10 Comments

Summary:

Recently, we’ve seen Microsoft move to respond to Apple’s “I’m a Mac, and I’m a PC” ads, fearing the company’s rapid growth. There was the Seinfeld debacle, which drew plenty of attention. It didn’t seem to be quite the attention Microsoft was looking for, so they […]

Recently, we’ve seen Microsoft move to respond to Apple’s “I’m a Mac, and I’m a PC” ads, fearing the company’s rapid growth. There was the Seinfeld debacle, which drew plenty of attention. It didn’t seem to be quite the attention Microsoft was looking for, so they turned to the “I’m a PC” campaign. Yes, Pharrell is pretty cool, but the buzz quickly turned embarrassing for Redmond: the campaign was made on Macs. Google “I’m a pc campaign” and you’ll see just how much this contradiction stole Microsoft’s thunder.

They didn’t fare so well with their “Mojave” experiment, either. Microsoft rebranded Vista as Mojave, and had a focus group test it as if it were a completely new product. The reactions were filmed and made into commercials, during which participants rave about their (5 minute?) experience with the “new” OS, and then look foolish when their interviewer reveals that they were actually using the company’s much-criticized Vista.

So maybe making people who actually liked your product look dumb wasn’t the greatest idea ever. Microsoft’s PR department must have figured out what went wrong. They’re now trying a less backward approach: make fans of the competition look stupid. Hence the so-called “Apple Tax.” While the term itself is not new, Microsoft VP Brad Brooks would like to expand its meaning. In general use, it refers to the perceived premium Apple fanboys are willing to pay for their Mac fix over and above similarly spec’d PC hardware.

In a recent interview with CNET News, Brooks outlined the multi-part Apple Tax Microsoft sees users paying upon deciding to go the Mac route. The overall Apple Tax he describes is divided into three sub-categories: the Application Tax, the Technology Tax, and the Upgrade Tax.

The Application Tax comes in to play because

[I]f you want the same type of application experience on your Mac versus Windows, you’re going to be purchasing a lot of software. And even at that you’re not going to get the same experience.

Which makes a little sense, especially if you, like me, are one of many Mac users frustrated with Office 2008 and the lack of resemblance between it and its Windows counterpart. But there is a very basic problem with Brooks’ whole proposition: “[I]f you want the same [...] application experience” (emphasis added). Why would I be switching to Mac if I wanted the same application experience I was getting on my PC? Isn’t the reason for seeking an alternative, actually, well, to seek an alternative? I don’t want Windows applications on my Mac, I want Mac applications, and there are plenty of free and affordable apps designed for the platform.

The Technology Tax occurs due to hardware limitations stemming from Apple’s exclusion of things like Blu-ray, HDMI, and e-SATA. While it is true that non of these new and emerging techs have been made available on stock Macs, it’s also true that they have (for now), limited appeal to many consumers. Still, the exclusion of HDMI and Blu-ray have obviously been somewhat motivated by Apple trying to boost sales in other lines of business, such as Apple TV and iTunes, so it’s hard to make an outright denial of tech tax claims. It’s worth noting, however, that many analysts predict Blu-ray, at least, will have a very short shelf life, and e-SATA could soon be replaced by newer tech like USB 3.0, so Apple may just be waiting for a sure bet.

Finally, the Upgrade Tax is what people pay when they have to buy entirely new machines becauses Macs (for the most part) are not very customizable. Now I’ve felt the sting of this “tax” before. I took my old eMac as far as it would go, having a third-party shop open it up and install an external SATA cable so I could swap out internal drives easily on the fly, and upgrading the DVD drive. The process was costly and risky, compared to doing the same sort of thing with a PC tower. And now, with my new iMac, I’m already picturing a time soon when the HD is insufficient for my needs, and swapping them out involves removing the screen, something I don’t trust myself to do at the moment.

Even if the Upgrade Tax does exist (and recent all-in-ones from PC manufacturers show it’s not really Apple-specific), it’s easily offset by the Frustration Tax of owning a PC. If I add up the hours saved on tech support since I and those around me have switched to Macs, the amount of time saved far outweighs the cost of buying a new computer every couple of years. Yes, after two years with my eMac I felt the need for something more current and bought a MacBook, but for those two years, I had no complaints and no issues with that computer, either software or hardware related. My Toshiba laptop didn’t even make it two full years before developing fatal heat dissipation issues. The eMac, on the other hand, is still the main computer of a friend I sold it to. He’s never had a problem with it, and as a light user, no reason to upgrade, either.

The remainder of Brooks’ argument seems to rest around the cost of putting Windows on an Apple machine. Meaning that if you take Windows out of the equation, the argument falls apart. And taking it out of the equation is just what thousands of developers and consumers are currently in the process of doing.

When your strongest argument is that people have to pay more money to run your heavily criticized product if they want better hardware, guess what the logical conclusion is. The real “Apple Tax”, by Brooks’ own admission, is the cost of putting Windows on a Mac, which is no longer really necessary. I see an easy way to not pay that tax, Mr. Brooks, don’t you?

By Darrell Etherington

You're subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

Related stories

  1. I’d say the true ‘apple tax’ is the one you pay every year to 18 months for the regular OS upgrades.
    Other ‘taxes’ come in the form of iLife and iWork upgrades each year or so.

    Of course these are optional, tho in my opinion, things I look forward to – I’d rather have a great new bit of software for a price, rather than waiting, oh, say 8 years for a new version of the OS…

    But in terms of the ‘Apple Tax’ you talk about in your post, i’ve been there. But I think the indie developers for the Mac platform provide a heck of a lot more utility and light years better UI for far less than their Windows-based counter parts. So while you MAY choose to rebuy big suites like Office or CS3/4, there tend to be a lot of slightly smaller options available from independent developers for a fraction of the cost.

    Share
  2. The stupid thing is that Apple’s “I’m a Mac” campaign makes sense because Apple makes both the OS and the hardware. Microsoft doesn’t have anything to do with PC’s or Mac’s… they make an OS (that incidently runs better on a Mac than a PC to boot). If Microsoft’s campaign oriented around “I’m Vista” or “I’m a big fat office application suite” or something maybe they could organize a campaign that makes sense.

    To chide on about a stupid “Apple Tax” just goes more in the direction of ridiculous because, again, MS has nothing to do with hardware (with exception of the crappy Zune and the awesome XBox). Comparing a Mac to a PC on technical specs alone is ridiculous. No Dell, Compaq, or HP I’ve ever used (laptop, desktop or server) has ever compared to the physical construction or layout. IBM has had some well considered hardware as has SUN (and remember DEC? Nice.) The Windows Tax is how bloated the OS gets and how underperforming your PC becomes – the best way I’ve found to make a PC run better? Install Linux.

    There is no Apple tax when you consider build quality, the fact that the hardware platform and the OS were designed to work together from the start, the generally better considered UI and UE, etc. In that regard MS cannot compete. From an OS perspective nevermind the fact that underneath OSX is a solid UNIX pltform…

    Share
  3. My dad bought a laptop recently with Vista for $399, and that’s exactly what he got. You get what you pay for.

    Share
  4. I think Microsoft’s ads were quite effective. So effective that Apple had to make those 2 other ads to retaliate.

    As for the Apple Tax, this would be a great commercial:

    kankky.apina.biz:8003/9400.jpg

    Share
  5. The cost? You mean, the additional $100? That’s what an XP license has dropped to nowadays. If the entry price for Vista is too steep for someone who wants a clean install, then Microsoft should lower it’s own price! Yes, I know you can get a computer with Vista cheaply, but only because the price is subsidized by the 30 companies who pay to put their own apps on it at the factory*. This means that the very first time you boot Vista, it’s already like you’ve been using it for 2 years. A ‘clean’ Vista install from the manufacturer’s disc is far from that. A clean XP install on a Mac is so clean there’s NO icons on the desktop at first boot.

    *Apple was guilty of this too, back in 04-06 they had a deal with HP to sell/promote iPods, and preinstalled iTunes on every shipping home-use HP computer.

    Share
  6. One comment in the article always gets me. That equivalent hardware from a PC maker costs less. Price out a Dual Quad Core processor system with a 64 bit OS and the same basic stats as a Mac Pro. Guess what……it costs the same or more depending on supplier. You also don’t get 256 bit memory architecture or slots for 32gb of RAM or 4 hard drive bays capable of 4TB of storage. Raid controller for the Mac Pro is around $50.

    Share
  7. Brooks fails, of course, to mention the myriad PC taxes. Virus Tax. Spyware Tax. Rootkit Tax. Reboot Tax. Reformatting your hard drive once a year Tax. Mental anguish Tax.

    Share
  8. [...] They claim Apple is being negligent in not addressing the supposed “tax.” Here’s our answer, yet again, [...]

    Share
  9. @chad: if you’re not running antivirus on your Mac, you should be. Apple’s osX is less secure than Vista, which fact would become obvious if Macs had a market share anywhere close to where Microsoft OS’s are.

    @Connor:
    I use a Toshiba Tecra A10 laptop, and love it. It’s true, it’s not as pretty as a Mac perhaps (depending on your values) but to get equivalent hardware for a Mac costs twice as much or more – I still can’t get an integral fingerprint reader from Apple, or 4 USB ports, or interchangeable batteries etc.

    @Galley:
    get your dad Windows 7 when it’s out.

    Share
  10. [...] Second, as I’ve just mentioned, the new machines would probably have to offer big concessions in terms of hardware (they’d never sacrifice build quality) in order to provide profit margins acceptable to Apple. Crippled specs would just have people complaining that they could get a Dell with ten times better internals for the same price, which would put us exactly where we are now: Apple fans saying the product is better overall, even if on paper it doesn’t look it, and PC faithful clamoring about the Apple Tax. [...]

    Share

Comments have been disabled for this post