Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ballmer Scorns Apple As a $500 Logo

Posted by timothy on from the upholding-shareholder-value dept.

theodp writes "Speaking at a conference in NYC, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer did his best to refan the flames of the Mac vs. PC rivalry: 'Now I think the tide has really turned back the other direction [against Apple],' Ballmer said. 'The economy is helpful. Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment — same piece of hardware — paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be.'"

27 of 1,147 comments (clear)

  1. It seems ironic... by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment — same piece of hardware — paying $500 more to get a logo on it?

    ...that the head of Microsoft would apparently put no value on software.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    1. Re:It seems ironic... by djmurdoch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The $130 doesn't get you an OS that will run on commodity hardware. First you have to pay the monopoly fee, i.e. the first copy costs $630, the upgrades are $130.

    2. Re:It seems ironic... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, there are times where Apples will actually be cheaper, but they update their product line less frequently than Dell. So sometimes there is a huge difference in price ( with apple's more expensive), and some times it goes the other ea slightly. I think when I bought my mac book it was $150 more than the equivalent Dell. But I could also have gone with a less powerful machine and saved more with Dell. That, I think is what most people think of. Apple's product line up has less offerings than dell, so Dell has some price points that Apple doesn't compete at.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    3. Re:It seems ironic... by jimfrost · · Score: 5, Insightful
      There is truth to this, but generally speaking I've found Apple's product quality -- likelihood of failing, durability of construction -- to be superior to Dell. Sometimes very, very superior. It's no accident that I buy Apple laptops instead of Dells these days, that's experience both ways. Even if the Apple is more expensive based on the spec sheet it certainly is not in terms of expected life and ongoing maintenance costs. Dell laptops were typically failing inside of two years; Apples pull five before I retire them (with two typical service issues usually in the first year), and seven to failure. When put in that perspective Apple is very inexpensive. I note that I have had similar experiences with Thinkpads, which are priced pretty much the same as Apple's stuff. Makes you think.

      Even if the hardware is equal the software surely is not. The $130 price point quoted above is for an upgrade -- something Microsoft charges anywhere from $90 to $160 for on the desktop, depending on version. But that doesn't tell the whole story as Macs include a lot more software in-the-box, enough to make it useful without buying anything else. Once I get done buying antivirus ($50) and back-up ($80) software for my Windows PC I'm already eating well into the so-called Apple Tax ... and that's before we talk about maintenance costs. Where Microsoft puts in applications that are clearly checkbox quality, Apple's bundled applications are often superb -- similar to things I have to pay hundreds of dollars for on Windows. All this adds up to significant value in the software package.

      But none of this is or was a primary motivator for me. No, it was maintenance costs that drove me to try Apple again in 2001. Windows installations were requiring significant maintenance every 3 months, like clockwork, and total failures requiring from-scratch rebuilds were near universal within 18 months. I had hoped that XP would improve things, and it did from the standpoint of corrupted disks, but malware costs with XP have been out of sight.

      OS X has been a dream come true in terms of maintenance -- there are glitches, but so far none have taken more than 90 minutes to solve, most take only a couple of minutes, and the sum total of such glitches over eight years I can count on my fingers (though it does take both hands). I have never had to rebuild a Mac from scratch! I am still amazed at that fact. Time savings in a single year completely swamp any extra money I pay to Apple for hardware.

      Then there are the little things. Let's say that fifth year comes around and I buy a new laptop to replace one that's really old-in-the-tooth. Bringing the new one on-line requires connecting it to the old one during set-up and waiting for data to transfer between them. When you get done the new one is a newer, shinier version of the old one -- all applications and documents are transferred neat-as-you-please. The first time I did this my jaw dropped; the process typically takes many hours with Windows because it's effectively impossible to transfer application installations due to the registry.

      It's things like that which will keep me buying Macs. Real thought and effort goes into making them work well long-term. Much longer hardware life coupled with much lower maintenance costs equals huge savings in my book.

      YMMV, and probably does. I find Windows indispensable in some areas and still have plenty of Windows boxes around. Still, the Macs are workhorses that do their jobs and let me spend my time doing what I bought the computer for rather than just trying to keep it running. I'll take more of that, thanks.

      Maybe Win7 will be an improvement. Vista sure wasn't, what a disappointment.

      --
      jim frost
      jimf@frostbytes.com
    4. Re:It seems ironic... by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I find it very telling that Steve Ballmer won't let his kids use an iPod, and Bill Gates won't let Melinda use an iPhone. Instead of saying, "hm, maybe I should build a product my own family members would want to use" they're trying to push their own family members into using Microsoft products. They're using their position to force a market to accept a Microsoft product that it doesn't really want... only in this case it's their position as a husband and father, and the "market" is their own family.

      I'm not saying that denying your family iPods and iPhones constitutes some kind of spousal abuse or child abuse. But I am saying that this attitude is counterproductive as a corporate leader. Your family and your market is telling you something about the kind of products they enjoy using and will pay money for. Instead of listening, and producing products that emulate the best qualities of Apple's products, you're trying to tell your family and your customers that no, you don't really want the things you think you want. You actually want what we're giving you.

    5. Re:It seems ironic... by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Macs have been nothing more than commodity PCs in a proprietary case since they switched to the x86/x64 platform.

      Yup, a commodity PC with bluetooth std, low power components, display brightness controlled by OS, working power management, extremely quiet, ah I give up, most of you lack the ability to differentiate any two computers from any manufacturer, and will never try.

      Look, coffee makers and toasters are commodities too, but there's a helluva difference between $10 and $200 ones.
      Same goes for about any product, as the price goes up, you generally are looking at totally different features. A $200 toaster ought to bake a freaking casserole for me, perfectly. You can't just write off expensive variants of cheaper products because they all make coffee, they all make toast, they all have four wheels, all show my TV signal, they all have the same system architecture, etc. There's so much more to it, and the most demanded features often get pushed down into cheaper products (the real commodities). Don't underestimate that effect, at some point a dual slot toaster might have been ritzy, who knows :)

    6. Re:It seems ironic... by bane2571 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The bit where the media finds out and rather than saying "Great, Ballmer is keeping an eye on the competition" they say "ZOMG! Ballmer prefers Apple over Microsoft!"

    7. Re:It seems ironic... by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I found it amusing to repeat Ballmer's quote, but change it slightly.

      Original quote:

      "Apple gained about one point, but now I think the tide has really turned back the other direction. The economy is helpful. Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be."

      Changed slightly:

      "Microsoft gained about one point, but now I think the tide has really turned back the other direction. The economy is helpful. Paying an extra $500 for an operating system in this environment -- same piece of software -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be."

      CEOs of technology companies should be careful not to throw stones in glasshouses.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    8. Re:It seems ironic... by alienw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who the hell actually expands and upgrades their PCs these days, though? This isn't 1997, you can't just buy a computer and just replace the motherboard and CPU every 2 years. Unless you play a lot of video games (in which case Macs are not really an option), I do not see why you would need to upgrade a machine if it had decent specs when you bought it. It's a pain to even add RAM these days, since by the time you get around to it, the type required will already be obsolete and expensive. And really, just about everything you might need to add is available as a USB device.

    9. Re:It seems ironic... by MemoryDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tell me. What does OSX have that Linux or Windows on a PC doesn't?

      Actually a backup capability which really works...
      You are not even forced to upgrade to a higher version of the same operating system for a half working restore...

      Unix tools out of the box,
      No file locking, which makes it important if you do some serious development!

      No registry which is the root of many evils in windows.

      A system administration frontend which does not try to make you insane by distributing its functionality over 15.000 ui dialogs.

      User Access Control which actually works as expected!

      A filesystem which does not fragment as hell in serious development tasks.

      A real working distributed component framework all the infrastructure is built upon which actually is usable!

      It does not thrash my harddisk for minutes after bootup with tasks hidden by the process explorer (happend to me in vista)!

      It does not lock my ui half a minute after showing it because it needs to load other things, und just tries to give the impression of being usable while it clearly isnÂt.

      It comes with SSH and VNC and Xwindows out of the box.

      The file sharing capabilities and printer sharing capabilities are superior thanks to Rendevouz!

      Dashboard actually is usable instead if trying to pointlessly shove the widgets into the working area of many people!

      It has a browser which follows web standards which are newer than 2003!

      It has users who do not insist of using a 10 year old browser despite being numerously the victims of worms and virii induced by the shortcoming of this browser!

  2. End of the world by oldhack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm agreeing with Balmer... so hell has frozen over.

    I've better go dump all my money while I can. Maybe I'll get a mac.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  3. As opposed to... by zr-rifle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >paying $500 more to get a logo on it?

    As opposed to paying twice for the same, crappy OS...

    I suppose it would be better, in a moment like this, to look for free alternatives... right?

    --
    Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
  4. and with that same philosophy by FudRucker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why pay X amount of dollars for microsoft-windows when you can get Linux for FREE!

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  5. Buy Apple Stock Now! by db32 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I seem to remember some other Ballmer moments of insight on Apple. There was that interview where he was laughing about how the iPhone was junk and Windows Mobile is the bestest evar. He also had some pretty amusing comparisons and whatnot between the wildly successful iPods and the Zune. I mean really now...aside from not selling for crap...the whole mass suicide on New Years was amazing...Apple clearly is failing because they haven't managed to have all of their products of a given model crash at the same time...

    Seriously...this guy has a long track record of saying absolutely moronic shit, why does anyone take anything he says seriously? He will fucking kill Google right?

    --
    The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
  6. Ballmer -1 Troll by javacowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ballmer is just trolling. He knows that Apple offers real value because OS X is a better operating system than Windows, which means that Apple has essentially taken away the high-end PC business away from Microsoft.

    He should know that trolling isn't going to bring those high-end customers back to Windows. Maybe he does, who knows?

    Microsoft has repeatedly chosen to patch Windows instead of rebuilding it from the ground up as a modern operating system, the way Apple did with OS X. They should have known 8 years ago that this was the wrong strategy.

    --
    This space left intentionally blank.
    1. Re:Ballmer -1 Troll by wickerprints · · Score: 4, Insightful

      None of your reasons is meaningful because you fail to consider the fact that Micrsoft used anticompetitive practices and developer lock-in to leverage an inferior product into the dominant consumer and enterprise OS. Businesses use Windows because their IT supports it, developers support it, OEMs support it, ad nauseam. It's not because it's a better product--it's because everyone and their mom has been stuck with it, like lousy VHS tapes. There are numerous examples in our economic history that show that the dominant technology is not always the "best."

      What Microsoft has failed to recognize for the past 8 years is that Steve Jobs' Apple Inc. isn't interested in playing that game any more. He is way too busy pushing Apple in the direction of emerging consumer technology. He wants Apple to not lead market share per se, but to lead the direction of the market. That's what the iPod and iPhone did. That's what Jonny Ive's design has done. I find it hilarious that people talk up all these competitors (Nokia, RIM, LG, Samsung, and Palm for the iPhone, and Creative, Microsoft, for the iPod), and say how they now offer better features and hardware than the Apple products they wish to "kill." They forget that before Apple even broke those markets wide open, NONE of those companies made jack SHIT. Where was the Zune before the iPod? Where was the Storm or Pre before the iPhone? Where was any of all this sudden innovation in hardware design before Apple made their mark? The competitors play catch-up because they lack the vision to lead. They are too busy resting on their laurels and squeezing every last dime out of the consumer. If Apple costs more (and I'm not necessarily convinced one way or another), I'm willing to pony up to support a company that has the balls to lead, because in the long run we're all the better for it.

      The whole tech industry and the consumers who use their products owe a huge debt of gratitude to Apple for lighting a massive bonfire under the collective asses of all the industry competitors. No other company in the past decade has done more to set a fierce competitive landscape in the realm of hardware, software, and product design. If it weren't for Apple we'd still be stuck with shitty Windows Mobile on 2" tiny non-touchscreen devices that looked uglier than a crack-addled stepmom on an alcohol binge.

  7. Ballmer, open an Apple machine by edivad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Take a MacPro, open it, and compare it with stuff like Dell or Sony or HP. Is it a little more expensive? Yes. It is worth it? Hell, yeah.
    There is no match as far as how clean and robust is the build, compared to other top-brand PCs. Absolute absence of flying around cables, top of the line electronic components, maximum care down to the very little details.
    But this is a known thing to everyone that actually opened an Apple and other brand-name PCs.
    Ballmer, ... God's gift to every person in the world that does not really love Microsoft. Or for people, like myself, that could happily live even w/out them.
    He has been able to drag Microsoft, once perceived as technology source with fairly large following, down to the nobody-cared status, as far as all the new technologies being introduced.
    One failure after another, with Microsoft not being able to push new technologies even in their own niche (see Vista fiasco for one).

  8. Hardly surprising... by tgibbs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The price differential exists precisely because the head of Microsoft doesn't understand what it is about Apple software that causes many people to consider an Apple computer to be worth a few hundred bucks more than a similar-spec Windows machine.

  9. So... by wampus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is where fanboys decide the talking points for the next month or so and shit them all over the internet?

  10. Ballmer needs Apple by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Ballmer wants the world to focus on the idea that the desktop fight is only between M$ and Apple. If he can do that then, perhaps (please -- hopefully), that people will not start using a Linux desktop.

    The Linux desktop is Ballmer's real nightmare... and it is getting closer.

  11. Re:Many differences but... by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First of all I don't think the price difference is anywhere near $500.
    The simple truth is that Apple doesn't make any cheap PCs. They all seem to be well made with good components and with good support. All that really does cost money. I have only owned three apple products and all of them are iPods. They are all well made and have outlasted every other MP3 Player I have owned. My old Nano is just sitting since I got a touch but it works just fine.
    Ballmer may be correct. Except that what that means is that people will settle for Windows but they still really want a Mac. That makes Windows what you get when you can not get anything else.
    It also means that Windows could loose to Linux since it is even cheaper.
    Not a good place to be. They are in the middle.
    Plus Apple can always produce a cheaper PC if they want to. Can Microsoft make an OS cheaper than Linux?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  12. There is no Microsoft computer. by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But there ARE a variety of Apple computers, each somewhat different than the others. The Mac OS installer is smart enough to know which Mac it's being installed on, and configures itself accordingly.

    As for Windows. Well, now. HOW many motherboards are out there? How many different video and sound cards? How many webcams and microphones? How many fiddling little DLLs and drivers?

    And Windows has to accommodate them all. Or, rather YOU, the users, have to accommodate them all on your own, by seeking out and downloading the latest drivers for some card made in China using FSM knows what revision of onboard firmware.

    MS sells HOW MANY versions of XP and Vista? How many versions of Windows 7 will there be?

    Mac OS X. One box, one version. Install on as many Macs as you own. Got the last version of Mac OS X and you just bought the latest? Go ahead, SELL the old one or give it away.

    Apple Doesn't Care!

    Same with their iLife and iWork application suites.

    They WOULD rather that you didn't upload the DVD to Pirate Bay or the like. But they don't make anyone phone home or authenticate an install or give you grief if you don't have the serial number from the box.

    ALL my installs of OS X have been from previously owned install DVDs. NEVER a problem. NEVER an authentication from Cupertino required.

    Office? Feh! iWork, US$80.00 retail, probably less with an academic discount. iLife, same price.

    Other software? Photoshop? Please. Graphic Converter uses most PS plug ins and filters. Outlook Express? I can manually infect my Mac with viruses and trojans without any help, thank you very much.

    Mail app or Eudora work just fine for me as email applications. And neither will do anything I don't explicitly authorize.

    Internet Explorer? Please! Don't make me laugh, I have chapped lips! Firefox makes IE its bitch 24/7.

    Mac OS vs. Windows? Two Words: TIME MACHINE!

    So, yeah, Ballmer, you sweaty little monkey, shrieking and throwing your feces at passersby, that logo IS worth the extra money to me.

    If only because YOU don't see a penny of it.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
  13. been said already... by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is definitely the pot calling the kettle black. How much am I paying exactly for all those "Built for Windows" stickers I've had to scrape off?

    --
    Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  14. It's about service. by Alchemist253 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My bias: I primarily run Linux (writing this on a Debian workstation), so I suppose I might be more of a "Microsoft basher" than an "Apple fanboy."

    However, one thing I will say about Apple is that it has arguably the best customer service of any large company I have ever dealt with in ANY FIELD.

    Fortunately, Apple products tend to "just work" and continue "just working" so I don't have to deal with service that much. However, when I have I have been impressed.

    When I called Apple support for a particularly obscure software problem, within I got conferenced in with an OS X software engineer who had kernel HFS code in front of him. Keep in mind, this was the standard consumer 800-number level support! How often would this happen at, say, Microsoft?

    I broke one of the mechanical components of my iPhone, walked into an Apple store, and within ten minutes walked out with a replacement phone - no arguing, frustration, or upselling attempted. Along the same vein, a friend of mine had a laptop that was YEARS off warranty, and when the DVD drive finally died Apple still offered to repair it at no charge.

    I've even gone into the Apple store to look at accessories like earphones and had a salesperson tell me that a different retailer was having a sale that I should check out to save money.

    My point I suppose is that the "Apple tax" (or what I would more formally refer to as the "brand premium") is in no small part to pay for having a large number of well-trained (even more with respect to customer interaction than technical skill) employees with sufficient authority to actually deal with problems. Apple takes the attitude that customer satisfaction is more important than low prices - and I thank them for it.

  15. Re:Is there a gas leak in here? by Moofie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I prefer Apple, and I don't have to justify the increased expense to you.

    It is worth the extra coin to me, and you can do whatever makes you happy.

    What's the problem?

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  16. You're doing it wrong by Rix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can find a laptop that will suit my needs for $700 or so. That its specs are different than the lowest priced Mac laptop is totally irrelevant, because it meets my requirements.

    You don't calculate the Mac tax by comparing similar PC and Mac systems, you calculate it by comparing the PC you would buy with the Mac you'd have to buy.

    1. Re:You're doing it wrong by MeNeXT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You calculate the value of a PC by how long it lasts (time and usefulness) compared to the price you paid. I still have a useful 2001 G3. After eight years it comes out cheaper than any PC.

      When you keep on buying the cheapest you start to forget what value is.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...