In OS pricing, does Microsoft trounce Apple?
Posted by Dennis Sellers 
Sep 5, 2006 at 4:40am
Recently it was reported that Microsoft had briefly posted pricing for Vista (the ever-coming-soon next version of Windows) on its Canadian Web site. If those prices hold true, Microsoft would seem to have the pricing advantage over Apple.
Apparently, the Home Basic edition of Windows Vista will be priced the same as Windows XP Home, at $233 ($259 Canadian). The Home Premium version, which includes support for Media Center and tablet PC abilities will sell for 13 percent higher rate, a price that translates to about $269 in American dollars. Microsoft has said it plans to urge customers to purchase premium versions of Vista in favor of Windows Vista Home Basic, the entry-level version for U.S. consumers.
Now compare this to the pricing for Mac OS X 10.4 (“Tiger”): $129 for a single-user license and $199 for a family pack. Expect the price tag for Mac OS X 10.5 (“Leopard”) to be the same. Then there’s the fact that Apple sees more overall profitability from its operating system upgrades than Microsoft by releasing them at a more frequent and stable pace, according to an [url=http://www.appleinsider.com]AppleInsider report.
Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster recently compared Apple’s Mac OS X and Microsoft’s Windows pricing schemes and found that although Apple prices its OS software at a lower average selling price (ASP), it costs Mac users more per year to have the latest OS. According to Munster’s analysis, Apple releases a new version of Mac OS X about once a year for $129 (or an average of $107 per year to keep current), whereas Microsoft releases new versions of Windows about every 2.25 years for an average cost of $114 a year (or $48 per year to keep current).
Looking at it this way, it’s less expensive to own and run Windows. On the other hand, as Mac users, we don’t have the problems with viruses and system crashes that Windows users have—and it’s hard to put a price tag on that. Also, would you want to wait 2.25 years for major updates to the Mac OS?
On the other hand, I wouldn’t exactly cry if Apple lowered pricing on its system updates. If they were less costly, perhaps even more users might move up with each OS upgrade. Regardless, it’s certainly true, up to a point, that you get what you pay for. And I’ve always found the major revs of the Mac operating system to be well worth the money.
Thoughts? Write me at daseller@earthlink.net
linton Says:
C’mon, this is ridiculous.
You don’t have to update Apple’s OS every year. Many people are happily running Panther, and get security updates to that OS.
If you had a choice of a new car every year (Apple) or a new car every 5 years (MS XP-Vista is 5 years, not this 2.25 figure quoted), then wouldn’t you pay slightly more for the new car every year? Or pay a lot less and just have it every 2nd year!
To somehow take MS’s tardiness in releasing an OS and use that to create a lower yearly update price is perverse and stupid!
Posted on September 05, 2006
J. Shaffer Says:
Also remember that if you buy the lower end versions of Winblows you lose out on many features (what those are and their true value I have no idea), but with apple you get all the features no matter what. It would be like Apple selling a version of 10.4 without Universal Access, Classic, Speech, Spotlight, and any number of low profile (though Spotlight isn’t exactly low profile but still) features that are essential for the OS to run. I for one prefer having all my features included.
Posted on September 05, 2006
macgig.com Says:
I was happy with panther. and keeping the $135 I spent on tiger in my pocket. I recently got tiger cause my hand was forced. some new apps and utilities were tiger only :( I don’t feel apple needs a completely new os every year. 2-3 years would be fine
Posted on September 05, 2006
G. Letts Says:
what’s the cost if you buy Apple upgrades on the MS schedule. That’s seems like a better way to evaluate.
Posted on September 05, 2006
ken2 Says:
OS X has been a lot cheaper for me as I get the Family Pack for the 5 Macs in the family and I get the education discount. On the MS side, my wife has a friend that works for MS so there are deals there, but it’s still more expensive than the Family Pack. If I only had one Mac then the (discounted) Windows would appear to be cheaper - until I added on the protective apps and services.
The multiple versions available seemed a bit confusing at first, then I remembered that most of the consumer sales will be through OEMs, who will toss in the cheapest version for “free” and then get you to upgrade both the Vista and the hardware needed to run it.
Posted on September 05, 2006
ADeweyan Says:
Isn’t that a little distorted?
It’s not like MS PLANNED to have an average release-time of 2+ years. What would that average have been if Vista had shipped on time?
And there are plenty of people happily using Jaguar and Panther (not to mention Windows 2000 or even, gasp, 95!), so it’s not even clear what the point is with this comparison.
Just another way to abuse statistics, I suppose.
Posted on September 05, 2006
krt Says:
If you spend 30 minutes per week on Windows security maintenance (which is, on average, a safe bet...), and you make $50K/year and take two weeks of vacation, then you will have spent $601 of professional time on securing your OS for a year. This is a real value.
Typical Mac users don’t spend 30 minutes per year on security. This, too, is a real value… :-)
Posted on September 05, 2006
meatofmoose Says:
As much as I want to purchase 10.5 I won’t until Apple upgrades the iMacs. Besides, a new iMac will already have 10.5 installed. I will be disappointed if the iMac upgrades do not coincide with 10.5’s release.
Posted on September 05, 2006
Article Information
Comment on this Article Print this Article Email this Article Digg This
Contributor
Dennis Sellers
Dennis has been a newspaper editor/reporter (seven years) and teacher (seven years). He has over 4,000 magazine, newspaper and online articles to his credit. He has also covered the Mac and tech industries for over a decade for such online publications as MacCentral, MacMinute and now MacsimumNews.
Haggis Says:
Nah - people don’t think that way when they shop - all they see is the tag price, they don’t really think of the total cost of ownership over a few years - it’s simply “Do I want this?” “Can I afford it?”.
No with Vista running in at between $230 and $450 (for the full pro version) - hell no wonder piracy is rife - I won’t buy at those prices.
Posted on September 05, 2006