Operating System Pricing

P

pjmonk

Registered
My query is about pricing for operating systems every article I see written on the internet are complaining about how Mac OS X 10.3 is so expensive $129.00 and how it is a upgrade.

But one must first look at what else is available before you can complain about the pricing on 10.3. Take for example the Windows XP operating system; There is available the XP Home edition and the XP Professional Edition, I don't hear people complaining about the fact that Microsoft sold two separate operating systems XP Professional and XP Home. XP Professional offering what can only be considered a joke on the poor unsuspecting Windows user base, then there is XP Home which is an even worse operating system.

The asking price $299.00 for Professional & $199.00 for XP Home, which at time of release was a lot higher.

We all in reality know that depite GUI changes and couple other features all XP is, is an upgrade which took the heat off Microsoft ME which was an enomous failure.

Take a look at the fetures you get with XP and make the comparison. Pay $129 a year for the upgrades of MAC OS X or pay over $400 for XP Professional (at release time). It is a choice everybody makes but complaining about the pricing doesn't change the fact that what you get is a far superior system.
 
We should also be glad we are able to have an OS update every year, that unlike MS Service Packs, actually add something OTHER than security patches to our macs. ;)
 
You can also search around because I am seeing that other places are selling 10.3 for less than $129. Another thing about the $129 "upgrade" gives you the full license. This means that you now can use your older OS X to upgrade an another computer. Whereas the Microsoft $90 upgrade (xp home) only gives you an upgrade license. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

Joshua
 
Wow, has this been discussed to death, both here and elsewhere. Nonetheless, I think you are correct in your assessment, and, while I think $129 is a little steep (weren't the Classic updates, like OS 9, something like $100?), I still think it's very reasonable for them to charge this amount for what is more than just a few tweaks, even if they only increment the OS # by .1 each time.
 
The version numbering doesn't have much to do with the pricing, apparently, and is due to the fact that Apple likes to keep the 'X' moniker, which will be obsolete once Mac OS turns 11.

The higher price compared to OS 9 (and earlier) is easily explained. First: You get much more software with Mac OS X than you got with Mac OS 9. All the iApps, for example. iChat AV alone is 29$, so there's your difference from 99$ to 129$ (minus a dollar).

However: Apple is clearly on the price-wheel here. They could offer the thing for 59$ for everyone, if they wanted. There are not many included license-fees that Apple has to pay for every copy they sell (Apple's using, for example, their own implementation of Display-PDF - Quartz - and not an Adobe-licensed software such as Display-PostScript, as was the case with Rhapsody or OpenStep). But apparently, Apple doesn't _want_ to lower the price. It's been stable since 10.0: Every major version cost 129$ (with the exception of 10.1, which was free for 10.0 owners but cost 129$ for people who hadn't bought Mac OS X before).

What I would _like_ to see (not what I _believe_ Apple would do): Apple Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" (or whatever) in Autumn 2004 for 99$. Why would I like that? Not only because I want to pay less (that, too, of course), but also because it'd make it easier for people to upgrade. I still know people who don't want to go X, because they like their OS 9 just fine and think the upgrade price is too steep. 99$ would remind them of 'classic' pricing, and it's about time they switch, anyway. With Apple basically free in pricing their software, I don't see why Apple shouldn't go for it. I believe they'll sell more copies at that lower price, anyway, so that'd probably even make up for it.
 
How does the pricing Mac OSX compare with M$? I don't think XP was cheaper. Sure, I would love pay less than $129 for an upgrade, if the quality of the releases remain, then it is acceptable. Of course we have to remember the updates through out the year, etc. Which leads me to this question, what are the update tickets for? Does anyone use them?
 
Search the forums for them... They're only worth something if Apple releases a new product and mentions that those coupons are valid for it. (The 10.1 update was like that. You could go to the store and get one if you had a coupon from 10.0.)

Comparison with MS? Difficult. Are we looking at OEM versions? At retail packages? At upgrade pricing? Mac OS X is _all_ of those versions, as there is only one OEM for it (Apple), it's always an upgrade version (because in order to be able to run Mac OS X you MUST have had a previous version of Mac OS) and it's a retail package, too. Prices for Windows XP are very variable in that aspect... Also: Microsoft does _not_ release such an update every year. So one could argue that the full retail price of WinXP is worth two or more years, while a Jaguar license is not, as you pay the same price AGAIN if you want to upgrade to Panther.

I think it's not really comparable. So: Let's not do it at all. Prices are similar (i.e. it's not as if MS would demand 1'000$ for Windows XP Professional and Panther is 30$, they're in the same 'league' price-wise). Yet, I think Apple should add more options. Like: Buy a Mac and get free operating system updates for 12 months. Or free for two months and half-price for 12 months. Or: Make update-packages available that only update from the last version (i.e. 10.2 to 10.3, but not 10.1 to 10.3) for less money than a full 10.3. That'd seem fairer... It's even worse, I think, for the server version. Because: If you've bought a 999$ license of Jaguar Server, you'll spend 999$ for the Panther update! And only a YEAR later. This must sound strange to an IT admin who's used to get the latest version of RedHat Linux (or Fedora) for free... (Yes, Apple's OS is not completely open source... Yes, the Mac guy could use Darwin or stay with Jaguar...)
 
See that's the thing.

Windows folk like to say that "Apple makes you pay 129 dollars every year! That's so steep! XP only cost me 200 and I get it for FIVE years!"

That's such a nonsense premise, since all it means to say is that they are left with obsolete software for longer, and they pay more for the privilege.

Noone is made to update - all X programs really will run on Jaguar, updating isn't NECESSARY.
 
< mac user rant >XP licence for 5 years?

M$ does not release a new OS in 5 years after creating XP, that must be.

Once you install XP ... you can install it again on the same machine. You will have to call M$ and tell you formatted your ocmputer (which a computer user would have the right to do anytume he wants).

M$ does not give you the code more than 10 times in total. If you know you will need it more, if you will format your computer more than 9 times in the next 5 years, yuo will have to explain it to M$, and I am still not sure they will agree to give you the licence again. Result: if I had a pc running xp, and supposing I would need to format the pc as oftne as I did when I was using Windows (2k and ME), which was roughly once a month (+-2 weeks), they would force me to buy an other licence e.g. next July if I bought the XP licence now. That policy made the XP a lot less attractive, at least to me, so after playing with some pc-liinuxes I just got rid of the pc. < /mac user rant >
 
you can get XP Home OEM for $99 most places....but you have to buy some sort of hardware with it, if not a complete system....regardless, $129 is fine, $99 would be a more attractive price, people like anything under $100 ;)
 
At $129, I buy only one system over two. At $99 I would buy all system incrementations. I could also accept $150/year for any system+.mac. This would be great.

BTW did anybody buy Keynote ?
 
You can buy XP Home for less than $90.00 without having to buy any hardware with it.
 
Also I would say that Apple is probably trying to generate revenue off their operating system, as well as their hardware, they are a business after all.

Every article that I have read whether it was written by CNET, NY Times or others mentioned the price of MAC OS X 10.3, but when Microsoft released XP and charged the high price for a load of crap, we were suppose to say thank you.
 
Well... WinXP Home was certainly a big technological step from WinMe, since it brought the more stable NT technology to the 'home' version. But for Win2K users, it was more of a FisherPrice-themed Win2K.
 
If $129 was steep than why have you paid for it? This puzzles me. Besides, you don't need the latest and greatest as is proven by the exisiting 9.2, 10.1, and 10.2 users. If i could pay $15-59 to upgrade to each version of Mac OS X this would be great, but how do i know i'm not just getting a 9.0?
 
Okay, that post made hardly any sense for me, ApeintheShell... Trying to figure out what you've said: Yes, it's not always necessary to use the latest and greatest OS release. However: There are issues... For example, Apple won't enhance Jaguar for much longer. Already, you have to BUY iChat 2.0 and are left with iChat 1 if you don't want to buy the update. Other applications' updates/upgrades will maybe require Mac OS X 10.3, so that 10.2.x users will be left behind. Apple also seems to take its time with security patches for 10.2 now that their main focus is Panther, which is a bad thing in my opinion.
Much worse for OS X Server users... If you've paid 999$ for a Jaguar unlimited Server license, you'd expect faster security improvements if issues are found. You're probably also seriously considering whether you'll need Panther Server if Jaguar is running so well. And through all this you know that Apple will probably bring 'Tiger' (or whatever) in about 12 months, which AGAIN will cost 999$ for an unlimited server license.
To my customers (I installed Jaguar Server for some small businesses) I say: Stay Jaguar right now. The servers are running well and everything's okay right now, but I don't feel so secure reading that "security issues" are around and "Apple plans to release Security updates for Jaguar in the future" (but hasn't as of yet issued these issues that cropped up recently).
 
I mentioned 9.0 because it was the worst version of Mac OS. The price for the current operating system seems justified because of the life span of current hardware. I thought my iMac was going to stay with Jaguar(was okie dokie for me) but i saw the opportunity and bounced to it off a trampeline.
Well we had to buy iLife, now it comes with Panther.
It is nice to feel secure but i'd rather not have them repeat the rash of security updates in 10.0 and 10.1. Which wouldn't let you install certain software without them.
I've seen new software that has a minimum requirement of 10.1.5. So yes there will be some applications that require Panther, some that don't.
I hope apple doesn't build the B.E.T. or we'd be in trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top