The OSX Box Set with Leopard, iLife and iWork for what? About $150...that ain't no TAX!!!!

I'm a recent Apple convert after years of Windows. I've just recently purchased a 15 Inch MacBook Pro and a Mac Pro and I love them. But let's not pretend that Apple products aren't more expensive , they are, and I'm fine with that. You get what you pay for.

I just recently bought a HP 17 inch laptop for my son-in-law for less that $900 bucks and it's actually quite a nice PC, other than all of the c*** that HP installs on their machines that you have to uninstall. I paid almost $2K for my Macbook. I love it and think it's worth every penny, but the reality is that you do pay a premium for Apple products.

You can rationalize all you want about how Apple gives you more valuable software out of the box, which I agree with, but no matter how you spin it, their products are more expensive. For those who can afford to spend more and who want the what I think are the best and coolest computers and gadgets available, it's worth it.

Its funny they should say this when MS themselves has an extremely overpriced OS.
Retail for Vista Premium alone is like $240, while Leopard is $129. Heck Leopard's family pack is still $40 cheaper. And don't get me started on "Ultimate" that sucker retails for $320! You could say to "truly" match the two up you need to add iLife to the mix, well thats only $50 and now with the new Mac Pack at only $170 you get Leopard, iLife AND iWork.
MS can't even come close to it unless someone hops onto NewEgg and gets an OEM, which is still pricey when compared to OS X and the unwashed masses don't really know thats an option.

"Apple tax" my aaapple!

I see no mention of a Microsoft tax. The one people have to pay getting rid of Antivirus 2009 and spyware. More than worth the "Apple Tax" to not have to deal with this c***. If you don't want to pay for Apple hardware - sweet. Buy whatever computer you want and then save a pile of cash by installing Ubuntu and Open Office. If Microsoft wants to argue cost they will lose that one to Linux. Thanks to Ubuntu, Linux isn't just for the romantically challenged anymore.

Well well what have we here? The Kettle calling The Pot black. If anything MS should be happy about the apple tax- after all it drives the sales of Windows and PC's.

As for running MS Office on mac - I used to use it - not anymore. Office is the only software that crashes my Mac. So I got rid.

Arvi

These kinds of statements from Microsoft are deceitful and often transparently false. The Microsoft fanbois embrace them loudly although with a concealed sense of shame, but the real effect is simply to discredit Microsoft. Ballmer's farcical remarks about the launch of the iPhone, which he undoubtably knew were a lie, are merely one case in point.

When Microsoft actually has a relevant criticism or competitive advantage to announce it will be much harder to get across because of their history of slimy or false claims. They are selling their media credibility for a cheap news hit.

So I only have to pay a 25% premium on my hardware to avoid using Windows c***. Spread that over 2-3 years and that looks like bloody bargain to me.

MS fails to take into account the software suite included on every new Mac. By the time you buy roughly equivalent software to complete the Windows suite, the cost evens out.

funny. I looked on MS's site on black friday for a deal on MS Office. They had a windows version for like $59 but the only mac version (which they bundled some crappy media stuff with) was like $130. thanks for the deal MS.

Because they don't use software advertising to keep the cost low. It's like buying a Lexus with advertising for $18,000 new... you got a nice vehicle but it's weighted down with vinyl, to the point you don't know what color is really is under all the stickers.

Because they don't use software advertising to keep the cost low. It's like buying a Lexus with advertising for $18,000 new... you got a nice vehicle but it's weighted down with vinyl, to the point you don't know what color is really is under all the stickers.

Compare COMPARABLY CONFIGURED machines and Macs usually cost about the same or less than a COMPARABLY CONFIGURED Windows machine.

The software that's bundled with every Mac makes them a bargain.

Microsoft should also mention the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) and see how far ahead and less expensive Macs are.

THEN couple Macs' historically high resale value and their generally longer useful life. I buy a new Mac about every 1 1/2 to 2 years. I usually get about 1/2 what I originally paid when I sell the old one. I know quite a few people who use 7, 8, 9 and 10 year old Macs on a daily basis. Try that out with a $299 Windows special.

MS really shouldn't open themselves to the glare of reality. Their marketing is as full of holes as XP and Vista. Their users might learn something, smarten up and buy Macs.

I bought a used 800mhz G4 Powerbook a few years ago. The person I bought it from was "kind enough" to leave MS Office on it. I told him as far as I was concerned it was just using up disk space as I wouldn't be using it.

Actually I have though. About three times. I only opened up Word for Mac just to see how a document looked in it and Pages and Nisus Writer Pro. It was close enough to me and I showed a couple other people. I haven't opened up anything since then. I don't even know what version it is except that it is pretty old.

It's WAY over priced and just doesn't flow like Nisus Writer Pro and other word processors I use.

I used to use WordPerfect on PCs. I still have it loaded on my work computer (WP 10) which is still better than Word 2007 despite Corel trying to mess it up. Which is why I haven't bought newer versions for my work computer.

MS Office Standard for Windows is $400, vs. iWork at $79. Pissta is $200-$320 for a full copy. Who's the tax daddy again?!

This used to be the case as late as a few months ago (actually a similarly equipped Dell would cost a little MORE than a Mac Powerbook Pro), but the prices on the higher end PC laptops seem to have dropped a lot (I'd say about $700-800), while Mac prices have stayed constant. If I had to guess, I would say the difference is largely due to the cost of development and manufacture of the unibody case.

Also, the software costs are not going to be all that different to people who are upgrading their machines, who would already have much of the software they need, and even for others, most machines come with some minimal Office Suite functionality (MS Works) as well as a selection of games, photo viewing software, utilities, and DVD burning capability.

Right now I am typing this commentary on a Power Mac Mirrored drive door G4 that I bought in August of 2002. It has 2- 1.25 GHz G4 chips and merely 1.5 Gb of RAM.

It was certainly an "Apple Taxed" model in comparison to the then current Wintel boxes.

However.... This Mac is running Mac OS 10.5.6 build 9G55 - a fully up to date version of Apple's system

I would ask monkey boy Ballmer how well suited a "comparable" windows machine of the same vintage would do running Windows Vista Ultimate edition?

Apple Tax? I think not... especially when one amortises that tax over 6.5 years.. looks more like a tax refund to me!

It's the Microsoft Windows tax that's REALLY brutal. Reinstall Windows over and over ... you're not getting that time back, Windows bubbas.

It always makes me chuckle to see a company with ~85% market share shaking in its boots over a company with ~10% market share. But that's MSFT for you.

"Apple tax," eh?

I consider it money well spent to get a computer that actually works. It's a welcome relief from my company XP machine. Oh, my wife's software company (which develops PC software)now does the majority of their development on Macs (at programmer request). Go figure.

Go out and get a Dell that is similarly configured. What you DON'T see is exactly how freakin' ugly and cheap-looking that thing is. I'd pay a little more to have a machine that is beautifully designed. People do it all the time with cars. Will you catch Hyundai complaining about the BMW tax?

Go out and get a Dell that is similarly configured. What you DON'T see is exactly how freakin' ugly and cheap-looking that thing is. I'd pay a little more to have a machine that is beautifully designed. People do it all the time with cars. Will you catch Hyundai complaining about the BMW tax?

I don't see why any of you actually object to this. If apple dropped the price of the mac mini, you'd rejoice. Compare the specs, it's pathetic what Apple is offering for hardware right now.

Gotta wonder if that 77% figure includes the trial versions of Office included with all of the consumer based Macs. Otherwise, it seems unnaturally high.

Is what Apple charges for their systems really any business of Microsoft? Is the implication that a cheaper Mac would bring more users and hence more customers of Office:Mac? I don't quite see the logic there.

All of that being said, would any of us object if our Mac hardware cost less? Assuming of course that a price drop didn't cause any significant harm to the company as a whole.

People, stop saying Macs should be compared against PCs that are "similarly configured". You haven't priced a PC lately and most of the time you cant even get a similarly configured Mac because Apple takes forever to update its machines. Observe:
Dell XPS w/3GB RAM, 500GB HD
ATI Radeon HD 3450
Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz
That's more memory, a much better vid card and a much better CPU not even yet available for the Mac all for $1149 with a 22" monitor. That's without rebates or specials. The iMac can't even be upgraded to an ATI 3450 or the Core i7, but adding the additional memory and bigger HD brings the base 256MB vid card iMac to $1700.

People, stop saying Macs should be compared against PCs that are "similarly configured". You haven't priced a PC lately and most of the time you cant even get a similarly configured Mac because Apple takes forever to update its machines. Observe:

Dell XPS w/3GB RAM, 500GB HD
ATI Radeon HD 3450
Intel Core i7 920 2.66GHz

That's more memory, a much better vid card and a much better CPU not even yet available for the Mac all for $1149 with a 22" monitor. That's without rebates or specials. The iMac can't even be upgraded to an ATI 3450 or the Core i7, but adding the additional memory and bigger HD brings the base 256MB vid card iMac to $1700.

Does anyone else sense the irony here? Microsoft's seat taxes and server license fees are outrageous. Yet they have the nerve to attack Apple because the Mini costs a whole 25% more than it should. I think that's called chutzpah.

This whole "Apple tax" idea is really bad PR for MS to blast a competitor (if one wants to call Apple a competitor to MS). Their reasoning is out the window. The Mac people (most of them) prefer a system that works, and though I've never needed Apple for service, apparently other people appreciate their customer service. All these things cost money. And Apple's R&D is among the best in the world. That costs money. And their Stores are famously fun to enter and shop--and those cost money. But Apple also has a lot of dough "in the bank." So what?
This "article" would never pass Logic 101.
If someone wrote anything like this about some other company or subject it would be termed jealousy.

Just because that many mac users use office doesn't mean they don't also use iWork. That said, I won't really use iWork (even though I would love to) until it can provide 100 percent office compatibility.. Okay.. maybe 99.9 percent. It's very important to have inter-polarity with Office on the PC. It's just the unfortunate way that it is.

M$ Office 2008: $149 - $399
iWork: $79

Office costs to 88% to 405% more than iWork.

Not much room to talk, Mr. Ballmer.

This explains a lot.
http://www.myfirstmac.com/index.php/mac/articles/a-mac-user-buys-his-1st-pc-or-how-a-550-laptop-can-cost-more-than-1200

This explains a lot.
http://www.myfirstmac.com/index.php/mac/articles/a-mac-user-buys-his-1st-pc-or-how-a-550-laptop-can-cost-more-than-1200

I use a a Mac because, well they are just better, they work better, look better fell better and make me more competitive. I drive a high end Audi for the same reasons, it will drive at speed in snow and ice on the highway at summer speeds, it costs more but when the esp takes over you smile and push on, the same way as when the going gets tough the Mac pulls you through to success. Truly the Mac is underprices, why? well the OS stupid.

Please keep in mind that Office for the Mac is not 100% compatible with Office for windows, and for that matter Office for Windows on a given machine is not 100% compatible with the same version of Office for Windows on a second machine. You WILL ALWAYS have some formatting loss or changes. That is precisely the reason Adobe created the PDF format.

So don't expect another program to be "100%" compatible with Office!

I wish they were as worried about what us Mac users have to pay for their crappy Mac version of the Office suite as they are over what we pay for our computers! Maybe then we'd have as good of one as the Windows version!

Besides, they don't sell pc's, what do they care what we pay for our macs? As long as someone keeps providing people with a way to run Windows on their macs, boosting MS operating systems sales, they should be happy and shut up.

...my company just gave me a new Dell Lattitude E6500 running Vista and Office 2007. It set them back about $1300. I have used both Windows and Macs for many years.

It isn't fast, not by a long shot. It doesn't correctly synchronize with our domain and requires manual intervention to repair. It required hours upon hours of 3rd party software installations to make it a "modern" computer (Flash, Quicktime, codecs, etc.). Office 2007 is slow and utterly unremarkable. Amazingly, Word attempts to connect to the last printer used at each launch, making changing locations rather a chore. Every action seems to require 2 or 3 acknowledgements. The Control Panel has sprawled into 41 unique objects with overlapping functionality. Simple adjustments often spawn multiple windows of Dell-added craplications that utterly confuse the most basic of uses (e.g., the Mouse is controlled by Windows, the Dell software and the Logitech software. None of them seems to know what the other is doing and settings are lost at each restart).

Such a bargain compared with that $1300 MacBook, eh? Glad they didn't have to pay that Apple "tax". Whew!

What dell offers is a greater range of products. Want a 15" laptop with a slow processor? Sure, they will sell that to you. Apple limits its product line, which makes their machines seem more expensive.

I went onto Dell's website just yesterday to build a machine comparable to the $2499 MacBook Pro to show a customer that it wasn't overpriced. When you add things like the LED backlit display, bluetooth, graphics card update, etc, the DELL came in at over $2700. So on a true comparison, the Apple tends to be cheaper. Unfortunately, the features that Apple said the customer needed are not the ones he wanted.

If Apple were to offer more custom configurations at lower pricepoints on the larger laptops, that would make a lot of folks happy.

77% who use it...

5% who are happy with it.....

Apple doesn't build their computers out of s*** parts...that's for starters. Secondly, IT WORKS! h***, just shipping with discs for the computer is a 25% increase in value. The recent gimmick by HP and DELL that actually sell machines without backup OS discs should be the basis of the largest class action lawsuit since Agent Orange.

MS, you don't get anything do you? Vista is proof your days of NO innovation are over. Windows 7 is going to blow worse than a male crack w**** jonesing for some smack.