I see evil Jobs ensuring all Apple applications can be downloaded from the iTunes store only, thereby guaranteeing a generous helping of cash with each software purchase.

Unless Apple relaxes some of their App store requirements, this won’t happen. I can”t see Adobe selling Photoshop there without making huge changes to their business model. For a start off, they won’t be able to issue a serial number, offer “system activation” or any of the other crap that they want to do. All of this is against App store policies.

Interestingly, Softpress cite a licensing limitation that stops them auto encoding video for web distribution in their App Store version of Freeway:
Note that some features aren't available in the App Store version. Currently, due to licensing restrictions, the only difference is that the Flash Video Player Action cannot automatically convert replacement content for the iPhone.
http://www.softpress.com/store/the-mac-app-store
(I have no idea why this is so - there may be an App Store restriction on this kind of thing - it may be that you can’t sell an app to do task A that, through a plug-in, can be made to do task B)

I note that another company whose software I use is selling an App store version, on the proviso that you don’t use it for commercial purposes. I wonder how they can enforce that (beyond support queries) - you don’t get customer information from an app store sale - just your slice of the cash.

This assumes that users will actively switch machines because of the price of the operating system. My software is a lot more expensive than the OS. So if I were to switch to Windows the cost of the software would be thousands and the same would apply to a windows user who switches to macs. So I doubt that it will have much effect.

Bless you.

There was the merest hint of a gnoming I must confess.

However I do learn so much from you guys that I am sure you forgive me.


I did have the impression that MS sell very very few full price copies of their OS. Most getting it "free" with a new machine, or getting it "on the sly" by one way or another.

I was just wondering if MS can afford to "look expensive" next to Apple. If the mindset is MS=expensive v Apple=low cost then one of the major selling points for PCs is gone.


Apple have been "keen" on price for a while now.

iPad = very cheap in it's class.
MB Air = very cheap in the metal ultra thin laptop market
iMac = best value "all in one"
Mac Office suite = Cheap
iLife = Very cheap


Then you have the higher priced items…

Mac Pro = Stupid expensive
MacBook Pro = Expensive
MacBook = Costs a lot.


Makes one wonder if public perceptions on value for money will shift.

Didn't I read somewhere that there will be a recovery partition?

What a ghastly idea...

cheers and you are forgiven


no they wont.

Here in Germany, it is called System Builder. And you don't need to buy any hardware.

Microsoft were taken to court in 2001 and they lost to a bunch of home users who said "we build computers for ourselves at home, therefore we are computer builders." The German courts agreed and SB versions of all software can be sold to anybody who is interested in "building" their own machine. As it is cheaper than an upgrade, most people buy SP, even for existing machines.

As to the Cat's question, I'm with Jon Lumb, it is a different market.

You can buy a new computer with Windows pre-installed for 299€ (plus MwSt), you can buy a Mac mini for 709€. You can only install OS X on a Mac, so it won't affect Microsoft at all.

A majority of people buy new Windows with a new computer. Upgrades account for a very small percentage of Windows sales. PCs are a "commodity" item for most people. They use the computer until it doesn't work any more, or it becomes too slow, then they will buy a new one.

I'm just re-configuring my 2004 laptop, with Windows XP, for somebody, because they want to upgrade their Windows 98 machine for something a little more modern! They can't afford a new computer, so my old laptop will replace their last hand-me-down.

This sort of person is going to struggle to buy a 299€ computer. They aren't going to splash out 701€ for a Mac mini or well over 1000€ for a basic iMac. Therefore the price of the upgrade is also irrelevant, unless, as Jon said, you can install it on any PC.

It depends when you buy Windows. I preordered the retail version of Windows 7 for just over £40 delivered, can't beat that really.

Besides, my PC is mainly for gaming, Apple just can't compete on that level. OEM versions are also far cheaper again if you're building.

BTW, I'm not sure why you think most people get Windows 'on the sly'.

I just looked at Amazon prices that are rather more than £40.

For whatever reason I have it in my mind that buying Windows is a significant purchase for the average bod. I think it goes back to the days when I was considering building one and gave up because at the time buying a Mac was so much cheaper. (I doubt that would be true today for a simple tower machine).



True, but PC gaming is a minority interest/reason for buying a computer.




Because most builders are not "manufacturers". Also OME versions seem to be (as described above) given with a nod and a wink when bundled with PC components. So nothing underhand just a loophole that everyone (including MS) is happy exists.

As Big D once commented a long time ago when you buy a PC you should budget the same amount again for some software. That does change the economics for many users. PC's are cheaper all round, and yes they also change them more regularly. Mac users keep their machines longer. Probably because of the additional costs originally but also because the OS is still lean so that it even older spec machines cope.

Depends if your just buying a new unit. Then for the vast majority of users there would be no need to buy new software if your staying with MS (same with Mac), unless you really have an ancient machine and your using really old versions of software, that the software house just cant be arsed to offer an update.

Yes but for switchers it is a relevant problem. I still have to fork out quite a bit each year for software that has been upgraded, and that is without a OS change.

To be fair, he did say all Apple applications

Moving on to another point made by others with regard to the "cost" of software for PC, you can get most, if not all, what a Mac does "out of the box" for free, and there is free software for PC comparable to iLife, iWork etc. Furthermore, software for the PC is almost universally cheaper than its Mac equivalent.

Add in that there is far more software to download from torrent sites so if you cant be bothered to pay for that Adobe Suite download it for free.

That's a massively broad generalisation. In certain cases I'd agree there are free equivalents - Picasa vs iPhoto for example. However in several cases it's simply not true. I've never seen a reasonable Windows equivalent of GarageBand for free. There are reasonably priced ones yes (Mixcraft for one), but on their own they cost as much as all the iLife apps together cost to buy. Windows did have a nice equivalent of iCal built in and they took it out! Sunbird is OK, but it's not as good as iCal.

Once you step outside the bounds of 'consumer' applications, you tend to find the prices are roughly equivalent. Tools like Office etc don't vary too much in price between platforms - in fact Office itself is identically priced across both platforms, I assume intentionally. Compare Final Cut Studio (£834) to Adobe Premier Pro (£810), not enough difference to care about given you're shelling out 800 quid. There are even a few examples where the Mac option is significantly cheaper than the best alternative on Windows e.g. Aperture (£45) vs Adobe Lightroom (£237). Even if you want the boxed rather than digital copy of Aperture, it's still 50 quid cheaper.

To put it bluntly, your assertion is bunk. The basic fact is software makers know they can't get away with charging massive premiums on their software because it's Mac any more because, worst comes to the worst, people can go out and pay a small amount for VMware Fusion or Parallels Desktop and run the Windows version transparently anyway. The days of huge price premiums on Mac software ended.. well, the second Apple went Intel, effectively. There are minor variations but that's it.

Jon