Comments on: Apple and Microsoft: The Difference in OS Sales Models

By: Abhi

Abhi — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 11:31:39 +0000

Hi, In short please suggest me if some one or me send some data to microsoft system it can excuatable or not may .doc/.xlsx/.ppt/.jpeg/.jpg/etc

By: » give us this day our daily kool-aid i drank the kool-aid: clutching my dixie cup of apple goodness

Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:48:13 +0000

[...] A fair *grumble* comparison on the OS sales models of Apple and Microsoft and how they might both be… [...]

By: Jared

Jared — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:19:09 +0000

@Partners in Grime

You misunderstood the whole article. There is no way to purchase a “new” version of Snow Leopard. You either buy the “upgrade” box (upgrading a Mac from Tiger, Leopard, etc.) or you buy a new Mac with Snow Leopard pre-installed. Apple does not license OS X any other way. Unless you break the EULA and install the “upgrade” on a non-Mac I defy you to get a “new” version of Snow Leopard.

The Vista “upgrades” Tom wrote of were from lesser versions of Windows, such as XP to Vista, paralleling an upgrade from Leopard to Snow Leopard.

By: Jared

Jared — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:14:54 +0000

You forgot to take into account the fact that most of Microsoft’s OS revenues come from pre-installing Windows (OEM version) on hardware and passing the cost on to consumers, making it appear free (and making it very difficult or desirable for hardware manufacturers to break the status quo and differentiate with a different OS). The monopolistic tie of all the major hardware manufacturers to Microsoft is the core of their business model; the retail boxes are just gravy.

Your comparison of multiple editions of Vista to Apple’s Mac model lineup, both for purposes of price discrimination, was very enlightening. On the OEM side, Microsoft probably does this too. The hardware manufacturers such as Dell probably like this too because they can increase their margins by giving users optional Vista edition upgrades and overcharge for them.

By: Partners in Grime

Partners in Grime — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 04:00:57 +0000

Snow Leopard will be a new version and an upgrade.

By: dan Scanlan

dan Scanlan — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:53:44 +0000

Don’t know much about PCs, except that I find the terminology confusing. Apple’s terminology makes sense to me: System, version, update. On one computer I’m running System 10, version 5, update 6, i.e., 10.5.6. System 10 isn’t a an upgrade of System 9; it’s a whole different animal. Version five isn’t really an update of version six, either. Way different. Within each version Apple issues updates, about four a year, plus security, Java and other sub routine updates. With Apple, once you buy a version, all updates are free, at least so far. Snow Leopard will be a new version, not an upgrade, to my way of thinking.

By: Don

Don — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:50:53 +0000

This is a great post, and as many of your posts, changed and enhanced my way of looking at things.

Now, if only you could convince Paul Thurrot of the same -he seems to think that all major OS X upgrades are just silly, simple service packs that Apple should provide for free!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 13:15:28 +0000

“The decision of which of the four to purchase is up to the user”

That’s the part I don’t understand. My Mac PC’s, I get the OS, I choose to upgrade. My Windows PC’s, I don’t know which version to get. If some feature doesn’t work, did I configure it wrong or did I need a different version of Windows?

BTW, I think that installing a “full” copy of Windows still requires authentication, and installing a “full” copy of Windows on another PC (when the original died) fails that authentication process.

And if I want to upgrade, does a Ultimate Vista upgrade work from a Home XP?

By: Apple y Microsoft: Diferencias en modelos de venta de sistemas operativos, Carrero

Sat, 27 Dec 2008 06:47:30 +0000

[...] the apple blog Etiquetas: apple, blog, blogs, linux, mac, mac os x, microsoft, operativos, palabras, venta, [...]

By: Kevin

Kevin — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:55:12 +0000

Great article, man – gave me some really great insight into the approach used by either company. I’d have to say that I prefer Apple’s approach a lot better, but then again, my already-present Mac bias might be the reason I’m more fond of much simpler processes.

-Kev

By: Tom Reestman

Tom Reestman — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:57:59 +0000

Kevin,

“I have never heard anybody make fun of Microsoft for having both “Upgrade” and “Full” versions”

I was misunderstood.

When I made the statement “Apple users like to make fun Vista’s versions”, I was referring to the four varieties, not the divide between full and update. Indeed, the article acknowledges the full/upgrade method is the common thing, calling it “the classic method of software sales”; previous users of the software get a break in pricing.

The reason I brought up Vista’s four flavors was because some people do make fun of that. Heck, even one of the Get A Mac ads made fun of it. What I was trying to say was that when you do not rely on hardware sales (i.e., the OS is your revenue stream) then a “one size fits all” philosophy isn’t your best bet. Just as hardware makers (PC and Apple) have a range of products at different price points, so too does Microsoft need a range of THEIR product at different price points. This is true not only of Vista, but of Microsoft Office as well.

By: Leon

Leon — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:16:08 +0000

Fair point, well made, Jimbo.

(I’m hoping there are some Royle Fa)ly fans here, or my comment is utterly pointless)

By: Harvey

Harvey — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:46:33 +0000

Apple is really more like NVidia. You buy the hardware and the driver comes in the box. OS X is really just a giant driver to make the Mac work. The difference is that Apple charges for upgrades to the driver, which makes sense given how complex it is.

By: Kevin Ballard

Kevin Ballard — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:16:12 +0000

I have never heard anybody make fun of Microsoft for having both “Upgrade” and “Full” versions. What I have heard, and what is worth ridiculing. is the fact that Microsoft has 4 different editions of the OS (discounting the Full/Upgrade split).

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 20:35:54 +0000

Wow.
Nice write-up.
never really looked at it that way.
Could be that I never really gave it any thought but interesting nevertheless.

Greetings from Belgium