Approximate costs of competitors
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| vainrveenr Feb 15, 2008 7:16 AM EDT |
By following the Apple store link
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.... (or something similar if Apple should redirect this) , one can see that Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard retails for US$129.00 Through following the Novell SuSE purchase link http://shop.novell.com/store/novell/DisplayCategoryProductLi... , one can see that SLED 10 SP1 retails at either US$50.00 or US$125.00 depending upon whether one opts for the 1-year [support] option or the three-year [support] option. Debian Etch, as most reading this realize, is Free as in Beer. Furthermore, one can follow any of the links from http://www.debian.org/CD and see that Debian Etch is supported on [alpha] [amd64] [arm] [hppa] [i386] [ia64] [mips] [mipsel] [powerpc] [sparc] [s390] [source] [multi-arch] architectures. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 15, 2008 7:58 AM EDT |
Etch is better than FREE, it saves me time and sweat. I sleep better now
and get more work done. And I am better looking. Free is a price-point that is hard to beat. Cost of support is another story. I would guess that Linux IT people are not free, but who knows? Online or telephone support costs about the same for any vendor. The on site IT dude costs what? I hope that Linux Techs are getting their due but that could vary from tech to tech. Where Linux does save the IT budget money is needing fewer IT dudes because of the stability of the OS. And it will run on a dead badger just fine, no need to buy the new living badger for every software upgrade. I was this || close to buying a Mac, but was saved by Linux, the whole thing was about controll, Apple with the boxes and m$ with the software. I sure hope that FOSS way of doing things wins out. Read the article, SR does a great job and the links from vainrveenr are a good cap to the story. |
| flufferbeer Feb 15, 2008 10:01 AM EDT |
@vv, @cp
All great points, re the OS purchase costs and the costs of support.
OTOH, one of your major omissions here, guys/gals, are the current acquisition costs of the obvious....Windows OS! Suggested MSRP price for M$-Windows Vista (in http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/category.aspx?bcatid=2804) From $399.95 for Microsoft® Windows Vista Ultimate FULL down to $79.95 for the Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic - Upgrade Suggested MSRP price for M$-Windows XP $129.93 - $264.62 for M$ Windows XP Professional FULL down to $99 for M$-Windows XP Home - Upgrade These costs do not include telephone or hand-on support of Windows Vista/XP, PAST the default, non-extended support option written into the OS license contracts themselves. |
| dumper4311 Feb 15, 2008 11:28 AM EDT |
There's more going on here than the article accounts for. Yes, free OS X would help build this "all-important" mindshare, but it's not really all important. Other factors that must be considered include the costs associated with supporting this (or any) OS on a MUCH wider variety of hardware. This hurts (and will continue to hurt) Microsoft so long as they remain a proprietary OS vendor. The OSS development model is nearly impossible to beat on the basis of code development costs. And in this respect, OS X (based on BSD code) has a clear advantage over MS also, but any proprietary bits will always be an added source of expense. Additionally, as CP mentioned above, costs of support are a factor. So instead of support being an expense, they'd need to find a reasonable way to make that profitable. It can be done, IBM is a perfect example, but it would take some serious re-tooling. I like the "runs on a dead badger" analogy by the way, but it brings to mind the idea of needing to change the Linux mascot to a blood-sucking tick - which is much more Bill G's business persona. :) I'm also not entirely sure the concept of being more likely to buy Apple's hardware would hold up well if Apple's software ran on any old dead badger (or new badger, for that matter). Ultimately, cost is a factor for consumers, all other things being equal, and if Apple had to compete more directly on a cost of hardware basis, they'd find the market MUCH less attractive. That's precisely why the whole iTunes thing makes money for Apple - it doesn't support all mp3 playing commodity hardware, it supports iPods. The hardware (and the name) still have unique value, even if it's only perceived. If you open iTunes to support management of Creative, or Panasonic, or Microsoft MP3 players, the perceived value of the iPod drops dramatically. (yes, I know this can be hacked around, but your average user won't go to those extremes to figure out how, or live with the limitations). Windows is more expensive to acquire and support, but it's got a couple of decades of market domination on it's side. This kind of inertia is INCREDIBLY difficult to overcome - profitably at least - and profit can't be overlooked as a motivator. On a small scale, I still need to be able to turn a profit to feed my family. Companies have shareholders they must answer to. I don't think this is a bad thing (if pursued ethically), but it is a definite concern. That's why the whole iWhatever thing has worked out so well for Apple, and also likely why OS X won't be made a free product, or expanded to a much wider hardware platform. Unless they can find a method of competing based on SERVICE that's as lucrative as their HARDWARE business has been. |
| tuxtom Feb 15, 2008 5:44 PM EDT |
If Apple theoretically offered OS X for generic hardware the retail price would probably be somewhere around $1200-$1500. And the fanboys would pay it. Meanwhile, back at the LXer ranch... |
| dinotrac Feb 16, 2008 3:47 AM EDT |
If you really want to know why it's a bad idea, you need only ponder the liquidation of CompUSA. Starting with its roots as SoftwareHouse, place made money hand over fist competing against the likes of Computerland and Businessland and umpteen other computer retailers. SoftwareHouse offered PC clones that undercut the $3,000 darlings at the more established stores. With the growing acceptance of clones and their sellers, the more established retailers collapsed under margin pressures. Now it's happened to CompUSA. Computers are cheap and margins are low. Except for Apple. By the way, did you know that Apple is the third largest PC brand in the US? Bet their margins skunk Dell and HP, too. If you can make a premium product, and you can get people to buy it, you can make a lot of money on relatively few sales. So long as you retain your cachet, you prosper. |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 18, 2008 5:01 PM EDT |
Without the iPod, Apple would be in serious trouble. Sure they make an obscene profit margin on just about everything they sell, but I seriously doubt they're moving enough non-iPod and -iPhone product to stay afloat. ... But since they do have the iPod and now the iPhone, it really doesn't matter. |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 3:57 AM EDT |
Steve -- They sell a lot of PCs. Last I looked, they were the third-largest PC maker in the US. Not sure of their world standing, but it's pretty good, too. |
| tuxtom Feb 19, 2008 9:53 AM EDT |
Lotsa shiney new Macs at Starbucks and Panera. |
| dumper4311 Feb 19, 2008 10:23 AM EDT |
@dino:
You're absolutely right, they sell a lot of PCs. SR is right also, in that the iWhatever phenomenon is a huge part of their business model, now and in the future. What I think is really valuable about this situation is: WHY? The model is important, and for Linux to overtake a large portion of the desktop market, we really need to learn something from this model. You've summed it up very well: "So long as you retain your cachet, you prosper." This is a fundamental that Apple has survived (and prospered) on, in spite of the Microsoft dominance of the desktop. How do we apply this lesson to the Linux incursion of the desktop? What's our "cachet"? How do we leverage that into a COMPELLING value proposition for home, business, and educational users? I'll catch no end of crap for this, but the same questions should be asked of Microsoft's business model(s) and practices. Mind you, I do understand that most of the lessons learned there are NOT models we should follow, but the fundamental principles are important, and those lessons should be used (ethically) to improve market penetration of desktop Linux. As a community, I think we spend far too much time reacting to conditions, and far too little learning (and implementing) foundational lessons. The ultimate aim of which is to improve the lot of computer users everywhere. The shiny new Macs at Starbucks that tuxtom mentioned are the perfect example of where Linux can be if we can figure out how to implement the lessons learned from Apple, or even Microsoft. |
| tuxtom Feb 19, 2008 10:31 AM EDT |
>> The shiny new Macs at Starbucks that tuxtom mentioned are the perfect example of where Linux can be if we can figure out how to implement the lessons learned from Apple, or even Microsoft. Linux, Inc.? No thanks. Unless it is an organic social phenomenon I really want no part of "world domination". If it happens you can trust that I'll be using the next-generation underground OS. |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 10:42 AM EDT |
tuxtom - Thinking too narrowly. Apple is an inc, their model is not. Their model is to be a design leader -- to create premium products that innovate, stimulate, and seduce. That model has survived from the original too-little memory 1-piece monochrome M68000 Macs through the PowerPC models and on to the Intel versions. It has survived from the classic Mac OS to the current BSD-based OS. It has translated to iPods and to the iPhone. There's a big lesson in there --- technology is cool, especially when it's shiny, but, mostly, people care that it works, they can use it, and they can show it off to their friends. Nits and grits are for nerds. Linuxland is still WAY too developer-oriented. Great if you want to reach developers. Not so great if you want to reach everyone else. Much better than it was ten years ago, but... |
| jdixon Feb 19, 2008 10:51 AM EDT |
> ...technology is cool... In that regard, the Eee PC shows the way. The main thing people are saying about it is that it's cool. I personally thought the Nokia 770 fit that bill too, but apparently most people didn't. But then again, it wasn't as widely available as the Eee. |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 19, 2008 10:58 AM EDT |
If the category opened up by the ASUS Eee begins to grow, that will be a Linux niche that reaches firmly into the casual user community that has never used FOSS before. If these manufacturers can somehow get the point across that YOU CAN DO EVERYTHING WITH LINUX THAT YOU CAN DO WITH WINDOWS AND MS OFFICE, EXCEPT YOU DON'T PAY -- EVER ... well, then we'll be getting somewhere. But I suspect that if the makers of $300 laptops (assuming they get that cheap) begin to take off, Microsoft will somehow, someway retool XP for the low-end laptop segment and slash their prices to grab that market. You can run XP in 512 MB of RAM ... I, unfortunately, have to do it every day. I guess what I'm saying is that time is of the essence. And at this point I do see Ubuntu leading the way (never mind that it's Xandros in the Eee and Ubuntu-derived gOS in the Everex Cloudbook). |
| tuxtom Feb 19, 2008 11:10 AM EDT |
dino: I was playing Devil's Advocate there with Linux, Inc. >> Apple is an inc, their model is not. I completely disagree with you. You are being naive and utopian with that statement. Do think Apple would be where it is today and "...create premium products that innovate, stimulate, and seduce..." if it weren't for the profit motive and substantial outside investment (for profit)? Before they even left the garage the model has been "lets design and sell this product for a profit, preferably a big one". Yes, they have become a social cult of sorts, but that in no way negates the facts. The "cult" would never have existed if it weren't for the Inc. |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 19, 2008 11:33 AM EDT |
I'm not saying it's wrong for Apple to be pretty much an exclusively high-end maker of computers, but I'm not saying it's right, either. I've been told exactly where to go by numerous Apple partisans since I wrote this original entry ... but still, would it kill them to come up with a $500 all-in-one Macintosh box? Not a laptop, but a desktop that didn't cost $1,000. In the absence of such a product, though, Linux can thrive. The next time I pay $1,000 for a computer is ... never. |
| jdixon Feb 19, 2008 11:49 AM EDT |
> The next time I pay $1,000 for a computer is ... never. Well, yeah. But then Linux users are known as a frugal bunch, to use polite terminology. |
| herzeleid Feb 19, 2008 12:08 PM EDT |
> Well, yeah. But then Linux users are known as a frugal bunch, to use polite terminology. That's a bum rap. Speaking personally, money tends to burn a hole in my pocket when there's cool computer stuff to be bought. But even so, it would be crazy not to try and get the most bang for the buck. > but still, would it kill them to come up with a $500 all-in-one Macintosh box? Our mac mini, I think that cost around $500 or so - |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 12:27 PM EDT |
>You are being naive and utopian with that statement. Oh please. It's been more than 30 years since I was naive and utopian. You are confusing motivation with product strategy. They make great products that people want and get rich doing it. The trick for FOSS - and it may not be possible - is finding a motivation that will result in great products (or non-products or whatever) that people want. Wouldn't surprise me if the search for motivation involved a few people getting rich doing it. |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 12:29 PM EDT |
Steve - There is no right or wrong for a business model. There is only success or failure. Apple has succeeded admirably, which leaves us little room to criticize their model. Wish I could do so well. |
| tuxtom Feb 19, 2008 12:32 PM EDT |
>> Oh please. It's been more than 30 years since I was naive and utopian. DIdn't mean to patronize ya. I'll drop the naive. 8^) Viable product strategies do cost a lot of time and money. |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 19, 2008 12:37 PM EDT |
I grant that Apple has survived some dark days and is thriving now. I though the iPod wouldn't become a cultural phenomenon until it hit $50 ... and it did it at $300, so what do I know? Not much, admittedly. Tossing Apple aside, open source has come so far in the past five years, just think where it could be five years from now. |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 12:50 PM EDT |
>just think where it could be five years from now. It's not going to go much further without people thinking of things in the ways that product development folks think. Developers scratching an itch can do amazing thing, but that last little bit of the journey requires paying lots of attention to other peoples' itches. |
| Steven_Rosenber Feb 19, 2008 1:34 PM EDT |
Ubuntu? |
| dumper4311 Feb 19, 2008 2:37 PM EDT |
". . . but that last little bit of the journey requires paying lots of attention to other peoples' itches." Thus - Linux, Inc. The more rabid "free" software supporters are quick to tear down anything related to corporate involvement or a profit motive, but the simple fact is dino's right. We're done moving forward (as far as market penetration goes), until someone figures out how to really scratch that itch. The dedication and resources that takes requires A WAY TO PAY THE BILLS. And Apple has demonstrated that people will pay for something they "just have to have." That being said, God save me from Ubuntu! Don't like it, for a variety of reasons covered better by others. In any case, if I don't like the product I won't buy it, but I WOULDN'T BEGRUDGE THEM THEIR SUCCESS. Quite the contrary, while I'm convinced there are better ways of doing things, I'd love to see somebody - ANYBODY - make a huge public splash with Linux. Ultimately, that's one of the greatest strengths of the open source development model - one player's success contributes to the whole field in some way or another. |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 3:27 PM EDT |
Steve and Dumper -- Presently have 1 Ubuntu, 1 Kubuntu workstations, and share a couple of Ubuntu servers. Kubuntu is going to Opensuse as soon as I get the time. Ubuntu workstation is primarily a myth box sitting under the television. Haven't decided what I will replace it with, if anything. But...must echo: This Ubuntu stuff is WAY over-appreciated. |
| jdixon Feb 19, 2008 3:31 PM EDT |
> This Ubuntu stuff is WAY over-appreciated. It's a heavily modified Debian. Just like Mepis, Xandros, and Linspire. I honestly don't see any reason for an experienced Linux user not to stick to the original. Unless you prefer Red Hat or Slackware derived distro's, of course. |
| tuxchick Feb 19, 2008 3:41 PM EDT |
jdixon and dino, the reason to use Ubuntu is to become part of a large loving family. You get hugs, and always have a place to sleep and get a hot meal. You just have to listen to a brief sermon first...oh wait, never mind, I'm thinking of homeless shelters. |
| dinotrac Feb 19, 2008 6:26 PM EDT |
> I'm thinking of homeless shelters. Not that there's anything wrong with that. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 19, 2008 6:29 PM EDT |
TuxTom >> No thanks. Unless it is an organic social phenomenon I really want no part of "world domination". If it happens you can trust that I'll be using the next-generation underground OS. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!