Vista = $$$

[schmosef]

do you think apple would be able to survive if all it was selling was an os?

[schmosef]

wait a second.

[schmosef]

I just reread something that you wrote:

I'm simply saying that the cost of OS X is not buried in the cost of upgrades via Apple. That cost is built-into the cost of the base configurations for new Macs and in the price Apple charges for OS X itself.

I already said this (the first part anyway):

Apple charges an arm and a leg for their OS but it's not as obvious because they bury the cost of the software in with the cost of a Mac.

What i disagree with you on is whether they charge enough for their os when bought as an upgrade to recoup their costs.

I don't think that they do. If they did, they could get out of the hardware game, take on Microsoft directly, and potentially gain a much bigger market share.

Further, my comment about true costs for OS upgrades being buried in hardware upgrades was a reference to the fact that in many instances when one upgrades their OS they need to consider upgrading RAM or HDD as well.

Further, and I haven't made this point previously, I personally believe that Macs are underconfigured intentionally so that Apple can continue to churn out ever more powerful models on a regular basis with a minimal of R&D and that Mac users are constantly enticed to buy another Mac to take advantage of this regular trickle of new features (furhtering Apple profits). If you don't believe me, then explain why there were something like 12 models of the Mac LC released in only 6 years and why the difference between almost each new model was minimal at best.

[Jessterw]

do you think apple would be able to survive if all it was selling was an os?

If OS X was their sole products? It's rather doubtful they could, at least to the level of profitability that they are now. But then that would mean OS X would be running on beige boxes and that is a whole separate conversation.

Apple makes it money as a hardware company, there's no denying that. And yes, money they make from system sales undoubtedly helps drive development of the OS, but that's still outside the assumption that hardware upgrade prices somehow bury the cost of said OS development.


Edit: Ok, somehow I missed your comment about the cost being buried into the cost of a new Mac. So we can agree on that. However, the comments concerning upgrades assumes that new versions of OS X spur sales of RAM and HDDs from Apple. This may become true as more new Mac users enter the fray, but traditional Mac users are more apt to buy those upgrades elsewhere (just as they do when they purchase a new Mac from Apple). Most releases of OS X also haven't required any substantial need to increase system resources. New releases of Apple's professional applications on the other hand have. This is changing, as can be seen with the increased resource usage by Tiger and many of the iLife apps, but it's still a relatively recent trend.

Given Apple is a hardware and software company it's hard to say with 100% assurance that money made off one area doesn't end up elsewhere.

As far as Apple getting out of the hardware game... that's just not likely. Apple has always felt that by making their own hardware they are better serving their software and vice versa.

[schmosef]

Timeline of Apple Macintosh models

apple's business model demands constant repurchase.

[schmosef]

but that's still outside the assumption that hardware upgrade prices somehow bury the cost of said OS development.

that wasn't my main point.

[Jessterw]

Timeline of Apple Macintosh models

apple's business model demands constant repurchase.

Who's arguing that it doesn't?

They've gotten better about allowing for hardware upgrades that can sustain older models longer (this is especially true with the newer Intel models), but most Mac users upgrade their hardware and their OS for a couple years and then move on to a newer Mac.

In response to something you said earlier (in an edit), a lot of Mac users and others do believe that Apple purposely does more than under-configure systems, they hold back on new features. Still, most Mac models are relatively on par with systems from other vendors. Getting burned on a recent Mac purchase because Apple has just released an updated configuration is almost a tradition. That said, I don't see that Apple gets too many users to purchase new Macs in that manner.


And I edited my last reply as I got it in after your replies right above it.

[schmosef]

I'm really hoping that the next Mac Mini model comes with something better than Intel integrated graphics.

If not, I'll have to buy an iMac...

[Kooldino]

Oh whatever... it's not like this stuff is cheap to develop.

Apple charges an arm and a leg for their OS but it's not as obvious because they bury the cost of the software in with the cost of a Mac.

I thought OSX was like $100?

[schmosef]

I thought OSX was like $100?

ok, let's not start this again...

[Jessterw]

bwahahaha

[Kooldino]

You're right. This is a Vista thread :P