Windows 7 Pricing: Microsoft Responds to Snow Leopard Threat with Hot Deal

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
21,770
So this is what is up with all of the pre-order pricing perhaps?

http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/bl...leopard-threat-with-hot-deal/?cs=33664&page=1

Windows Vista was a huge advantage for Apple -- since it launched and up until last quarter, Apple was aggressively taking market share from Microsoft. Last quarter, Microsoft responded with a strong marketing campaign and stopped the erosion. Apple got a bit more aggressive in the second quarter and it is not yet clear whether it has started to take share again. However, in looking ahead to the second half of the year, Apple had itself positioned to take a massive amount of market share from Microsoft in the third quarter, due to a combination of aggressive upgrade pricing and actually having its new OS and hardware available in that quarter. In what continues to look like a tennis match, Microsoft has struck back with an aggressive, though short-lived, massively discounted preorder program which, based on recent surveys, may result in the company mitigating Apple's attack and announced initial pricing. I wrote earlier on Apple's move into the enterprise. Let's now go over the pricing program, discounts, upgrade recommendations and a few closing thoughts on Windows 7.



Microsoft Pricing



In every geography, pricing for Windows 7 will generally mirror or be under pricing for Windows Vista. In addition, there will probably be sales specials during the fourth quarter that will be announced close to launch. In retail, there will be three versions of Windows 7 Home Premium (for those who don't need Domains), Professional (for those who do), and Ultimate (for those who like the word "Ultimate").



Except for Europe, there are two announced retail versions of each product type -- an upgrade version and full version. The full version exists largely to set a price that Microsoft can discount to keep large business customers happy, and I can think of no real reason anyone else will need it. In Europe, there is only one version and, while Microsoft is calling it a "Full Version," it is actually unique and more like what is given to OEMs in that it can't be used to upgrade an existing Windows Vista or XP machine. As a result of European Commission rulings, the only way Europeans will be able to install Windows 7 is clean (by eliminating the existing version of Windows in order to erase the Microsoft browser and reinstalling all drivers and applications). This product will also come without a browser built in, but disks will be available from retailers with browser software (keeping that up to date will be interesting) so that folks will actually be able to get online. (Pulling a browser out of an OS in this decade seems insane to me. but then I'm not in government.) There are few people I know who I would trust to do this right so this should be an interesting few months for both the EU Commission and Microsoft in what is likely to be a finger-pointing fest if, as I expect, buyers get really upset with this result. Upgrade services should be hot in Europe post launch.



There is one unannounced version of Windows that is also generally available in retail and that is the OEM version. Similar to what is being provided to European customers, but coming with the requirement of a new motherboard or hard drive purchase, this version is generally not announced but typically runs 20 percent to 30 percent below the upgrade version and can only be installed on a fresh machine (the upgrade capability is turned off). This is closer to what you pay for the OS on new hardware. It is interesting to note that Apple gets credit for charging less for its OS while charging substantially more for its hardware to maintain the highest PC margins in the segment, yet folks think of it as providing a lower-cost offering. That's either Apple brilliance or a bad reflection on our own intelligence. Probably more than a little of both.



Specials



Starting on June 26th and running to July 11th in the U.S., and from July 15th to August 14th in Europe, there are pre-order specials offering between 50 percent and 58 percent discounts in the U.S., and between 58 percent and 61 percent discounts in Europe. These only apply to the Home Premium and Professional versions, in their respective configurations. These offers are limited by both the dates and the number offered and they will only be available from a limited number of retailers. In the U.S., these are Amazon, Best Buy, Microsoft, Office Depot and Costco. This should help Microsoft spike volumes, with estimates approaching 30 percent of those surveyed indicating they'll likely buy the upgraded product. Actual numbers will probably fall below this due to volume and time limitations but it should be enough to offset the impression that Snow Leopard is stealing substantial share from Apple due to its release in the quarter prior to the one in which Windows 7 will be launched.
 
It ain't over till the fat lady... errr... ok, bad turn of phrase.

Apple hasn't announced any solid Snow Leopard release date, so do not be surprised if we suddenly see it released pre-Oct 22nd just to stick another thing in Microsoft's back... I sure as hell won't be, I'm expecting it around the time they have the next shindig announcing new iPods, etc... potentially a new Mac mini also among other things... with Snow Leopard released either the same day or right on the heels of those announcements.

Apple is fairly predictable these days. So much for their "Thinking Different" concepts...
 
Apple hasn't announced any solid Snow Leopard release date, so do not be surprised if we suddenly see it released pre-Oct 22nd just to stick another thing in Microsoft's back...

At WWDC didn't Apple say Snow Leopard will ship this September? I don't recall them giving a specific day, but I thought they said in September... I could be wrong though.

As far as the article is concerned, is there a link to various actual numbers, because I read stuff like "Apple was aggressively taking market share from Microsoft," and "Apple had itself positioned to take a massive amount of market share from Microsoft in the third quarter," and think "really? Massive amounts?" I know they've been doing pretty well, and although I've never really read official numbers, have probably clawed a few percentage points up the market-share ladder (though I how many years do you cover for those numbers?), but to me this article seems a little overly dramatic. Maybe it's just me though. Plus I could be wrong, and they could have really done some serious damage.

I would be helping Apple grab some more of that "massive amount" with my planned purchase of a MBP in the next couple months, but I'll be balancing it out with a new PC build and Windows 7. :)
 
Last edited:
Well for Microsoft losing a percent or two is meaningless in the big scheme of things, if even that much. But for Apple, still trying to hit that 7% market share, if they push a tenth of a point or whatever, that is a massive amount for them, that's what those types of articles are always meaning to say and failing at so miserably.

Apple will never really get any bigger or gain any significant market share - which I define as reaching the 10-15% range, or better - because they don't want to be that big. They've never been on track to be that large, nor can they support that much, doubling what they seem to have right about now.

They are and will forever be a niche computer manufacturer as far as I'm concerned, with a few good products and entirely too much bravado layered with way too much marketing bullshit. :)

"That's my opinion... and I'm stickin' to it..."
 
Snow Leopard could be released today for free and I would still pay $50 for Windows 7.
 
Apple will never really get any bigger or gain any significant market share - which I define as reaching the 10-15% range, or better - because they don't want to be that big.

I wouldn't be so sure. Some estimates place Apple's consumer market share at 20% or more. With 30%-40% of college students using Macs now, you're only likely to see that share increase as they enter the work force and start earning their own income. Microsoft's total PC share is undeniable, but if you look at just the consumer level market (which really is Apple's target) Apple is making huge strides and being very aggressive. Microsoft was sitting on it's laurels for way too long, they're now fighting back, but it doesn't look like Apple is going to back down. Apple is getting into retailers like Best Buy and Wal-Mart, cutting their prices, and expanding their product lines, that's only going to help them, especially as Generation X, that grew up using Apple laptops in school, starts to take a foot hold in the consumer market. They aren't going to want the "old fogey" OS.
 
Am I the only person who things is article is 100% meaningless?

People who are buying the Win 7 upgrade are not potential Snow Leopard upgrade customers and vice versa.

No one will say, Win 7 upgrade is $20 more than Snow Leopard, I'm going to go spent $1500+ on a Mac. Nor will anyone say, wow Win 7 is only $50 for the upgrade, forget my Mac and lemme buy a PC.

The low OS prices are not a target at anyone but people upgrading. Anyone buying a new PC will get the OS free with the system.
 
as they enter the work force and start earning their own income.
Until they realize two things. First, the computer on their desk in the workplace will still likely be a PC, typically with a Dell or HP logo on it. Second, when they go to buy a new computer, and realize they should be budget-minded, knowing they'll be buying or paying for a car and a house in the near future, and realize how much more the Mac is for the same specs and hardware. When Mommy and Daddy aren't paying for the computer, the appeal of an Apple takes a big hit.
 
Well for Microsoft losing a percent or two is meaningless in the big scheme of things, if even that much. But for Apple, still trying to hit that 7% market share, if they push a tenth of a point or whatever, that is a massive amount for them, that's what those types of articles are always meaning to say and failing at so miserably.
That's 7% in the UNITED STATES.

That's what Apple tries to get people to focus on. Microsoft is a global company, Apple may have 7% share in the US, but their worldwide share is pathetic, like 1%...


Apple will never really get any bigger or gain any significant market share - which I define as reaching the 10-15% range, or better - because they don't want to be that big. They've never been on track to be that large, nor can they support that much, doubling what they seem to have right about now.
"Nor can they support that much" is key. I don't think it's them not wanting to be that big, I think the fact that they would have to become competitive, cut margins, and support configurations that they've been faulting Microsoft for all these years, would hamper their day. They flat out COULD NOT DO IT. They aren't near the size of Microsoft.


I wouldn't be so sure. Some estimates place Apple's consumer market share at 20% or more. With 30%-40% of college students using Macs now, you're only likely to see that share increase as they enter the work force and start earning their own income.
Once you get out of college, and the "poseur" factor is gone, "hip and cool" are replaced by real-world financial consciousness, and your main objective becomes getting shit done versus screwing around all day: things change.
 
I wouldn't be so sure. Some estimates place Apple's consumer market share at 20% or more. With 30%-40% of college students using Macs now, you're only likely to see that share increase as they enter the work force and start earning their own income. Microsoft's total PC share is undeniable, but if you look at just the consumer level market (which really is Apple's target) Apple is making huge strides and being very aggressive. Microsoft was sitting on it's laurels for way too long, they're now fighting back, but it doesn't look like Apple is going to back down. Apple is getting into retailers like Best Buy and Wal-Mart, cutting their prices, and expanding their product lines, that's only going to help them, especially as Generation X, that grew up using Apple laptops in school, starts to take a foot hold in the consumer market. They aren't going to want the "old fogey" OS.

Then they find out that in the workforce, business apps are designed around Windows 99.9% of the time, so they have to ditch their iBook for a PC.

This has been going on for several generations now. You're only just noticing.

The only difference now is that Apple computers can run Windows via BootCamp, which means Microsoft still wins too.
 
The only difference now is that Apple computers can run Windows via BootCamp, which means Microsoft still wins too.

:D

I always thought it was ironic how Apple markets their OS as superior to Windows all the time, but then they provide Boot Camp...


Actually, at least in my time, most everyone grew up using Apple machines in elementary school. So in a way, most everyone is a convert from Mac to PC :D
Even at that though, any school I happen to walk into anymore seems to be running Windows anymore.
IMO Ubuntu with Open Office would suffice for "learn to type" classes, the basics... Free, runs on about any hardware, etc.
 
Then [college students] find out that in the workforce, business apps are designed around Windows 99.9% of the time, so they have to ditch their iBook for a PC. The only difference now is that Apple computers can run Windows via BootCamp, which means Microsoft still wins too.
I guess the question is how many college students are using PPC Macs, which aren't BootCamp capable, as opposed to Intel Macs. Even if the majority are using PPC Macs, then they can still buy Intel Macs and support Windows "business apps": they don't necessarily have to jump on the PC bandwagon.

I always thought it was ironic how Apple markets their OS as superior to Windows all the time, but then they provide Boot Camp...
Because the flexibility to run any OS makes the Mac platform all the more attractive. Irony doesn't apply here. The PC has the same advantage, though getting OS X running on a PC is still a considerable effort -- even for the savviest PC users.

BootCamp is not about covering up OS X's 'shortcomings' so much as it is about making the Mac platform more appealing as a whole.
 
I agree with what you are saying, phide, but the irony I see is that someone would pay more for a Mac, just to run Windows, when they can buy a cheaper Dell that was designed to run Windows. I have a good friend in the Navy, where they only use Macs, but they do absolutely nothing under OSX. By his own admission, they boot to and run Windows 99.9% of the time. He'll also admit they spent much more on the hardware than they had to, given they could have just gotten Dells, and he's a big time Mac fan. It's the government, though, so spending and budgeting aren't really a concern.
 
Because software developers don't generally flock to the Mac (although some certainly do). That's not a shortcoming of OS X, but rather a function of its limited market share.
 
Mac's marketing department has more talents than Window's.

Apple may not have market share in business community, but they have alot of head start on consumer entertainment area.
 
Because software developers don't generally flock to the Mac (although some certainly do). That's not a shortcoming of OS X, but rather a function of its limited market share.

It's a shortcoming of the platform in general, which is my point.

The Zune doesn't have a whole lot of software written for it, either. It's all written for the iPod.
It's a shortcoming of the Zune platform, and why many chose the iPod over it.

No different here. Mac as a whole isn't compatible? That's a shortcoming.

I do understand what you're saying, I really do.
 
Until they realize two things. First, the computer on their desk in the workplace will still likely be a PC, typically with a Dell or HP logo on it. Second, when they go to buy a new computer, and realize they should be budget-minded, knowing they'll be buying or paying for a car and a house in the near future, and realize how much more the Mac is for the same specs and hardware. When Mommy and Daddy aren't paying for the computer, the appeal of an Apple takes a big hit.
+1.
 
Until they realize two things. First, the computer on their desk in the workplace will still likely be a PC, typically with a Dell or HP logo on it. Second, when they go to buy a new computer, and realize they should be budget-minded, knowing they'll be buying or paying for a car and a house in the near future, and realize how much more the Mac is for the same specs and hardware. When Mommy and Daddy aren't paying for the computer, the appeal of an Apple takes a big hit.
+1

Call it monopoly, call it suckering, but I'm a student and I have Windows, Windows, Windows, and I get annoyed with anything else. MS Office? Check. (Ultimate Steal FTW) Outlook (more debatable in the Age of Gmail)? Check. Windows 7 RC on both computers? Check.

I could not have gotten a Mac that would do the same things as my Dell laptop for the $1200 I spent on said Dell. Oh, never mind that I've dropped my Dell, my dog's stepped on it, I've opened the case several times--and it still works fine. What more could one want?
 
Until they realize two things. First, the computer on their desk in the workplace will still likely be a PC, typically with a Dell or HP logo on it. Second, when they go to buy a new computer, and realize they should be budget-minded, knowing they'll be buying or paying for a car and a house in the near future, and realize how much more the Mac is for the same specs and hardware. When Mommy and Daddy aren't paying for the computer, the appeal of an Apple takes a big hit.

damn beat me to it.
 
A Mactel running Windows via Bootcamp, is just a PC in a stylish case when it comes down to it. Why bother even calling it a Mac except to differentiate it from a Dell or HP or Lenovo?

I doubt MS was even thinking of Apple and Snow Leopard when it offered this $50 upgrade deal. They were still prolly worrying over Win 7's biggest competitor, Xp...........................
 
Until they realize two things. First, the computer on their desk in the workplace will still likely be a PC, typically with a Dell or HP logo on it. Second, when they go to buy a new computer, and realize they should be budget-minded, knowing they'll be buying or paying for a car and a house in the near future, and realize how much more the Mac is for the same specs and hardware. When Mommy and Daddy aren't paying for the computer, the appeal of an Apple takes a big hit.


my thoughts exactly!

:D

I always thought it was ironic how Apple markets their OS as superior to Windows all the time, but then they provide Boot Camp...


Actually, at least in my time, most everyone grew up using Apple machines in elementary school. So in a way, most everyone is a convert from Mac to PC :D
Even at that though, any school I happen to walk into anymore seems to be running Windows anymore.
IMO Ubuntu with Open Office would suffice for "learn to type" classes, the basics... Free, runs on about any hardware, etc.


bootcamp i recall was an attempt to help windows user switch, now remember though, apple is a hardware seller, not so much software, so even if you buy their laptop, and allow windows to run on it, you still paid them for their hardware and OSX.

i think part of the plan was to get windows users over, then they would use OS X more and more and eventually move away from windows, but from what i read, more people installed XP or Vista and ended up using that more then OSX..lol
 
I doubt MS was even thinking of Apple and Snow Leopard when it offered this $50 upgrade deal. They were still prolly worrying over Win 7's biggest competitor, Xp...........................

I doubt it too. They really don't compete...

A Mac user won't buy a Windows license if they've currently got OS X and are happy with it.
A Windows user won't go buy a whole new set of hardware just to run OS X, either....

So I'm not sure if the "target" audience the article suggests even exists.


What's amazing is Windows 7 and Vista combined still won't be able to touch XP lol... Perhaps over the next year Windows 7 will become the dominate Windows OS.
The thing is, XP does all the basics quite well. Gumption to upgrade is limited, until folks get a new computer.
 
Once you get out of college, and the "poseur" factor is gone, "hip and cool" are replaced by real-world financial consciousness, and your main objective becomes getting shit done versus screwing around all day: things change.

Yea, a Mac is a fashion accessory first and a computer second. :)
 
I doubt it too. They really don't compete...

A Mac user won't buy a Windows license if they've currently got OS X and are happy with it.
A Windows user won't go buy a whole new set of hardware just to run OS X, either....

So I'm not sure if the "target" audience the article suggests even exists.


What's amazing is Windows 7 and Vista combined still won't be able to touch XP lol... Perhaps over the next year Windows 7 will become the dominate Windows OS.
The thing is, XP does all the basics quite well. Gumption to upgrade is limited, until folks get a new computer.


Well, if Vista had a 7 year life cycle, or if Windows 7 did, i am sure they would come close to the install base XP had..

in a sense XP was one of MS freak of nature OS's, their cycle as we all know, was around 3 years per OS, but XP lasted for almost 7 years alone...,..

of course for a reason, after 3 serice packs, it held it;s own (even thought SP2 really fubar'd alot of companies custom applications and so on.. XP really did have it;s own doom days so to speak....)

now that MS is back to it;s normal release cycle, Vista has bneen out 3+ years now... and now windows 7, i cant wait to read the same, more or less, regusrgitated thread abouts how Windows 8 sucks, Windows 9 sucks, i do think Windows 7 has made a good name thus far, i can see it being the next Windows XP so to speak in terms of life span.
 
Last edited:
Remember video games and software all used to list multiple OS on them, for compatibility?

XP had been around so long, the need for that almost vanished. In 7 years, most everyone gets a new PC, which would have included XP.


XP was just flat out so much "the norm" that introducing something new again, developers had forgot they have to code for multiple OSes...
 
Vista has been out for just over 2 years and 5 months and not 3+ years. It was released January 30th, 2007.
 
Vista has been out for just over 2 years and 5 months and not 3+ years. It was released January 30th, 2007.
That's just the worldwide retail release. It was available through many other channels a few months before that. I believe TechNet had it in November of 2006.
 
Vista has been out for just over 2 years and 5 months and not 3+ years. It was released January 30th, 2007.

Windows 1 to Windows 2 = 2 Years
Windows 2 to Windows 2.11 = 2 Years
Windows 2.11 to Windows 3 = 1 Year
Windows 3 to Windows 3.11 = 2 Years
Windows 3.11 to Windows 3.5 (NT) = 2 Years
Windows 3.5 NT to Windows 95 = <1Year
Windows 95 to Windows 98 = 2 Years
Windows 98 to Windows 98 SE = 1 Year
Windows 98 SE to Windows 2000 = 1 Year
Windows 2000 to Windows ME = <1Year
Windows ME to Windows XP = 1 Year
Windows XP to Windows Vista = 6 Years
Windows Vista to Windows 7 = 2 Years


What's the ONLY exception to the rule? XP.
So quitcher bitchin, Microsoft is simply getting right back to how they've always done it.
 
The Interesting thing about the OS-X upgrade cost is, Going from Leopard to Snow Leopard is $29, but going from any earlier version is not.
 
Windows 1 to Windows 2 = 2 Years
Windows 2 to Windows 2.11 = 2 Years
Windows 2.11 to Windows 3 = 1 Year
Windows 3 to Windows 3.11 = 2 Years
Windows 3.11 to Windows 3.5 (NT) = 2 Years
Windows 3.5 NT to Windows 95 = <1Year
Windows 95 to Windows 98 = 2 Years
Windows 98 to Windows 98 SE = 1 Year
Windows 98 SE to Windows 2000 = 1 Year
Windows 2000 to Windows ME = <1Year
Windows ME to Windows XP = 1 Year
Windows XP to Windows Vista = 6 Years
Windows Vista to Windows 7 = 2 Years


What's the ONLY exception to the rule? XP.
So quitcher bitchin, Microsoft is simply getting right back to how they've always done it.
Completely befuddled their consumer line and their business line of OS's.

3.11->95->98->ME->XP->Vista->Win7
is different than
NT3.1->3.5->4->2000(5)->XP(5.1)->Vista(6.0)-Win7(6.1)

Yes they finally merged at XP, which brought great stability to the home desktop. But also 2000 worked great as a home OS, I used it myself, as did many enthusiasts once drivers and software became adopted to it which took time. But once that happend, everything that worked for 2K pretty much worked for XP, and then XP had an excellent launch.

Kind of like Vista was slow to get drivers out the door, and the followup Win7 is basically just a tweaking of that. Same drivers and software compatibility with previous OS.
 
Completely befuddled their consumer line and their business line of OS's.

3.11->95->98->ME->XP->Vista->Win7
is different than
NT3.1->3.5->4->2000(5)->XP(5.1)->Vista(6.0)-Win7(6.1)

Yes they finally merged at XP, which brought great stability to the home desktop. But also 2000 worked great as a home OS, I used it myself, as did many enthusiasts once drivers and software became adopted to it which took time. But once that happend, everything that worked for 2K pretty much worked for XP, and then XP had an excellent launch.

Kind of like Vista was slow to get drivers out the door, and the followup Win7 is basically just a tweaking of that. Same drivers and software compatibility with previous OS.
:rolleyes:
Way to split hairs and totally miss the point. Redoing it for just consumer stuff:

Windows 3.11 to Windows 95 = 2 Years
Windows 95 to Windows 98 = 3 Years
Windows 98 to Windows 98 SE = 1 Year
Windows 98 SE to Windows ME = 1Year
Windows ME to Windows XP = 1 Year
Windows XP to Windows Vista = 6 Years
Windows Vista to Windows 7 = 2 Years

Looks virtually the same. My point is still the same.
 
Back
Top