Comments on: Time for an audit of Microsoft's 'Apple Tax'

The software maker returns to one of its favorite anti-Apple attacks, this time with an April 15 theme. However, CNET News' Ina Fried says if she were the IRS, she'd audit this return.

[Vegaman_Dan]

This is humorous, but can only be treated as any other ad material.

It's not a fair comparison as the two products being compared are a Macintosh and a PC.

*Macintoshes ARE PC's now*

It would be a better comparison if Microsoft produced the computer hardware AND software, but they do not. You need to either compare OS X and Windows or Mac Hardware vs Dell(or other) Hardware only.

But it's a good PR stunt either way. Apple needs to do something soon to stave off this onslaught of rumor busting.

[mouseclick]

Blah, blah, blah. You're either a PC or a Mac fan. Plain and simple. Turns out 8-9 out of 10 folks use PCs. Obviously, the editor here is a Mac fan (do they over-analyze Mac ads the same way - no, of course not). Frankly, it is quite stupid to keep seeing so many Microsoft haters out there. The world would be far worse without Microsoft in it. That is a truth that does not need any advertising support or analysis. If you like a Mac, good for you. If you like a PC, good for you too. But, stop bashing the other side already and instead review the actual products to help buyers make better choices, rather than their advertisements. Really, advertisements - you are reviewing that now??? I've seen CNET review some junk in the past but, this takes the cake!!!

[seven7dust]

not everyone choses windows though ! they are forced into it by OEMS !

[disposableidentity]

Most people understand you get what you pay for.

In every market (homes, cars, food, clothes, vacations, etc.) you get a higher quality product, or a better experience, when you pay a little more. A fair number of computer owners obviously feel that way, and there are more and more of them every day.

What's funny about Microsoft's strategy, is that they are telling us exactly the same thing as Apple: That the Mac is a higher-end product.

[heavydevelopment]

From the white paper: "Microsoft pitted Windows Vista against Apple?s OS X, this gap will likely close up when Microsoft introduces Windows 7 late this year."

Besides making me laugh, that's a BIG assumption. I've played with Windows 7 and gotta be honest, it still blows--although not as bad as Vista. Plus you still have to buy anti-virus for it. Of course the OS upgrade is going to probably cost $240 per computer (The 'Ultimate' version). Whereas, with OS X you can upgrade using the family pack for $200. McAfee anti-virus software subscription is $40 a year for two computers or $200 over years. Mac anti-virus: $0. If you are buying the Mac Pro, a Blu-Ray drive can easily be installed.

[stm24]

So what Blows about 7? What's wrong with Vista? Please get off this about spending 40+ for anti-virus. So let's see here, "Whereas, with OS X you can upgrade using the family pack for $200." Is this right? Ok so you paid $1400 to $2500 each for 3 Mac's in 2 to 3 years and you complaining about $200 for 1 os on a pc that cost you the most up to $1000 and they do the same thing. So let say you paid $1400 each 13" mac's that's $4200 and another $200 for a upgrade comes to $4400. But a person can go buy 3 17" pc's for $900 each and pay $2700 with the same hardware as those 13"mac's and as you say(but more like $180) $240 for The Ultimate for $720 for a tolal of $3400 and you say you got the bette deal of the 2 of you. Yea right. Oh as for Blu_Ray drive, no you just can't open up a mac and put one in and it works. You can with a pc.

[Web-JIVE]

This campaign based on PC's being cheaper by Microsoft and others is getting SO old. I have at least 8 friends who have switched to Macs from PC/Vista because they are tired of updating virus software, spyware, this ware, that ware and using the system is more confusing than XP was (XP is by far MSFT's best OS to date).

I own a web design and development firm and after 24 years of PC's, I made the switch and we're far more productive and profitable. Is that a a tax (if so, bring it on!)?

My wife and daughter both have Macs now not because I convinced them to, they just love the EASY built-in software that just works (iPhoto, iTunes, etc). Is that a tax to?

I have been highly impressed with Apple's support both times I had to use them especially since the calls were answered by people in Cupertino CA. We still own the first 17" 1ghz Macbook (going on 6 years old) we purchased, which my daughter now uses (hand-me-down recently) and it will carry her to collage. I have never owned a PC that ran that well and problem free for that long.

Maybe the Apple hardware uses better components? My friends say the same thing and, they aren't tech types. They're normal, average users.

I think Microsoft is a great company with great software and people are choosing to purchase Macs because they like them (like us) and they're happier. Is happier a tax?

Both companies have loyal customers so why keep debating this apples to oranges cost comparison? It's stale and makes Microsoft look somewhat desperate after the Vista experience didn't play out as well as they hoped for. Mistakes happen! Just make Windows 7 better and.... easier to use and the market will decide for itself.

Regards,
Eric Caldwell
Owner, Web-JIVE.com

[stm24]

You know the same thing you said here can be said by someone using windows! If your friends are getting malware and virus's on their pc's then it's something your friends and family is doing for it to happen.
"It's stale and makes Microsoft look somewhat desperate after the Vista experience didn't play out as well as they hoped for. Mistakes happen! Just make Windows 7 better and.... easier to use and the market will decide for itself."
Where was you when Apple was telling everyone that windows no good as you saying here. I didn' t see you on here saying Apple desperate, that is why they have those add!

[iptofar]

Hey gofalcons, What did i say about ram costs other than they weren't the 200 listed in M$ total? SO WHO"S THE REAL IDIOT? Think before you assume you are smarter than anyone else.

My experience in a office is that PCs are junk after 2 years. And in an office environment, you don't upgrade, you trash. We still have G4 733's functioning. And before the PC fanboys flame me, that is just the facts as I've experienced them.

[stm24]

The fact is your IT people are the IDIOT's if your pc's are junk after 2 years.

[trewbux]

This is the most BS white paper I have ever seen - reading the source itself really showed the bias:
1. it assumes the PC buyer already owns software (office/quicken) for PC so must pay for mac versions. a truly fair comparison would factor that cost into both systems
2. it factors in a MobileMe subscription - truly a waste of money in my opinion as there are free services from google and others to do all these things
3. it lists different prices for the same third-party hardware (router, external HD, graphics card) - just because Apple sells them at a premium. Mac buyers can get their peripherals from the same bargain retailers as everyone else.
4. it assumes purchase of Apple Care, without accounting for the likelihood of the user actually needing a warranty - which is more likely to have the user on the phone to customer support - OS X Leopard or Vista? I've never bought an Apple Care plan for an Apple product and I've never needed one, many of my Dell-buying friends have had the opposite problem

[Perry_Clease]

Well there are tax brackets and there are tax brackets. The PC tax bracket is the one that includes the guys at the intersections holding a cardboard sign:

"Veteran Windows User
Hungry for Class
Any Mac would help
God Bless"

[Maccess]

How Contrived. Don't forget to add the cost of a good anti-virus, a slow computer during the time spent scanning (sure it can be automated to run past midnight, just add in power costs). Having Windows, Mac, and Linux machines. I can say unequivocally that the Windows machines are the most expensive to run.

Of course, no home user would get a full-blown high-end Mac Pro, but if he did, he might make $$$ running a video editin business. Otherwise, he should get a Mac Mini dual monitor setup or an iMac.

[trewbux]

This is the most BS white paper I have ever seen - reading the source itself really showed the bias:
1. it assumes the PC buyer already owns software (office/quicken) for PC so must pay for mac versions. a truly fair comparison would factor that cost into both systems
2. it factors in a MobileMe subscription - truly a waste of money in my opinion as there are free services from google and others to do all these things
3. it lists different prices for the same third-party hardware (router, external HD, graphics card) - just because Apple sells them at a premium. Mac buyers can get their peripherals from the same bargain retailers as everyone else.
4. it assumes purchase of Apple Care, without accounting for the likelihood of the user actually needing a warranty - which is more likely to have the user on the phone to customer support - OS X Leopard or Vista? I've never bought an Apple Care plan for an Apple product and I've never needed one, many of my Dell-buying friends have had the opposite problem

[greho]

I'll base my experiences on laptops, which is all I buy anymore.

If you match specs, yes, most Macs are a couple hundred dollars higher. But having owned Mac, Acer, HP, and Dell, I can tell you from personal experiences that Apple's build quality is better.

And when you start comparing cheap laptops to the low-end MacBook, make sure you are indeed comparing the same feature sets. Every Mac laptop has a discreet graphics processor (nVidia). A great many sub-$1000 Windows laptops use Intel's crap onboard graphics and even crappier sound chipsets.

One of my specific needs was for discreet graphics, and once you add that to the spec list, the price difference shrinks dramatically. PC vendors view discreet graphics as a "performance" option, and price accordingly. Which is why, as I recall, so many many people were pissed off at Vista's high hardware requirements.

All-metal bodies also cost more, regardless of vendor.

If MS would compare equivalent hardware, and not vastly different hardware, they might have a better sales pitch. Buyer beware!

[disposableidentity]

One more thing to think about:
Is it really a "tax" when we gladly (and voluntarily!) pay it?

Even if Microsoft hadn't exaggerated the numbers, what does that say about Microsoft's product? That millions of people are happy to pay good money to switch away from them?

Sounds like an endorsement.

From a communications perspective it's a no-win for Microsoft. Unless they think their commercials (and these kinds of studies and press releases) will win over MORE than 88% of the population they're better off keeping their mouths shut. Even if they convince let's say 76% (which for any communications initiative would be amazing) they still lose.

[AJ Pants]

This recent series of attacks on Apple only prove one thing: Microsoft are getting worried.

And so they should be.

[trewbux]

I see one major flaw in Microsoft's "Apple tax" argument- If the PC is indeed a better product at a cheaper price, then why has Apple's market share (and attention from MS) been steadily growing? Free market economics would indicate that Macs should have been driven out of the marketplace ages ago by their PC competition if all people cared about was the specs mentioned in this white paper - unless, that is, there really is inherent added value to their product that justifies the higher price point, and consumers see it (hint - I'm thinking of the OS here)

[cptmcnair]

Did they mention the cost to downgrade from an OS that NOBODY wants like Vista to Windows XP? Or how about upgrading to Windows 7 in the next five years?
I can do everything with iWork that I can do with Office, or at least the version of Office most people use. iWork costs a lot less than Office for Mac.

[c_peptide]

Obviously the "Apple tax" figures fall apart under scrutiny. First and foremost, there is no accounting for the huge virus/spyware/malware gap between the two and the cost of protection. (Or the cost of losing everything to something your PC antivirus software missed). Second, there is no accounting for the much greater time, money and energy Windows users spend maintaining and troubleshooting their hardware, their drivers, their security, peripherals, etc. Third, the whole upgrade issue, as others have mentioned, is fraudulently presented.

Ultimately it boils down to a quality of life issue. Sure, I could have paid less for a 3 bedroom house in a high-crime area of the inner city than I did for one in a leafy suburb that has the same square footage, but don't try to convince me that I didn't get value for my money.

[Understarsidream]

I can make a windows machine much more expensive with their pre-paid business support that costs thousands of dollars per year and compare that too.


Microsoft is really, really reaching here.

[ewelch]

Good article, and pretty much right on many points, but the iMac is not their only consumer desktop. There are two Mac Minis that sell for much less. And comparable PC boxes like them cost more. And by comparable, I mean same specs.

As for people claiming you can compare $400 laptops to Apple's $2,000 laptop, that's just bogus. What's comparable is PCs that cost $2,000. They're the PCs that use the same parts as Macs.

Reasonable people can choose different products. But this Microsoft ad campaign is just pathetic. "Hey, Vista may suck, but PCs are cheaper!"

As in, "Our food might not be fresh, but it's cheaper."

Or, "Our cars may not protect you in a crash, but they're cheaper!"

[felgercarbnaysay]

What about the cost of replacing the PCs when they fail because the solder joint on those crappy DC power jacks fail? I've had 3 PCs suffer the same fate. Magsafe solves that problem. Apple's market share is growing. Customers know PCs are crap. That's why Microsoft has to put this kind of bull*&^%$ propaganda out.

[zmonster]

The sign of a failing company like Microsoft is that it can do nothing else but attack and berate its competition. Rather than innovate and produce products that people want to buy, Microsoft instead develops crap and forces it down people's throats. When those customers say, enough of this, I'm switching operating systems, they then attack the competition through false advertising. Microsoft is a dead-end company. I predicted their demise by 2012 a few years ago, but it might be sooner than that.