News Flash: Microsoft and Apple Want All Your Dough
Most people think the security of Windows is a bit suspect. Not being a big Windows user anymore I couldn’t say. John c. Dvorak opines (here) that Microsoft’s new idea to charge for protection is a clear conflict of interest. His point is valid, if protection is a revenue stream there’s no real incentive to make Windows safe out of the box. Computer compromised? Sucks to be you, pay us! Now you’ll get to pay up front and buy a subscription, lucky you.
Here it would seem to be an oppurtune moment to go full on Microsoft is evil but it would ring hollow. Note Apple’s recent decision to charge gouge iPod accessory makers 10%. of every sale of every product that uses the iPods port. That’s par for the course is you’re the RIAA but something Apple should be above (standard charge is about 2% by the way).
In Microsoft’s case you’ll feel the bite directly, in Apple’s case you’ll see less iPod coolness and the stuff laying around will be more expensive. In both cases it just seems like money grubbing corporations run amok.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
In Microsoft’s case you’ll feel the bite directly, in Apple’s case you’ll see less iPod coolness and the stuff laying around will be more expensive.
That’s true in these two examples. But it’s difficult, if not impossible, to argue that Apple doesn’t gouge consumers directly as well. And Microsoft is much more likely to browbeat vendors than consumers (although that charging for protection is insane), which is where they get their reputation as bullies.
At the end of the day, they’re both pretty much the same. What I find astonishing is the Mac zealot criticism of Microsoft while at the same time defending Apple’s anti-competitive practices. I remember one comment on this site not so long ago when someone said they were glad Apple hadn’t “gone corporate.” You don’t get much further inside the reality distortion field than that.
If apple wants to charge a bajillion bucks for a mac, that’s fine you’re free not ot buy it. If microsoft wants to charge a ton for XP, hey whatever. I don’t have a problem with either of those things, those are their products, wallets vote. So I don’t see it as gouging.
But the security thing is an obvious conflict of interest (need more subscribers add a security hole) an Apple charging ipod accessory makers extra for using a port? Outrageous. The second party manufacturers are only adding value to the iPod, to slap an extra 8% on them is pure and simple greed.
(Lessons I Learned from the RIAA By S. Jobs.
Chapter 1: Demand more Cash for Doing Nothing
Coming to a bookstore near you)
The only people I think who should be worried about MS OneCare is Symantec…and they are worried from how they are running off to the courts again about it. Security updates are still free, as is Anti Spyware. As for Anti Virus no ones forcing you to use OneCare or NAV. And after seeing Symantecs latest subscription price hikes of 25-33% across the board OneCare is looking more and more like a very nice option.
Security is such a big thing these days. Heck, Nokia recently signed a deal to bundle a version of NAV on thier phone. And from how nasties are appearing on the PSP probably won’t be too long till a version appears on it also. Security is such a huge market these days, and for a market MS hasn’t touched, it would of been crazy if they wouldn’t venture into it.
There is the paranoia brigade who will see it as MS finding a way to charge customers to fix things, but people are still open to choice here. If they don’t like it go hand your cash to Symantec, or if your feeling like not spending, there’s always AVG.
I believe that in return for the iPod licensing fee, peripheral makers get a large amount of technical documentation and consultations to help tailor their product to work well with the iPod’s complex circuitry.
This is a good thing for the consumer (the product works well), the manufacturer (it reduces the R&D necessary to work out how to make the product) and Apple (they get a cut of the burgeoning accessories market).
I believe that in return for the iPod licensing fee, peripheral makers get a large amount of technical documentation and consultations to help tailor their product to work well with the iPod’s complex circuitry.
Let’s use this Apple-waxing logic to justify the equally asinine request from the music labels that they get a share of iPod revenue, shall we?
In return for a piece of the iPod action, Apple gets access to a large amount of media content to help tailor their iTMS product, which in turn fuels iPod sales.
This is a good thing for the consumer (access to content), Apple (more content means more iTMS and iPod sales), and the labels (they get a cut of the iPod sales market).
Everybody wins!
Apple asking for such a high margin definately makes the manufactures not work as much. Creativity will move from creative products, to creative ways to get around apple’s logo name and not pay 10%. It also does not suit apple, who wants to take over alot of the windows market soon (it seems) to try to do anything against getting their products out there, including prices going up (which the 10% would cause I can imagine)