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

Discussion in 'Operating Systems' started by MrGuvernment, Jun 29, 2009.

  1. MrGuvernment

    MrGuvernment You have not picked your own. You are stupid.

    Messages:
    19,751
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    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

     
  2. Joe Average

    Joe Average Ad Blocker - Banned

    Messages:
    15,465
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    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...
     
  3. Jerome36

    Jerome36 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    4,016
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    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: Jun 30, 2009
  4. Joe Average

    Joe Average Ad Blocker - Banned

    Messages:
    15,465
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    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..."
     
  5. bigdogchris

    bigdogchris Wii was a Novelty

    Messages:
    17,433
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Snow Leopard could be released today for free and I would still pay $50 for Windows 7.
     
  6. bonsai

    bonsai [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,285
    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    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.
     
  7. cnick79

    cnick79 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,847
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Snow Leopard could also come with $50 and I would still pay $50 for Windows 7.
     
  8. demingo

    demingo Trump is My President!

    Messages:
    6,615
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    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.
     
  9. DeaconFrost

    DeaconFrost [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,912
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    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.
     
  10. TechieSooner

    TechieSooner [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,612
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    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%...


    "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.


    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.
     
  11. Azhar

    Azhar Fixing stupid since 1972

    Messages:
    19,511
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2001
    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.
     
  12. Grazehell

    Grazehell 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,660
    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2001
    Me too, but thats because I dont own a mac :D
     
  13. Azhar

    Azhar Fixing stupid since 1972

    Messages:
    19,511
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2001
    You don't need a Mac. But let's not go there. Mods might be watching. Shhhh!!

    ;-)
     
  14. TechieSooner

    TechieSooner [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,612
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    :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.
     
  15. phide

    phide You have not picked your own. You are stupid.

    Messages:
    16,966
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    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.

    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.
     
  16. DeaconFrost

    DeaconFrost [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,912
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    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.
     
  17. TechieSooner

    TechieSooner [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,612
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    If OS X had no shortcomings, why run Windows?
     
  18. phide

    phide You have not picked your own. You are stupid.

    Messages:
    16,966
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    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.
     
  19. Flyboat

    Flyboat Gawd

    Messages:
    630
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2006
    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.
     
  20. TechieSooner

    TechieSooner [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,612
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    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.
     
  21. dark_reign

    dark_reign [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,047
    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    +1.
     
  22. bigdogchris

    bigdogchris Wii was a Novelty

    Messages:
    17,433
    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    lol owned
     
  23. phide

    phide You have not picked your own. You are stupid.

    Messages:
    16,966
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    Hmm.
     
  24. Sovereign

    Sovereign 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,080
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    +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?
     
  25. rhexis

    rhexis Gawd

    Messages:
    903
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
    damn beat me to it.
     
  26. Gorankar

    Gorankar [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,468
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2000
    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...........................
     
  27. MrGuvernment

    MrGuvernment You have not picked your own. You are stupid.

    Messages:
    19,751
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004

    my thoughts exactly!


    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
     
  28. TechieSooner

    TechieSooner [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,612
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    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.
     
  29. guppy

    guppy Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    311
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Yea, a Mac is a fashion accessory first and a computer second. :)
     
  30. MrGuvernment

    MrGuvernment You have not picked your own. You are stupid.

    Messages:
    19,751
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004

    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: Jul 9, 2009
  31. TechieSooner

    TechieSooner [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,612
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    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...
     
  32. guppy

    guppy Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    311
    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Vista has been out for just over 2 years and 5 months and not 3+ years. It was released January 30th, 2007.
     
  33. DeaconFrost

    DeaconFrost [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,912
    Joined:
    Sep 6, 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.
     
  34. TechieSooner

    TechieSooner [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,612
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 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.
     
  35. griffinhart

    griffinhart [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,245
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    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.
     
  36. TheAmazingXemo

    TheAmazingXemo [H]Lite

    Messages:
    77
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Damn right.
     
  37. Menelmarar

    Menelmarar [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    5,483
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2001
    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.
     
  38. TechieSooner

    TechieSooner [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,612
    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2007
    :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.