Microsoft: Celebrate Tax Day by avoiding the Apple Tax

"I suppose you could buy a Mac. One Mac. :)" I would buy a Mac. Exactly THIS ONE Mac :) Firstly, the "Apple Tax" simply doesn't exist. Macs are expensive but you get what you pay for. Secondly, why the bleep can't they highlight any innovations and advantages of PCs over Macs instead of comparing cheap, crappy HP laptops to high quality Apples?! This is really poor. Let alone the fact that their whole campaign still has not mentioned any advantage besides the price makes me feel like they've given up on their own products, because of the price being their only selling point.

Like I posted over on the WinIT Pro site: -------- - shrug - whatever. Buy what you want. I will say this though, I have a 2004, 17" Powerbook G4 that is still running strong to this day ... and in that time my wife has gone through the following laptops: Two Acers, an HP and is now on a Toshiba. Say what you want about Apple ... you have to admit they make a great product. -------- I will mention that the Acers were about $900 each. The HP was about a grand and change. The New Toshiba was about a grand as well. Four laptops in five years. And my wife doesn't do any hardcore computing. She blogs. She checks her email. She uploads photos to Flickr. Sometimes it was a bad stick of ram (which is easily replaced). On another the hard drive up and died. The HP just plain croaked. Recently, the Toshiba's screen has decided to go black every couple of days (a reboot fixes this, but wtf?). The first Acer had to go back to the company not once but twice because the keys kept popping off the keyboard. In the end, with shipping costs back to the companies, replacement ram, replacement hard drives and buying new computers, we have spend more than the three grand I paid for my Powebook five years ago. (the only extra I've paid in repair was for a new stick of ram that went belly up one afternoon). Just sayin.

Okay, this is going to get ugly. I am the first to admit that Macs are more expensive, but this comparison is simply ridiculous. First they had the person buy mobile Me for all five years. I've never owned it. Second, they had the person buy all new software and pay for upgrades to iLife for the Mac and NOT buy ANY for the PC. Finally they had the person buy a Blue Ray burner for the Mac. Total cost of this nonsense: $1800.00 Which wipes out half the "Apple Tax" In reality if they would have said the Apple tax was $1500.00 over five years I would have felt that the comparison was probably accurate though flawed because it doesn't consider the value of the Mac. Frankly, 300.00 dollars a year for the pleasure of being a Mac household is well worth it, less than a dollar a day. Now there is a tax I'd be more than willing to pay. Finally, this white paper take into account the opportunity cost of maintaining the PC. For example, exactly how much over that five year period will be spent on anti-virus software? Exactly how many hours will dear old dad waste cleaning malware off the computer? Exactly how many times will he have to hear his wife bitch about how the computer is broken, again. Let's face it, with this campaign MS is admitting that they can ONLY compete on price. Regards Joe dokes

I watched WW this afternoon and seeing these ad's are bringing out the defensive Fanboi in Leo Laporte was precious. Their ad agency has struck gold. The Macolytes and iCabal just can't help themselves but give these ad's more traction.

"Let's face it, with this campaign MS is admitting that they can ONLY compete on price." Exactly! And that's exactly what's so sad about this campaign. Because if you've seen Microsoft's latest 'software plus services' videos, you probably agree that Microsoft is able to create superior technology, even for consumers. But it really seems to me that they've given up on trying to be superior, instead they just want to be cheaper.

Maati... what happened to you mate? All of a sudden, you have turned from a Windows enthusiast to a fawning Mac lover? I don't see you much on Cairo forums as well. You can't seem to realize the simple point that this is just ONE phase of the ad campaign. At this point in time, and one ad at a time, Microsoft is highlighting the fact that the Windows ecosystem offers a solution for every taste and budget - something Apple does not. Is that concept suddenly so hard to grasp? Do you want them to cram things about price, software catalog, hardware selection all in one ad, in 30 seconds? Is that a rational expectation? Be patient, grasshopper. Having said that, I read the whitepaper under discussion, and it is quite embarrassing if Microsoft paid good money for that chunk of junk, and then approved that rambling nonsense for publication. The point of the ads and this whitepaper stand in good merit, though. There is simply no quantitative reason or advantage to pay the premium for the Macs. You simply can't debate personal choice to pay a premium for a perceived advantage, however.

"The Macolytes and iCabal just can't help themselves but give these ad's more traction." Are you really sure anybody even notices what mac fans are saying about this? - it's all occurring on what are - to the general public - completely obscure tech websites. Wow, try some analysis before you think.

"I suspect it's some kind of psychoactive toxin transferred from residual unicorn tears that Macs are washed in." Hmm is that less toxic/mind warping than the Steve Ballmer man gravy you Microsoft Evangelists bathe in Mike? Paul why is this Dell more expensive than Apple you linked? http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&m_11=... Is that Dell or Microsoft tax??? Please help me figure it out.

"Let's face it, with this campaign MS is admitting that they can ONLY compete on price." "And that's exactly what's so sad about this campaign. Because if you've seen Microsoft's latest 'software plus services' videos, you probably agree that Microsoft is able to create superior technology, even for consumers. But it really seems to me that they've given up on trying to be superior, instead they just want to be cheaper." Well, this is just one part of the entire campaign. And the campaign is not about selling Windows, but PCs. In any case, I don't think the campaign is about PCs being cheaper, but about PCs giving more for the same amount of money. I think the basic premise of the ads is: with PCs, you get what you want, whereas, with Macs you get what Steve Jobs wants you to have. The Sony laptop in today's commercial was by no means cheap.

"I think the basic premise of the ads is: with PCs, you get what you want, whereas, with Macs you get what Steve Jobs wants you to have. The Sony laptop in today's commercial was by no means cheap." Bunk. First off all ads, from any company are like movies that state "based on a true story". If Microsoft pushed you have MORE CHOICE by going with a PC vs a Mac it would be more truthful. No one can deny that Apple has limited choices. However typically, if you configure a Windows PC with the same hardware, as close as possible then the difference is close, and in some cases a Dell Workstation class PC it can be more expensive. More choice yes, more value when comparing less configured system, bull shit. Of course most people dont even care, blowing by tv ads with push of a button DVR remote. Tech people will, the Windows morons like Mike will spin the MS story, morons like robertsjoe will spin the Apple story. Level headed Tech people will see the "based on a true story" bs.

As a Mac user I'm always fascinated by price comparisons. However this one is incredulous. First, since Jack is using a spreadsheet to decide what to buy, we already know he's going to buy a PC. People who base purchasing decisions on raw numbers aren't generally Mac users. But even if this study has a valid point to make, it's undermined by the absolutely ridiculous data presented. I'm unwilling to trust anything that this whitepaper purports as true since so much of it is out of the realm of reality. On the Windows side, in year two Jack is buying a wireless router and an external drive for $150 each. Neither of these items costs $150 now. Both can be had for under $100. A year from now will 1TB drives even be available? Well, whatever. In year three Jack buys 2GB of memory (that is already outdated today) for $100 and a video card for $260. Again, that memory already costs less now, and it's already outdated now. In two years who knows, it probably will cost more just like DDR memory costs more now than it did two years ago. As for the video card, why bother? Don't buy the memory or the card, get your son an Xbox or a PS3. For some inexplicable reason Jack decides to be the very last person to go Blu-ray, and in year four drops a C-note on a Blu-ray drive. Protip #1 for Jack: buy a PS3 now. Jack of course runs off to loonieville when buying his Macs. Why Jack has chosen to buy a Mac Pro is beyond me. But then Jack apparently hands his credit card over to the Apple Store employee and says "gimme everything" because Jack buys into MobileMe for five years and One to One Care. I can't imagine any sane person actually doing this, so perhaps the point of this spreadsheet is to show that only insane people buy into Apple's ecosystem. Also, what is this "Other SW" for $70. Specifics are nice when you're presenting a whitepaper. Protip #2 for Jack: Buy Windows, install it on your Mac, continue using your current versions of Office and Quicken. In year two, apparently Apple's spell hasn't worn off and Jack blindly re-ups his MobileMe. Then he buys an AirPort Extreme and a hard drive. Protip #3 for Jack: the same Linksys router that was fine for your Windows machines is fine for your Macs. In year three, Jack, still drinking Apple's Kool-aid re-ups his MobileMe and buys iLife. Doesn't software on the Windows side get upgraded as well? Jack also buys some memory for a mysterious third computer that's gone unmentioned thus far (neither Mac would use that memory, if it's for the MacBook he'd need to buy 4GB, not 2.) And he also buys a video card for a machine that can't even play games. In year four, now completely ensconced in Apple, Jack once again forks over $150 to Apple for uhh, just because (oh yah, MobileMe.) Then he buys a $300 Sony Blu-ray player. Protip #4 for Jack: the $95 Lite-on drive will work in your Mac Pro, but neither Mac OS X or Windows Vista will play back Blu-ray. And we've made it to the final year in Jack's plan to sell his soul to Satan -- err -- Apple. Too bad Jack has run out of money for more pointless upgrades, now he can only afford his $150 yearly Apple Tax aka MobileMe. So why am I not really arguing the numbers, or saying Jack needs anti-virus and he needs Windows 7 and he needs costly repairs. Well he probably *will* need those things. The premise of this paper is that Macs cost more up-front and over their lifetime. Hey, that could be true, but since the data presented in this paper is so incredulous I'm unwilling to trust any of it. If you want to make a case for your system being better, use rational data. If anyone who's made it this far thinks that the paper's data is logical or valid, I can explain in more detail how it's not. Suffice to say, no sane person would spend what Jack spent on the Mac side, and no sane or insane person would ever have to. He bought into crazy, which as far as I can tell, is the point that this paper is trying to make -- Buying a Mac is buying into crazy.

Here's something Microsoft would rather not you see in that study... battery life. http://anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=3540&p=10 It's less that Apple's batteries are good so much as that many Windows notebooks are terrible. I shouldn't have to buy gigantic battery upgrades (or even second batteries) just to consider going past 3 hours of use. It could be Vista, or it could be companies like HP using low-volume 6-cell packs. Sometimes it's not about how much hard drive space you got for the money. Having read the PDF in earnest as well as CNET's follow-up, it's a classic Microsoft "study:" a normally respectable analyst sells out and takes carefully manipulated information to produce a report that (surprise!) favors Microsoft, but ultimately has no substance. Remember those Linux server cost-effectiveness studies? Same story, different names.

"First, since Jack is using a spreadsheet to decide what to buy, we already know he's going to buy a PC. People who base purchasing decisions on raw numbers aren't generally Mac users." They can be, though. While Macs certainly cost more per a pound of hardware and certainly per a bit of software, they can also be considerably cheaper to own and maintain. An employer also sees huge differences in people's productivity depending on what machines they have been accustomed to, and that's certainly measurable in money. For businesses the cost difference between Macs and PC's is negligible when the whole life cycle of a computer is considered. But of course we're talking about consumers now. That's where things like gaming matters. But I'm guessing we won't see many more of these ads - there simply isn't much more to milk from.

Opening that "white paper" I only have to get down to the bottom of the first page to know its a crock "Sponsor: Microsoft ". As in MS paid for this and the only way they would let it out is if it painted the picture they wanted. I am also sure, being a former consultant, that the organization that wrote it pretty much is going to write it the way the customer wanted it, so they get paid and get asked to do more work. I could probably write a document half as long poking holes in that paper. Just a few huge holes right of the top. Where is the annual cost of AV software PC user? Where is the cost of taking it to the geek squad to de-malware it once a year because you kids picked up some crap on facebook?? Paying someone to remove the mountain of crapware that comes installed on the PC, slowing it down to a crawl? Why does the Mac user have to buy mobileme its not a requirement? And buy the family pack? At full list price when you can get the family pack for $88 on amazon, iLife upgrade for $62 Apple Care for $147. Like Joe User is going to read that crap anyhow.

"The scariest thing is that Paul actually thinks he is objective. He's like a case study in self-delusion." Paul doesn't THINK he's objective. Surely he knows better. He PRESENTS himself as objective. That means he's not self-delusional, just a liar. Paul's the FOX News of tech reporting. Fairly Unbalanced. Kind of like Bill O'Reilly, only instead of writing self-aggrandizing books about morality, Paul writes about the hidden "Secrets" in Microsoft software and saves the self-aggrandization for this blog ("as I told you here first...").

Indeed. The "white paper" is rife with lies, misleading choices and exaggerations. Of course, since Paul is a hack, he hasn't pointed this out. He only uses personalized attack language like "liar" and "dishonest" when it comes to Apple. Macs start at fuller-configured, higher price points than the PC market provides. No question. And depending on the models you compare, Macs can be more expense on a hardware feature-by-feature basis. But the fact that Microsoft is pushing a report dripping with lies and exaggerations really undermines their position. This is a losing battle, though. Apple now has an enormously successful retail venue which they can leverage to debunk this nonsense at the one-on-one level. I think what Microsoft is really starting to fear is Apple's complete dominance in portable computing and entertainment. The iPod appears to have won fully and finally. The iPhone is on the same trajectory, quickly relegating WinMo to the also-ran status it deserves. That's got to be freaking them out for the future, especially when the mobile phone can now replace the PC for a great deal of computing. I hope Windows 7 rocks, because competition is good for everyone.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again. The ads are a response to Apple, however, not in the way that someone like jp would have you believe. The Mac fans can only see that MS is "running scared". Not true, now at least. Letting the Apple ads run without a response was running away from the problem, now they are doing what they should have, and not let the competition define you. So, the Mac faithful are all up in arms, because they see these ads and think that they are geared towards them. And they think from their high perch that some silly ads will never get them to switch. This is all very true. Those iCabalists are certainly not going to be swayed by any ads in this campaign. However, those iCabalists are a very, very small minority. A national TV ad does not speak to a small minority. It would be like your local car dealer taking out a national ad during the Super Bowl. It would be stupid to do so. What I have said sis that the ad is geared towards the "normals" which won't be reading this site, and know nothing or very little of the OS wars. They are normal. However, what they have seen is a rash of ads from Apple with the Emmy award winning actor and noted computer expert Justin Long extolling the virtues of a Mac (no mention of OS X, just the Mac, don't you think that's odd rj?) and making the PC seem like a woefully inferior choice. These ads intend to chip away at that perception. The mention of price is quite timely considering the economic climate, is it not? It's all about showing the value proposition, which they do quite well. The reaction from the Mac camp just proves how effective the ads are. If these ads are so laughable, the Mac camp should just be laughing and not caring. It almost seems as though they are worried, hence why they are lashing out at these ads. I say good. It just makes them all look crazier than normal. And if you want to see that the ads have been talking about more than just price, you obviously have not been around. This is one phase in the campaign. They have already covered the easy to use segment. Now they are covering the diversity and value.

As I was just saying, "Microsoft's marketing follows Apple's playbook" "But perhaps someone at Microsoft should start to wonder what kind of branding message they are implanting in the public mind." http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10216245-37.html

Considering that a lot of techies are Mac fanatics, it's not surprising to see Tom Krazit's article. People like Mary Jo Foley, Ed Bott, and Paul are glad Microsoft responded to Apple. Apple had owned the conversation for too long. A majority of the techies are either dismissive of the new ads or are angry at the attacks against their messiah. How dare Microsoft attack Apple? Tech bloggers are humans too, after all.

Dipshit, I find the ad hominem approach you are taking to be pretty self-defeating. There are screaming partisan hacks on both sides of this and every other discussion. The question is whether you choose to engage in that nonsense, or stick to real ideas and discussion. I'm just trying to bring my perspective on it from a brand strategy standpoint, since it's how I make my living, while noting the hilarious hypocrisy that is Mr. Thurrott and his company man propaganda. I find this to be a very interesting branding exercise. If Paul had any integrity regarding Apple, he'd present the facts about this whitepaper and have a full position built on intellectual honesty. Macs have plenty of limitations and aren't right for everyone's needs and every budget. But he doesn't. He's just a marketing mouthpiece for Microsoft, just like Rob Enderle. Consider that every single campaign has been heralded by Paul as "Great" and "long overdue". I can't remember reading any thoughtful, constructive criticism at all. Yet the many changes are a clear indication that Microsoft themselves have not considered the prior approaches to be effective. If Paul was an honest critic, he'd have contributed something. Maybe he is providing actual thoughts to his friends at Microsoft behind the scenes. But that'd be even worse. It's pretty clear that Paul Thurrott is a tool of Microsoft's marketing efforts and a mouthpiece and evangelist for their campaigns. The actions and incentives are clear. That he is sometimes critical of MS doesn't change that. By trumpeting this whitepaper, Paul is endorsing it's dishonesty. For someone that has repeatedly called Apple "liars" in very harsh ways, I find that pretty funny. Prattling on about the ranting of "the icabal" is just a sideshow.

"Maati... what happened to you mate? All of a sudden, you have turned from a Windows enthusiast to a fawning Mac lover?" I'm a Windows enthusiast and a Mac lover. And I hate both Microsoft's and Apple's ad campaigns! "I don't see you much on Cairo forums as well." That's because with Windows 7, Cairo is now obsolete, because the Windows 7 UI is almost perfect.

"no mention of OS X, just the Mac, don't you think that's odd rj?" You WinJihadists keep repeating that as if it's true. Which it's not. How many times do we have to keep freaking telling you people? Here are the ads that specifically focus on OSX (as opposed to hardware or other software): Touché – Right after PC introduces himself, the Mac character replies, "And I'm a PC too". Mac explains to the confused PC that he can run both Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows, calling himself "the only computer you'll ever need." PC mutters, "Oh...touché." The Mac character, referring to the rules of fencing, explains that one only says "touché" after he or she makes a point and someone else makes a counterpoint, but the PC character continues to misuse the word. A similar conversation occurred in Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, a film which Justin Long (Mac) appeared in. Trust Mac – PC, in an attempt to hide from spyware, is wearing a trench coat, a fedora, with dark glasses and a false mustache. PC offers Mac a disguise, but Mac declines, saying he doesn't have to worry about the normal PC spyware and viruses with Mac OS X. Emergency Refresh - A banner ad on the top of the page reads, "Vista... one of the biggest blunders in technology?" -CNET.com. Off to the side, PC sees the banner and realizes its another bad review of Vista and decides to do an emergency refresh. He walks over and opens a compartment door that says "Emergency Banner Refresh." PC flips the switch, and the banner is replaced by another banner that reads, "It's time for a Vista do-over" - PC Magazine. PC, frustrated about this review, flips the switch again. The banner is replaced by another that reads, "Mac OS X Leopard: A Perfect 10" - InfoWorld. PC sees this positive review and is relieved until he realizes it's about Leopard. PC angrily flips the switch again to end the ad. Pep Rally - PC is introduced by a cheerleading squad. When asked to explain, PC explains that Mac's number 1 status on college campuses with his built in iSight camera, his stable operating system, and being able to run Microsoft Office so well, so he is trying to win students back with a pep rally. The cheerleaders cheer, "Mac's Number One!," and upon PC's complaint, they cheer, "PC's Number Two!" Referee – A referee is present, according to PC, to make sure that Mac doesn't go on saying that Leopard is better and faster than Vista. When Mac defends himself saying that it was The Wall Street Journal who compared the two, PC complains, and the referee sides with Mac. Upon insulting the referee, PC gets ejected, but PC rebuts, saying that he has nowhere to go (in the ad's area). So there you go. Plenty of references to OSX.

"If Paul had any integrity regarding Apple, he'd present the facts about this whitepaper and have a full position built on intellectual honesty." Thanks for the laugh!

"If Microsoft pushed you have MORE CHOICE by going with a PC vs a Mac it would be more truthful. No one can deny that Apple has limited choices. However typically, if you configure a Windows PC with the same hardware, as close as possible then the difference is close, and in some cases a Dell Workstation class PC it can be more expensive. More choice yes, more value when comparing less configured system, bull ***." Wow! It seems like you guys are working hard to convince yourselves that you made the right choice. The Microsoft ad campaign seems to be working.

Well, it seems Microsoft finally struck a nerve against the hardcore Mac fans. Independent analysis always ends up winning against the undocumented and unproven opinions of the right wing of their fanbase. Those of you who believe that there is no "Apple Tax" are completely lying to us or think we are utter fools? The answers that prove Microsoft's point is out there, you just have to walk up and ask the right questions. Let me break it down this way. What is the cheapest monitor you can buy from Apple? $899.00 from the Apple Store. What standard features are missing from the Mac Mini that every computer needs? Keyboard and Mouse. Additional cost for those peripherals? $98.00 from the Apple Store. $49.00 for a keyboard and $49.00 for a mouse. Just right there, subtractin about $200 bucks for a PC flatscreen monitor, thats an additional cost of $797.00 versus buying a non Apple, Inc based PC. So please tell me that wrong here? Yet, every website I've checked on purchasing a Mac including www. Apple.com confirms this additional cost. Or the fact that the base level monitor from Apple cost at least $500 more than any monitor you can buy elsewhere? So what the hell do you call that? Why are people being told Macs have more value when you're paying an increased cost for essential peripherals? Yet many Internet providers, third movie download services, and many online services do not support OS-X at this time? Additional memory from Apple? I just about died laughing at the outrageous price. For 4 GB of DDR 3 memory? $150.00!!!! I just about died laughing, when you can buy 6 GB of DDR 3 memory of the same speed and class for $79.99!!! Lets see, this is basic mathematics here. Which is the lower price? $150.00 or $79.99. You don't need rocket science to tell you that the inflated cost of Macs are real and that there is absolutely no justification for it. Leopard can't even take full advantage of of the new Nehalem class processors! You'll have to wait till Snow Leopard comes out and you'll add $129 dollars just to take advantage of the processors true abilities. If Macs were such great values, then why did the United States government through its computer purchasing plan for school districts nationwide completely replace the Nation's computer infrastructure with Windows Machines? If Macs are such great values, then why do school districts have to make specific request for Macs and at the most only allow them for no more than one computer lab? When most schools in each class room will have at least more than one unit? If it was really such a great value, why did the school districts everywhere switch from Macs to PC's? Because the added cost of Macs were unsustainable for school districts nationwide? How do I know this? Because I worked for a computer vendor in 2003 that serviced schools nationwide. That policy still hasn't changed according to my contacts still doing the same work. So if the government, school districts, businesses nationwide still prefer PC's to Macs, then obviously they figured out the Mac Tax is for real. Or else if Macs were such great value, then why do mostly consumers of certain wealth and position have Macs? I got to thank you guys for the laugh. Macs having more value. What a joke. Thanks for the great punchline!