Poll: Why is it Micro$oft and not App?e?

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I'm about to start my masters, and my supervisor was asking me to give him specifications for the computer I'd like to use at the lab. Everyone else is using Macs, so he recommended I get a Macbook, and dual boot it with Linux. So I've been looking into Macs, and holy shit are they expensive.

Comparing a Mac and PC computer with equal specifications, the Mac will cost somewhere between twice and three times as much. I realize that a Mac with equal specification will perform better, just because the limited hardware variations makes it a lot easier to optimize. But the individual components still cost just as much. And the limited hardware variations mean, if anything, they can afford to buy the components in bulk for far less than other producers. Their computers should still cost less than the PC equivalents.

This got me thinking, why is Microsoft branded as the greedy company when it seems like Apple's bleeding its consumers for so much more. In terms of consumer unfriendly policies, Mac makes as much of their products proprietary as they can [footnote]And are planning on going more so, they're planning on replacing their headphone jack with a proprietary type that can only be built by a headphone manufacturer that they've recently purchased[/footnote]. They are also the only company with a proprietary OS, in that you cannot install it without first buying one of their ridiculously overpriced Macs.

Why is Microsoft the company that gets all the flack, when I very rarely hear these claims leveled against Apple, their biggest competition?

So, I ask you, what are your thoughts? Which of these two companies bleeds their customers for more money?

Note: I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion of which is better or worse. There's plenty of legitimate reasons to like Macs and Mac OSX. This is just about evaluating them based on corporate greed

 

[Parasondox]

Apple aren't discreet about their greed. They don't hide it and they have a particular fan base they cater too. Hell, Apple is seen as a cult but a few "experts".

Microsoft tries to cater to many but hide the little things that could be deal breakers. They often try to play to the Apple crowd but there is no point.

Apple is Fashion. Microsoft is Practicality.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Then you're not paying attention. The internet has long lambasted Apple for over pricing hardware, along with it's restrictive 'Walled Garden' approach to software for some of it's platforms.

Microsoft does get burned more then Apple, though. The reason Apple doesn't get quite as wide spread hate as Microsoft are various.

1. Microsoft licenses are (Or were) really expensive as well.
2. Microsoft has done a lot of shitty things unrelated to directly bleeding their customers, including a variety of anti-competition schemes.
3. Apple had a PR wizard named Steve Jobs.
4. Microsoft just never was as good at glamorizing their own company.
5. Microsoft is the big guy in the playground, and as such, its the one everyone wants to get toppled. Apple's rise to the public spotlight as a realistic choice for the average consumer is a rather recent development.
6. The fucking iPhone, man. People just cannot get over the iPhone.

TL;DR - Both companies can be pretty shitty, but only one of them has successfully managed to sell themselves as 'Mom's Friendly Tech Company.' There's a saying about men I've heard frequently - 'The only difference between a creep and the guy every girl wants is how attractive they are.' I don't think it's very accurate when applied to humans, but it seems to work for tech companies.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Everyone else is using Macs, so he recommended I get a Macbook, and dual boot it with Linux.

OK, I'll admit, I've done this before. My MacBook is running Manjaro Linux. But that's because I have an old MacBook that runs like crap with OS X, and the WiFi on OS X doesn't even work anymore. I was also bored.

However, I see absolutely no reason to dual-boot OS X and Linux on a brand new Mac. They're both *nix systems, and you can easily get a Mac-like interface on Linux. And any program on Linux certainly has an alternative on Mac.

So do you have any idea why your professor wants you to dual-boot Mac and Linux? Does he really just want you on Linux and figures you'll get more support from Mac users that have done the same? If that's the case, you can get plenty of support online for Windows/Linux dual boots, or you can just buy a Linux computer from someone like System76 or ZaReason.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

*snip*

My main machine is actually already a windows/linux dual boot.

As for why he recommended a Macbook, other people in the lab primarily work on Mac OS X, and the software that we develop is primarily supporting Mac and Linux. Being able to run OS X and linux on the same machine would be very convenient for making sure the software I'm writing for linux works on other people's machines as well. My focus in in computer graphics, and it can be a real pain making sure that my programs work identically on every platform.

I'm also not the one buying this computer, so the overpriced nature of Macs isn't that much of a consideration for me. Turns out if you look at the older models, you can find perfectly respectable machines for a lot more reasonable of a price.

Then you're not paying attention. The internet has long lambasted Apple for over pricing hardware, along with it's restrictive 'Walled Garden' approach to software for some of it's platforms.

Microsoft does get burned more then Apple, though. The reason Apple doesn't get quite as wide spread hate as Microsoft are various.

1. Microsoft licenses are (Or were) really expensive as well.
2. Microsoft has done a lot of shitty things unrelated to directly bleeding their customers, including a variety of anti-competition schemes.
3. Apple had a PR wizard named Steve Jobs.
4. Microsoft just never was as good at glamorizing their own company.
5. Microsoft is the big guy in the playground, and as such, its the one everyone wants to get toppled. Apple's rise to the public spotlight as a realistic choice for the average consumer is a rather recent development.
6. The fucking iPhone, man. People just cannot get over the iPhone.

TL;DR - Both companies can be pretty shitty, but only one of them has successfully managed to sell themselves as 'Mom's Friendly Tech Company.' There's a saying about men I've heard frequently - 'The only difference between a creep and the guy every girl wants is how attractive they are.' I don't think it's very accurate when applied to humans, but it seems to work for tech companies.

I do hear complaints about Macs every now and then, but they are pretty rare. I suppose it might at least partially be due to the fact that most people on this site own PCs, so their ire is more directed to the ways that Microsoft hurts them.

I don't really disagree with any of your reasons. I was all prepared to argue with #5, but it turns out that Apple doesn't own nearly as much of the market share as I thought it did.

I feel like another difference between this is the market that each company targets. Microsoft targets a larger portion of the tech savvy world, so they're more up on the business dealings, Apple on the other hand very much markets itself towards people who don't know, or don't want to know how computers work. They're not as likely to be aware of whether or not their machines are overpriced for what they can do.

I also know a number of people who've only ever owned Macs, and are just too familiar and attached to the OS to branch out. Which I can understand. Coming from Windows there's enough differences I can't really get used to with Macs, and I imagine the other way also applies. But because of this they only every compare prices of Macs between other Macs, which have no competition, so they're not aware just how much more expensive their computers are. I was talking to this with my Dad when our housekeeper came in, and complained about how expensive Macs are. From her response, it seemed like she realizes that Macs are expensive, but not that other computers aren't.

 

[Saelune]

Both are considered greedy. I still believe Apple creates products designed to break at a time to make you need to buy more stuff. Hell, that's my theory why my iPod which is awesome and still works was only on the market for a short time, cause they wanted people to buy those shitty minis.

Plus Mac computers are designed to be "special" and "premium". I mean, we make a distinction between Mac and PC...even though Macs... ARE PCs. (PC means Personal Computer, its like comparing Tissues to Kleenex or Sticky Notes to Post-Its)

Apple sells to elitist hipsters. Atleast that's how they market it.

 

[Subbies]

Just get a good laptop and run a VM. Problem solved

 

[Worgen]

Cause apple managed to brand themselves as the cool indie company. Microsoft got stuck with a business brand which seems inherently greedy despite the fact that apple overprice all their shit. I work IT and apple machines are so annoying to deal with, they are fine as long as you don't try and do anything special with them.

I also think that the 90s really hurt Microsoft's rep, at that time they were totally on top, in fact a loan from them prevented apple from having to file for bankruptcy.

 

[sXeth]

I'd chalk it up to Apple being more consistent. They have a very definitive product and vision, and you know what you're buying into if you go that route. For a lot of basic users who aren't worried about cost, its not an entirely bad model either.

Microsoft, on the other hand, has had all sorts of weird ups and downs, and a direction that keeps changing course all the time, especially since 2000 or so. They've wobbled in an out of their Walled Garden philosophy regularly, and their attempts to streamline a solid hardware division of their own have mostly flopped. They've also shown a certain willingness(resignation?) to backing down under public pressure, so the public finds it more productive to complain about them then Apple (who have stayed their course despite the tides of occasional backlash)

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

Microsoft is getting the all the flack because he's trying to become worse than Apple. Everybody knows that Apple's computers are overpriced, its OS exclusive and use proprietary specifications for its accessories. Microsoft is now trying to be like Apple with Windows 10, by making Windows 10 a mandatory OS for PC (by making deals with manufacturers like Lenovo to put Secure Boot on their products) and its restrictive Universal Windows Platform the official platform.

 

[MysticSlayer]

and their attempts to streamline a solid hardware division of their own have mostly flopped.

Not really. Sure, their phones have mostly flopped, but the Surface line has been doing very well. There is a reason some journalists and investors are calling on Microsoft to release a Surface phone: The team behind it has proven itself, and the value of the Surface brand is strong. It may not surpass what Apple or Samsung have right now, but for a relative late comer, they've definitely become a relevant hardware provider in the last couple years.