make reeks of ignorance.
 
The simple reason is that (except for a fringe minority) Apple already charged everyone for the OS development when they bought the hardware it's going on. Microsoft does not sell computers, so they can't just redistribute development costs like Apple can.

Then when you consider that the vast majority of Windows installs are on systems from Dell, HP, etc, you realize that Windows in most cases turns out to be completely free. You can't go out and build a beater box for your office/kids/grandma for what these companies are charging. And that's before you include a copy of Windows.
 
brom42 said:
I was going to make a meaningful post in this thread; but after reading this I can see you are just trolling. The post you make reeks of ignorance.
Click to expand...

lol - and yet you call my post trolling? please move along.
 
When MS starts dictating that no one can install Windows on a PC except those made by MS, and those PCs cost $1000 MINIMUM, then you can come talk to us about MS 'bilking' people.

Also, to the guy that said Vista didn't catch on, it sold 50%-75% more than MS anticipated, read the wikipedia Vista article, it also had faster adoption rates among businesses than XP. As far as most of the US skipping it, XP only got so much market share because MS didn't release Vista on schedule, due to relocating resources to work on improving XP security (SP2) and resetting the Vista code base to Windows 2003 Server instead of XP (for security). If Vista had released on time, it would have much more market share and XP would have much less. It seems like we need to rehash this stuff on a daily basis for some reason...
 
Last edited:
devil22 said:
it also had faster adoption rates among businesses than XP.
Click to expand...

sure....

I work very closely with people who work for AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Lockheed Martin and U.S.A (United Space Alliance) and guess what? all four are still using XP. imagine all the hundreds of other big corporations that are still using XP.

I would think that they would have switched over to Vista if it was all that much better.
 
ryan_975 said:
Then when you consider that the vast majority of Windows installs are on systems from Dell, HP, etc, you realize that Windows in most cases turns out to be completely free.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but that's akin to saying that the sponges (or whatever) you get with Oxy Clean are also free. Sure, they'll say they're free, but are you paying for 'em? You betcha.

devil22 said:
When MS starts dictating that no one can install Windows on a PC except those made by MS, and those PCs cost $1000 MINIMUM, then you can come talk to us about MS 'bilking' people.
Click to expand...
Mac Mini's $599 ;)

ozziegn said:
I work very closely with people who work for AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Lockheed Martin and U.S.A (United Space Alliance) and guess what? all four are still using XP.
Click to expand...
Heh. Your math sucks :D
 
phide said:
I'm sorry, but that's akin to saying that the sponges (or whatever) you get with Oxy Clean are also free. Sure, they'll say they're free, but are you paying for 'em? You betcha.


Mac Mini's $599 ;)
Click to expand...

Fully OS flexible netbooks $199 ;)
 
phide said:
I'm sorry, but that's akin to saying that the sponges (or whatever) you get with Oxy Clean are also free. Sure, they'll say they're free, but are you paying for 'em? You betcha.


Mac Mini's $599 ;)


Heh. Your math sucks :D
Click to expand...

lol - It's been a very long day. my brain is on OT. :D
 
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vista -

Initially it was thought that the adoption of Vista has been generally low, due to largely poor reviews and harsh criticism, but a later Gartner research report predicted that Vista business adoption in 2008 will actually beat that of XP during the same time frame (21.3% vs. 16.9%)[78]
Click to expand...

How long did it take those business/agencies to upgrade to XP? I'll bet they didn't switch to XP the first couple of years it was out either, anyways the info is right there at wikipedia, but go on denying it like we care what you imagine the world is like vs what it is.
 
phide said:
Mac Mini's $599 ;)
Click to expand...
For what amounts to basically a laptop, minus the screen, which adds more to the cost. You could by a full laptop for less money that would have the same or more power....and a screen as well.
 
devil22 said:
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vista -



How long did it take those business/agencies to upgrade to XP? I'll bet they didn't switch to XP the first couple of years it was out either, anyways the info is right there at wikipedia, but go on denying it like we care what you imagine the world is like vs what it is.
Click to expand...

^ lol - I'm sure the CEOs at the above referenced companies would make much use from Wiki data in making big decisions like OS changes. :p
 
phide said:
Mac Mini's $599 ;)
Click to expand...

You can get a much better PC for that price, and you are missing the bottom line, MS doesn't sell you the PC so they make much less money than apple per user, so apple can charge less. But consider, this is a one time thing, Apple usually charges about as much for these service packs as a full Windows license, and will almost certainly go back to that.
 
Snow Leopard is just an update to Leopard for mere performance tweaking and bug fixes. Nothing overly groundbreaking or new was introduced in this release. In the world of Windows, service packs (which I stress, are free) are used to do the same thing.

Also, LOL at the OP's disclaimer. Welcome to the Internet, my friend. Telling people to not get in a flamewar is like negotiating with a grizzly bear that has not been fed for weeks.
 
ozziegn said:
^ lol - I'm sure the CEOs at the above mentioned referenced companies would make much use from Wiki data in making big decisions like OS changes. :p
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything, Vista business adoption > XP business adoption, period. Whether this company or that company specifically did or not is irrelevant, and proves nothing about OSes. You know we're in a recession, right? And most companies only upgrade OS with new hardware, and so on..?

Additionally how many of those companies switched over to Macs? Oh, well I guess macs suck then...
 
devil22 said:
You can get a much better PC for that price, and you are missing the bottom line...
Click to expand...
I understand that. I was simply refreshing your memory that Apple does produce a sub-$999 Mac: the mini. So, the minimum entry price to the Mac world is $599 -- not $1000.

devil22 said:
...service packs
Click to expand...
Ah, you played the 'service pack' card! If I were feeling particularly frisky, I would play the 'Windows 7 is a service pack' card...but I'll refrain :) (not that I don't really like 7)
 
devil22 said:
Additionally how many of those companies switched over to Macs? Oh, well I guess macs suck then...
Click to expand...

no debate there. big corporations have no reason to switch to Macs because everyone knows Macs are very specialized in certain fields in the business industry. mainly the video and graphic arts area. AT&T, Bright House (Time Warner), etc could care less about that.
 
phide said:
but I'll refrain :) (not that I don't really like 7)
Click to expand...
You'll refrain, so that you don't make a fool out of yourself, to be honest. Windows 7 is far different than Vista, and I've been one of the biggest Vista defenders on the boards. And when I say different...I mean better. It is MUCH MUCH different than Apple's simple updates. Mac-zealots don't want to see the service pack card played because they have no truthful, factual answer for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top