Microsoft Discloses Windows 7 Pricing 821
It's the tripnaut! writes "Information Week has posted prices for Windows 7. From the article: 'The full version of Windows 7 Home Premium is priced at $199, with an upgrade from Vista or XP costing $119. The full version of Windows 7 Professional is $299, with upgrades going for $199. Windows 7 Ultimate is priced at $319, with the upgrade version at $219.' In a nod to the global economic downturn, it is interesting to note that prices are 10% lower than Vista."
The answer is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
well, it's just a minor upgrade to windows vista, so...?
It's a good upgrade to vista, they've taken care of many of the big grievances.
Windows 7 is not that big a change, so it hasn't cost that much to develop, so it's cheaper.
Re:The answer is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Should be a free update to Vista. Given the problems of Vista and the high amount of customer dissatisfaction with the product.
Re:The answer is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The answer is... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think Snow Leopard really has all that much over Leopard either. I think 2009 will be the year of almost meaningless OS updates.
(I boggle why I was marked as troll. I'm serious, people were pretty dissatisfied with Vista)
Re:The answer is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yea. Microsoft doesn't sell pricey computers, so they have to find other ways to gouge us.
Re:The answer is... (Score:5, Informative)
If there's more in Windows 7 compared to Vista than there is in Snow Leopard compared to Leopard, I'll eat my shorts.
So, you want salt and pepper with those?
Ignoring the obvious formatting differences, compare Windows 7 changes [wikipedia.org] with OSX 10.6 changes [wikipedia.org]. Anyone who has been following the development of Windows 7 (and isn't just another uninformed Slashdotter) knows there is a lot of changes from Vista to 7. Whether it's worth a $100 - $200 price tag is an individual choice but regardless of the popular belief around here (the same incorrect belief that nobody uses Vista), Win7 is much more than a service pack.
Re:The answer is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who has been following the development of Windows 7 (and isn't just another uninformed Slashdotter) knows there is a lot of changes from Vista to 7.
I think most of the griping revolves around the opinion that Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. IMHO Vista was a stop gap to an already tardy release. Windows 7 should have been Vista SP3. If you look at XP SP2, there were great strides made when you compare it to its gold edition.
For $29 bucks I would heartily upgrade to Windows 7. Now, I'm not so sure. I am, however, ready to line up for my Snow Leopard upgrade.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep. I've always said that Vista was the Windows ME of XP. In other words Vista is to XP that Me was to 98: a poor stop-gap solution until the actual successor came out (XP for 98, and 7 for XP).
Re:The answer is... (Score:4, Funny)
At the very least it should be a $39 upgrade to Vista.
If $39 is the least it should be, you'll be happy to hear it's much more than that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well at least the OS X 'service packs' always seem to add stuff that makes using your hardware faster and easier, as in: desirable upgrades to the system. Windows service packs (even SP2) normally only plug holes, add all kinds of new security layers to plug other holes and basic updates to the driver database and library API's. I really appreciated XP SP2 for example, but you can hardly say it added anything to actually improve my experience working with it. Vista actually degraded it in many ways, and 7 d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When the product is gratis, people will complain that it's not quality enough.
You can't please everyone, I suppose. I think this is quite a good price cut. (Because $400+ for Vista Ultimate was always ridiculous to begin with.)
Re:The answer is... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's true you can't please everyone, but $300 for the full featured OS is just ridiculous. $300 will buy me a CPU, Motherboard and a couple gigs of RAM. Add in a case and drives (which I have laying around but the average person can just re-use what's in their current computer) and you have a whole new computer. Let's see, what do I want more? A new computer or a basically meaningless OS upgrade?
The only reason MS can price things this way is because they have a monopoly on the OEM desktop market.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The answer is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The answer is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I guess there are always those who will bitch and moan about the price, but who cares? There are free alternatives. And in the non-free world, the price is comparable to that of a new release of OS X.
Ultimately it all comes down to choice. If you really want/have to use Windows, then pay for it and shut up.
Re:The answer is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, there are hardware vendors who don't bother supporting anything but windows, and if you use your computer to talk to the real world sometimes you are stuck with windows if you want to get the work done. Wine is nice, but adding layers of abstraction adds a speed penalty, too, along with the question of "will it work, I don't know, let's spend a week testing it ...", which has costs of its own.
If you really want/have to use Windows, then pay for it and shut up.
Please send me your email address so I can subscribe to your "I have money coming out my wazoo and can waste it on overpriced operating systems" newsletter.
Re:The answer is... (Score:5, Informative)
Wine is not an additional layer of abstraction nor is it an emulator. It is an implementation of the win32 api.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
adding layers of abstraction adds a speed penalty...
Some of us still have 512 MB machines at work.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
- Photoshop (don't dig yourself in further by suggesting Gimp)
That's fine if you are a high-end graphics designer, but if you were you'd be running it on a Mac, not Windows. Apple has always had the creative image market. If you're just mucking around with your home photos, any number of graphics apps will suffice, that $900 copy of Photoshop is overkill for anyone except professionals.
- Any decent audio editing software
That's just bullshit. There is a LOT of good audio editing software out there for Linux,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The answer is... (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't trust an OS from a torrent aggregator unless I have some way to check its veracity (i.e.: Ubuntu posts md5's of its ISOs, but you won't find one for an iffy torrent.
This doesn't matter much anyways, since most corporate environments are on a volume license, and most home users will get Win7 preinstalled. It really only matters to geeks like us.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or did you want the MD5 for checking that the torrent downloaded properly? Bittorrent does that itself.
Re:The answer is... (Score:5, Funny)
I thought Windows was freeware... None of the torrent sites ever asked for payment.
Freeware or malware?
Re:The answer is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not my problem. Make the upgrade cost competitive, or I'll install Linux. (Oh, wait...)
Why Pay So Much For Language Support? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ultimate Rip-Off (Score:5, Interesting)
I ended up getting Vista Ultimate.
Never saw ANY of the benefits/Ultimate Content that was promised.
The upgrade from Vista Ultimate to Win 7 Ultimate should be free.
That will teach me for buying a boxed, non-OEM version of Windows I guess.
Re:Ultimate Rip-Off (Score:5, Informative)
I ended up getting Vista Ultimate.
Me too.
Never saw ANY of the benefits/Ultimate Content that was promised.
I however knew what I was getting:
1) Disk encryption -- in ultimate only (and enterprise which is only by VLA)
2) licensed dvd codecs -- in home prem and ultimate but not in business
3) ability to connect to a domain, IIS, etc -- business and ultimate but not home
etc
But if you only bought Vista ultimate based on the handful of exclusive ultimate freebies that came at launch, and the half hearted promise that theird be some more cool stuff... that was idiotic. You should have just bought home premium or business as applicable, and then done an in place key upgrade if / when they ever released a bonus feature that made the ultimate upgrade price worth it to you.
For me, ultimate was the right choice right out of the gate. The features I wanted to play with were in the box, and I could only get everything i wanted in ultimate.
That will teach me for buying a boxed, non-OEM version of Windows I guess.
Meh, I did that so I'd have I'd have a legit key, 32 and 64 bit disks, and no grey area about whether I could move it from machine to machine, run it in a VM, etc, etc. Of course I bought the 'upgrade' so it cost the same as the oem version, and I knew about the double install trick for doing clean installs. (And I have multiple licenses for XP to legitimize the Vista upgrade.)
But the lesson that you should be learning is to buy products for what they have today, not to buy them on some vague promise of what they might one day have. That lesson will serve you will in general. For example, if you buy a game console when there are enough games for it out already that you can justify the cost even if no other game ever comes out, then you'll never be disappointed with it.
Re:Ultimate Rip-Off (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, if you buy a game console when there are enough games for it out already that you can justify the cost even if no other game ever comes out, then you'll never be disappointed with it.
If everyone waits for great games to come out for a console before they buy it, there will be no user base for that console, and no one will publish games for it.
Re:Ultimate Rip-Off (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, when I receive a promise from a company and feel that they didn't deliver, I show my dissatisfaction with that company by no longer buying their products. That is, I try not to support business practices that are abusive or unfavorable or fail to deliver. That works because in most markets there are other companies to choose from.
If there were any real competition in this market, you'd probably be saying "that will teach me for buying Microsoft". Just think about that.
Re:Ultimate Rip-Off (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wiped (Score:4, Funny)
Wait, a copy of DOS 6.0 would have solved the Northrup Grumman problem in the other story?
"All exiting drives must be reformatted with Dos 6.0, which will Promote Data Volatility past the expected recovery half life."
Re:Ultimate Rip-Off (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you. I was starting to wonder if Windows users had infinite patience for Microsoft or if eventually a point can be reached where they get fed up enough to go elsewhere. People who have enough reason will display a "suck it up" attitude towards the difficulties of moving to another platform, which I won't downplay. You really will have to learn a whole new system and all the complications that entails. It will be well worth your time, however. Especially if you go with a Unix-like system, you will develop a skillset that will transfer to many other environments.
That would be the customer-friendly option, particularly for a company which is certainly not hurting for cash and is well able to afford to do that. Really that just reinforces what sort of company you're dealing with. Now, I don't like Microsoft and I make no secret of that, but this isn't meant to be gratuitous bashing. I think your grievance against them is quite legitimate and that there's nothing wrong with saying so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Going from XP to 7 would probably entail almost as many training costs as XP to Linux. I skipped Vista and went from XP to the 7 RC, and spent an awful lot of time going "Where the *F* did they move X to?!" (and/or "What are they calling THIS function now?!")
That said, I have to say I was fairly impressed by the ease of installation and transferral of user files/settings.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're willing to use Windows (despite the problems), but you're not willing to pay for it?
Yeah, that's really a great stand against shoddy software you're making there. Either that or you're just cheap.
Overpriced. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeesh... apple is releasing snow leopard for $29 and microsoft is still pricing stuff like this? When will they learn that a lower price will likely increase the number of people willing to pay for it instead of pirating it.
Re:Overpriced. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention that most of the people who purchase Windows boxed either A) build their own PCs, B) are a business C) are a computer enthusiast or D) are a MS developer. Charging this much for people who are high up on the technology chain is just insane, especially because these people know of alternatives and they see Apple with a cheap but better OS and Linux with a free OS. Plus, what is the point of ultimate?
The boxed price is high because if it were lower than say, OEM or volume licensing, the purpose of volume/OEM licensing would be completely defeated. I can businesses having their techs go out and buy boxed copies en masse, then ghost over images of the OS to OEM computers purchased without an OS preinstalled.
The home user is actually the LAST person Microsoft is interested in selling an OS to. Businesses doubtlessly make up a vast majority of their customer base, and since businesses make of most of their
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A developer would use their MSDN Windows license. They wouldn't be buying a box at retail. Unless they're really stupid. That marks D off your list.
From my experience, businesses don't upgrade their hardware to a new OS version any more than the average user does. (i.e. hardly at all.) Meaning, business Windows cost would be rolled-in to the hardware cost, knocking B off your list.
I'd wager build-your-own-ers are more likely to pirate than to buy, unless they know a MS employee who can get Windows at MS Sto
Re:Overpriced. (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't expect people to buy stuff at those prices. The prices are high so that they can pressure OEMs into making shady deals.
Re:Overpriced. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Overpriced. (Score:5, Funny)
I have an IntelliMouse, you insensitive clod!
Re:Overpriced. (Score:4, Insightful)
Cue in to Apple ads where people are sent to Best Buy to find an operating system for fifty bucks.
And Apple's Not? (Score:3, Insightful)
Editions (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm glad that with Windows 7 Microsoft mostly reverted back to the kind of editions they marketed Windows XP with. It's now much more clear which one to buy when it is distinguised by Home and Professional, then Ultimate for the power user.
Re:Editions (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm glad that with Windows 7 Microsoft mostly reverted back to the kind of editions they marketed Windows XP with. It's now much more clear which one to buy when it is distinguised by Home and Professional, then Ultimate for the power user.
Personally, I'd like to see all the various flavors go away. Just sell Windows 7. Have a default load and then allow all the extra bells & whistles to be installed as add-ons.
There's no good reason why an XP/Vista/7 "Home" machine can't join a domain or run terminal services, Microsoft just decided to disable those features.
Does anyone actually buy windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that everyone I know has a pirated copy of windows: the few people people that have legal copies have them because they were bundled with the computer they bought. When was the last time someone actually went out specifically to bought a copy?
Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? (Score:5, Funny)
I downloaded XP, off edonkey2000, over a 56k modem.
Though I didn't buy it, I feel I earned it.
That was before I went to university, and found they had free student licences anyway.
Re:Does anyone actually buy windows? (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that everyone I know has a pirated copy of windows: the few people people that have legal copies have them because they were bundled with the computer they bought. When was the last time someone actually went out specifically to bought a copy?
Your average "Joe Sixpack" home user will probably be running a pirated copy of Windows. Their computer may have come with a legal OEM license once upon a time... But they probably lost the discs somewhere along the way, and their OEM key probably didn't work with the discs their buddy found when they had to reload their computer to get rid of the viruses, so they wound up with a cracked copy of Windows. And then they heard about the shiny new Vista thing and their buddy hooked them up with a cracked copy of that, too.
Mot IT-ish folks I know have legal copies - frequently acquired using some kind of student discount or corporate volume licensing program. They aren't paying retail, but frequently don't trust the cracked copies available.
Most of the gamer folks I know have legal copies, but they're usually buying the OS with a pile of new hardware and get some kind of OEM version, so they aren't paying retail.
The big businesses will be on some kind of software maintenance plan with Microsoft. They'll be able to download and install whatever flavor of Windows they feel like. So they won't be paying retail.
The folks who typically wind up paying retail prices, from what I've seen, are the small/medium sized businesses. They don't want to run a cracked copy of Windows for fear of being audited... But they don't need enough licenses to make volume licensing or maintenance plans affordable... So they wind up buying a pile of retail boxes. And it can be expensive. Sometimes it is actually cheaper just to replace their computers entirely, and get the new version of Windows pre-installed on the machine.
Can be cheaper if you order before 7-11 (Score:5, Informative)
And I do not mean the store 7-11.
Here:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/ptech/06/25/cnet.windows7.pricing.upgrade/index.html [cnn.com]
From the article: "From Friday through July 11, consumers in the U.S. will be able to buy an upgrade copy of Windows 7 Home premium for $49 or Windows 7 Professional for $99."
No ultimate and an upgrade not full though. But the upgrade from XP is a full wipe install anyway.
And I do agree with others who said that upgrade from vista ultimate should be free to win 7 ultimate.
Time will tell. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Time will tell. (Score:4, Interesting)
When Win 7RC came out I decided to give it a shot and quite frankly, I'm hooked.....
It's a damn fine OS for a average to power user. If you're still running XP this is a upgrade to consider. If you're running Vista.. hmm, might aswell wait until pricing dropped a bit.
But.. this is the first time I'm actually considering to buy Windows.
It runs smooth, behaves as one would expect from a OS.. In the end Win7 might end up as their best OS till now.
More importantly... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not in Europe (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8118749.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Really? (Score:3, Informative)
In a nod to the global economic downturn, it is interesting to note that upgrade prices are still more expensive than a non-upgrade OEM copy with far more reinstallation hassles.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
But in reality, I buy an OEM copy of Windows Ultimate Whatever from Newegg for $129. I don't have to deal with the utterly retarded upgrade process every time I have to nuke & pave, and I've got an ugly little sticker to refer to when nuke & pave time rolls around.
You're assuming I give two shits about honoring the finer points of Microsoft's licensing, which I don't. Is MS going to come after me? Are they going to deactivate my Windows randomly? They deactivate retail copies randomly.
To be honest, It's more convenient for me to get a legit serial number that doesn't self-destruct than to deal with suspect WGA patches & cracks that work like an arms race and require constant vigilance.
As long as you don't reinstall more often than quarterly, activation goes through without the need for a dreaded phone call. In the case that it fails, I make the phone call and say (and I quote): "I had to replace the motherboard" and get an activation key in about five minutes. If you do this once a week, the phone drones sound vaguely annoyed with you, but you still end up with the number.
So, really, what's the downside here (apart from paying for it at all)? I'm curious.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To clarify: I'm not talking about using a single sticker to activate a ton of PCs, which is certainly possible under the current OEM activation structure.
To be sure, I have had no moral issues whatsoever pirating Windows in the past, but I consider paying $129-ish per machine to keep version and config parity on my modest home office render farm a bargain in comparison to any alternative (apart from Linux, but we're talking Windows at the moment). I built the machines, and paid to get XP64 OEM for each of
for most people Windows is free... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know much of slashdot would vehemently disagree, but for the majority of users, Windows comes 'for free' with their PC. They buy a computer from Dell or whomever and it comes with Windows, then when the buy a new PC 4 or 5 years later, it comes with Windows again. Virtually no one I know 'buys' the OS - They'll simply get a the newest / latest when they buy a new computer.
[/flame]
Fear of Windows 7 (Score:4, Insightful)
How many of you zealots have actually used the W7 release candidate? From the look of the comments, not many. It's a fantastic OS already, and I'm betting it will be very successful, increasing Microsoft's market share.
Oh, but this is slashdot. Anything Microsoft = bloat, crashes, unsecure. Get out of the 90's.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now you've done it, he's picking up his chair...
What I really want to know ... (Score:3, Interesting)
is how much will it be as an "OEM" version from the likes of Newegg when I purchase it with a HD? Because anyone paying Brick and Mortor retail pricing is just paying an ignorance-tax.
Do not hate me. (Score:5, Interesting)
Stability is at least on par with XP (have not had to restart since I finished driver installs). Annoying messages have been minimal - they only appear when I am doing something that should require administrator credentials, such as installing a new application or driver.
Performance... I have no concrete figures but this also seems on par with XP.
The only down-side has been the installation time (hours, even on my beast) and the size of the OS(how DO you fit 20GB of data on a 3GB DVD anyways????).
So, the reason I want Windows 7 is so I can use all of my system's memory without a ramdisk/virtual memory hack and 64-bit support. There is really no other reason to upgrade because everything else seems on par with XP.
buy Naked (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:buy Naked (Score:5, Informative)
So how much does it cost? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have purchased only one copy of Windows(tm) in the last years; XP Professional(tm), and I paid almost $300 for it (all in, after taxes). Yes, I know I was taken for a fool, more on this later.
Now, I know that OEMs can't possibly be paying anything CLOSE to that, because I can buy a computer now WITH Windows and pay just a bit more than that.
So, I was led to believe that as a single consumer, I was being ripped off, and the only way to get a reasonable price for Windows was with a new computer. Simple, right?
Wrong. My wife works as a middle-school teach in the TDSB (Toronto District School Board). They have, what, 40,000 (more?) employees. My wife just got an offer - buy Windows Vista(tm) (Business?) for $21, and Office(tm) for $21. As far as I can tell (from the literature), there don't seem to any resale restrictions. And no "OEM" restrictions. The literature also mentions that the retail price for Office is north of $600.
How much DO Windows and Office cost? Since only idiots would buy retail Windows or Office (yes, I used to be in that category), the only reason to have ANY "suggested retail price" is to attempt to establish some sort of valuation.
"It's expensive, it MUST be good",
but no-one actually pays that price
"but I got a GREAT deal on the software!".
And now the suggested retail pricing pops up here, just to help spread the meme.
Of course, it is possible that the purchase was subsidized by the TDSB, in which case I will be very upset. The TDSB just ok'd the use of OpenOffice, and thus should have no need to spend the money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How much DO Windows and Office cost?
How much are you willing to spend?
The fact of the matter is that Microsoft has no standard price. They've got discounts and deals to fit pretty much anyone and everyone - you just have to know about them. Government deals, educational deals, developer deals, big business deals...
It's ridiculous.
Bad summary (Score:5, Informative)
Where's the part of the summary telling people that they can upgrade for $49.99 by pre-ordering?
"Finally, as a way of saying thank you to our loyal Windows customers, we are excited to introduce a special time limited offer! We will offer people in select markets the opportunity to pre-order Windows 7 at a more than 50% discount. In the US, this will mean you can pre-order Windows 7 Home Premium for USD $49.99 or Windows 7 Professional for USD $99.99. You can take advantage of this special offer online via select retail partners such as Best Buy or Amazon, or the online Microsoft Store (in participating markets).
This program begins tomorrow in the U.S., Canada and Japan. The offer ends July 11th in the U.S. and Canada and on July 5th for Japan or while supplies last. Customers in the UK, France and Germany, can pre-order their copy of Windows 7 starting July 15th and will run until August 14th (or supplies last) to ensure folks donâ(TM)t miss out on this. Act fast if you want to be the first in line to get Windows 7 at this screaming deal! Note: The special low pre-order price will vary per country."
Granted, it's a small window for a bloated Windows, but you have to applaud Microsoft for this. If you hate Vista and are convinced you want an upgrade, it's only $49.99 if you do in in the next few weeks.
Pirate Edition (Score:5, Funny)
No mention of a family pack license (Score:4, Interesting)
Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should Microsoft care if the Win7 prices are "competitive" or not? They've got a captive audience consisting mainly of new PC buyers and existing corporate seats. I suspect they simply did an analysis to determine the amount that maximizes license revenue from those two fish in a barrel and didn't even consider the cost of other alternatives.
Best,
Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why someone needs to start one of those anti-trust lawsuits Microsoft loves so much. How can any marketplace be competitive when an expensive product is sold cheaper than a free product. Really, the only way to stop Windows marketshare is to ensure that when you buy a Dell, you have to pay the retail price (ok, or a discounted price - but you have to pay extra) for the OS too.
If Dell had to be more transparent in its pricing, you might have the situation where you bought the hardware for X, the software for Y and a Dell-engineer installation (ie the disk duplication step) fee of Z. For Windows Y might be $100 and the installation $10, and Linux Y might be $0 but Z $200, but you'd see those prices and could decide to buy just the hardware and install your own OS. With the current situation, you just see that Windows is the cheapest option, which would be impossible in any other non-monopoly-based industry.
Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you buy a new computer, it'll come with Windows 7. You'll wind up paying for it whether you want it or not.
According to that pricelist, you're buying Windows 7 and getting a free computer that comes with it.
Re:Competitive pricing? Doesn't matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
This sort of attitude is one of the main reasons why anti-piracy lobbyists get so much love from legislators.
If you pirate Windows, why the hell would you care about "alternatives" ? And vice-versa: if you're a linux fan, you don't need to pirate Windows.
One thing is certain: bragging about your hypocritical stance on /. is not going to make Microsoft lower their prices.
Re:How.... (Score:5, Interesting)
MS should give the crippled version away free. The one that runs only 3 apps. Then there would be no getting your money back when you purchase a computer. It would also compete with the price of Linux and BSD. Then drop your tiered pricing by a lot. Home basic at $30, Home premium $50, Professional $150 and Ultimate at $175.
I bet a lot more people would "purchase" their OS if they structured it like that. I also think it would help in the level of illegal copies.
How did MS win in the web browser market? They made it free and included it in their OS.
Why not give away the lowest level of your OS for free to retain your market share?
That makes better sense to me at least.
Regards, Ben
Re:How.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Dropping the price may well increase the number of copies sold, but Microsoft doesn't directly care about that metric. It's all about the bottom line.
If you sell 100 copies at $300, you have $30,000 total, and 100 users to support.
If you sell 1000 copies at $30, you still have $30,000, but now you must support 1000 users.
The lower volume at a higher price is thus more profitable due to reduced support/maintenance costs. There is also the argument to be said that people who pirate Windows are likely to pirate it regardless of price, because there is little if any incentive to go legit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're asking seriously, no, the EU would not go after MS for reduced pricing. They only care if companies are abusing their monopoly position in operating systems to break into other markets (like media players or web browsers). Maintaining control of their existing monopoly in OSs is fine.
(Personally, I wish these prices were twice as high, and that the OS included some sort of truly unbreakable DRM (yeah, right). Linux could use a boost in its market share.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where you draw the line between what comes preinstalled with the OS or not? Is a Windowing System a legitimate part of an OS? GUI toolkits? Does an OS really need a text editor as powerful as emacs (well, in that case we name the OS an hypervisor that is running the emacs OS)?
Following this logic, ancient computer makers should have been sued years ago for bundling their OS on their mainframes. There could have been an independent market for OSes.
IMHO, EU instance on this is essentialy a non-tarifary barrie
Re:How.... (Score:5, Informative)
Following this logic, ancient computer makers should have been sued years ago for bundling their OS on their mainframes. There could have been an independent market for OSes.
Err, that's exactly what happened.
"Then in January 1969 the US Justice Department brought an antitrust action against IBM for monopolizing the computer market. At the time IBM sold its hardware, software, training, and all services as a bundled product. That is, if someone wanted the mainframe software they also had to purchase hardware, training, and everything else from IBM. So in the July 1969 IBM signed another consent decree to unbundle which led to the development of hundreds of companies for supplying software (like University Computing and Computer Associates), hardware (disk drives, memory, and the like)."
cited from Peter Vogel's blog [vogelitlawblog.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft was guilty of the 4 counts that you listed, and more. In Europe they were only fined for a, which is the reason behind the "N" editions of windows.
The case in the United States did involve the 4 aspects that you mentioned, but it was bungled horribly.
Re:How.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Snow Leopards adds no significant (home-)user visible changes - most of the changes are architectural and under the hood, aimed at developers. You won't get developers using features that most users don't have, so you can't sell a platform based on developer potential alone.
Apple has recognised this and priced Snow Leopard to tempt developers, so that they can use the same base in future OSes (Open CL, 64-bit, full Cocoa etc). On the other hand, Vista is that new base and MS doesn't really care if you develop for Vista or 7, although you could argue they should've priced Vista more competitively.
Oh, and you seem to be neglecting the fact that Snow Leopard is only that cheap for Leopard users - Tiger users need to shell out $169 for iWork, iLife and Snow Leopard. And let's not forget that Apple uses software to sell hardware - users will upgrade to Snow Leopard then realise they need a 64-bit processor (so no first-gen Intels) and a recent graphics processor (last couple of years) to take advantage of the most of the improvements. PowerPC users will also need to buy a whole new PC to use the new OS.
MS' pricing may not be as low as we may have hoped, but let's not paint Apple as the angel it clearly isn't.
Re:How.... (Score:5, Insightful)
How does MS think this pricing is competitive in the least? Snow Leopard is going to be sold for $30 for upgrades while 7 costs $120?!!?!
Keep in mind that OS X is, to a certain degree, subsidized by the fact that it will only run on official Apple hardware. Apple doesn't need to charge as much for the OS, because you've given them additional money for the hardware it runs on.
I'm not claiming this is the only reason their OS is cheaper. Nor even that it is a major reason why their OS is cheaper. But it is something to keep in mind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True enough, but they ask only $30 for upgrade, on a system you already paid and bought. So there is no subsidizing when we are talking about upgrades. And in that light windows 7 upgrade prices are very high.
Re:How.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Snow Leopard is going to be sold for $30 [...]
...If you already have 10.5.
Well if you don't have 10.5 already then Snow Leopard is $120 for the non-upgrade FULL VERSION pricing. Compare that to the equivalent Windows 7 Professional at $299. And yes, you compare the regular version of Snow Leopard to Windows 7 Professional. Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't cripple their product for the home user. All the "professional" features in Windows 7 Professional are pretty much the same as what's in regular version of Snow Leopard.
Apple has 3 pricing levels for their consumer (non-server) operating systems:
$29 upgrade
$120 home (same as Windows Professional)
$199 family (5 license version of home)
You can get discounts on these if you are a student, an educator, or a developer.
Re:How.... (Score:4, Insightful)
> Well if you don't have 10.5 already then Snow Leopard is $120 for the non-upgrade FULL VERSION pricing.
I'm really tired of that bullshit line. If the boxed copies of OS X were "non-upgrade FULL VERSION" then Apple wouldn't have a case against Pystar. It really is time for Apple and you fanbois to stop trying to have it both ways. Either the "non-upgrade FULL VERSION" is what it says or it is just an upgrade that will upgrade an older version than the $30 upgrade does. But being able to run around saying OS X is less expensive than Windows (see the $130 FULL VERSION") yet launching lawyers at anyone who actually believes it is dishonest to the core. Decide one way or the other and live with the consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Going right after Mac OS X (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Too late for a friend of mine (Score:5, Funny)
Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing (Score:5, Informative)
honestly, I haven't seen any features yet that I really consider an upgrade over XP, so perhaps someone could enlighten me about why I would even consider buying an upgrade?
Windows are stored as vector graphics in video memory under Vista and 7. Previously, they were stored as bitmaps that needed to be redrawn every frame. This enables things like viewing a thumbnail of a window from the taskbar (including video) and windows still drawing their last good state when the process locks (unlike XP and before, where the window will be plain white). It's similar to the OS X system.
There are security upgrades as well, but this reason is good enough for me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
honestly, I haven't seen any features yet that I really consider an upgrade over XP, so perhaps someone could enlighten me about why I would even consider buying an upgrade?
Windows are stored as vector graphics in video memory under Vista and 7. Previously, they were stored as bitmaps that needed to be redrawn every frame. This enables things like viewing a thumbnail of a window from the taskbar (including video) and windows still drawing their last good state when the process locks (unlike XP and before, where the window will be plain white). It's similar to the OS X system.
There are security upgrades as well, but this reason is good enough for me.
How is explaining my favorite feature of a new operating system to someone who asked about the features a troll? In fact, how can pointing out good qualities be a troll at all?
Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, how can pointing out good qualities [of Windows] be a troll at all?
You must be new here.
Re:XP = Vista for upgrade pricing (Score:5, Interesting)
64-bit execution that works. XP-x64 has poor application compatibility compared with Vista-x64 and Win7-x64.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Prices are set to maximise profit, not to reflect production costs. Your question makes no sense unless you think Microsoft is a charity, not a business.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IMO... (Score:4, Insightful)
An OS should never cost more than $80.
Maybe $100, but that's it. An OS is basically supposed to make your computer work - not be the focus of your attention on the machine. It's supposed to more-or-less stay out of your way and let you get work done. I don't want to pay more for my OS than for the application I'm trying to run.
System Utilities should never cost more than $40.
I'd go as high as $50... But again, it's supposed to basically make your computer work and get out of the way. I don't want to pay hundreds of dollars just to keep my computer working correctly. And I sure as hell shouldn't have to pay another $50+ every year to keep getting updates... If I want the new version, I'll go out and buy it. If I just want the antivirus definitions they should be free... Or maybe some nominal fee to cover the bandwidth... $10 or so a year.
Games should never cost more than $50.
Especially not with how little gameplay you get these days... My son bought something for $60 (+tax) last week, played through it in one day over the weekend... I thought maybe he just skipped over side-quests or gave up and quit early or something... Read a review or two on-line... There's apparently about 6 hours of gameplay in the thing. WTF?!
Productivity apps can cost whatever, based on the size of their target market.
Agreed. If you actually need PhotoShop, you need PhotoShop, and it is worth your money to shell out hundreds of dollars for it. If you don't actually need PhotoShop there are plenty of perfectly good alternatives that are much cheaper if not free. The same thing goes for just about any other product... If you really need the features that Acrobat/Microsoft Office/QuickBooks/whatever offers, you can afford to pay for it. If not, use something else.