Apple mauls Microsoft with ‘Snow Leopard’ OS X upgrade pricing

David Flynn
09 June 2009, 7:13 AM


Stepping up to Apple’s OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard will cost you half as much as Microsoft will charge for Windows 7 Home Premium, and you get you a full-featured OS too...


Mac OS X 10.6 and Windows 7 are yet to be released, but Apple has already won the upgrade battle.

This morning’s WWDC keynote revealed that the forthcoming OS X 10.6 ‘Snow Leopard’ will launch in September with an upgrade pricing of US$29 for users of 10.5 Leopard.

(Apple Australia has yet to release local pricing, but considering the negligible difference between the current US and AU pricing for OS X 10.5 –  US$129 vs AU$158 – we don’t expect the local upgrades to be much more than $40).

By comparison, Windows 7 upgrade prices leaked last week by US retail chain Best Buy listed an upgrade from Vista to Windows 7 Home Premium for US$50, with the jump to Windows 7 Professional costing US$100.

We should of course stress that unlike Apple’s upgrade prices, these have not been officially announced by Microsoft. But if they’re right – and we have no reason to suspect otherwise – then Apple has caught Microsoft with a swift one-two knockout to win the OS Upgrade Crown.

First comes the price: for upgrading from the current OS to the shiny new OS, Apple customers will pay little more than half as much as Microsoft customers.

This is a smart move because despite its demonstrable speed improvements, Snow Leopard has few ‘must have’ killer features for the end user – so Apple has to price it accordingly in order to speed the upgrade cycle. Microsoft is likely to see a proportionally  smaller uptick from Vista to Windows 7, in part because of its higher upgrade pricing.

Second comes the features, and this is another instance where Apple’s ‘one OS for everyone’ model trumps Microsoft’s many-flavoured model.

US$29 will give Leopard users the full version of Snow Leopard, but US$50 will give Vista Users only what’s in the mid-range Home Premium build. This is missing several features from Windows 7 Professional, which in turn is missing even more features from Windows 7 Ultimate.

It’s also worth noting that this is the first time that Apple has introduced a discounted upgrade package for OS X – in previous years every Mac user has had to pay the full sticker price for the same retail box.

However, the upgrade deal applies only to users of OS X 10.5 Leopard. Those running the now four-years old 10.4 Tiger – and who have an Intel-based Mac, as Snow Leopard doesn’t support the older PowerPC architecture – will have to stump for the full ticket offering.

This will now be sold as a ‘Mac Box Set’ bundle of Snow Leopard, iLife ‘09 and iWork ‘09 for US$169 (again, local pricing has yet to be announced). Mark that up as another canny move by Apple: instead of US$129 for the OS you pay a little more and get the latest app suites as well.

Finally, Apple still offers something that Microsoft doesn’t – a ‘Family Pack’ bundle covering five users in a single household for US$229.

Unless Microsoft swiftly revises its Windows 7 upgrade pricing in light of this morning’s announcements, we can chalk up the first win in the mighty OS 2009 battle to Apple.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Raindog (User):

Unless Microsoft swiftly revises its Windows 7 upgrade pricing in light of this morning’s announcements, we can chalk up the first win in the mighty OS 2009 battle to Apple.

I don't know about winning any war, or even if a war exists other than in the ninds of fanboys and marketers. That said Apple's smaller slug for upgrade pricing could be a big consideration for those evaluating selection of new platform roll-outs.


09 June 2009, 8:29 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Regular user):

Apple might have better pricing on the upgrade... But the market they're able to sell to is extremely restricted by their own policy.
Apple hardware users can buy Windows 7, but users sick of Vista can't "upgrade" to Mac OSX.

Alternatively, users on both sides could download a Linux distro... Many are still making PowerPC versions for all those slightly older Macs who's users will now be feeling left behind by Apple.

09 June 2009, 9:07 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

McBanjo (New user):

Quoting Tin:
but users sick of Vista can't "upgrade" to Mac OSX.

Go get yourself a freakin' Macbook Pro 13". They're $1899 ($250 off), 7 hour battery, SD slot and faster processor. Apple Tax my ass.

Quoting Tin:
Alternatively, users on both sides could download a Linux distro

Why? So I can spend the next week of my life figuring out how to make it crash my computer less often?

Quoting Tin:
slightly older Macs who's users will now be feeling left behind by Apple.

The Intel transition was announced 4 years ago. IIRC, that's almost double a Windows Vista adoption schedule and plenty of time to realise that your computer is crap old. You should buy a new 13" Macbook Pro! Did I mention they're only $1899 now?

And at a Snow Leopard price like that, who cbf pirating?

09 June 2009, 12:04 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

gankul (New user):

Quoting McBanjo:
Why? So I can spend the next week of my life figuring out how to make it crash my computer less often?

what distro's did you use to have alot of crashes? All linux distros that i have recently installed have been stable.

Quoting McBanjo:
The Intel transition was announced 4 years ago. IIRC, that's almost double a Windows Vista adoption schedule and plenty of time to realise that your computer is crap old. You should buy a new 13" Macbook Pro! Did I mention they're only $1899 now?

so what your saying is that its fine for Apple to enforce upgrades on users for hardware?

oh and $1900 is alot of money for most people. (well except for apple zealots i suppose, and ego gamers)


And dont get people started on Apple tax, Even Apple enthusiasts admit you pay higher then normal prices for the hardware. (look up other 13.3 inch laptops and see what you get, on average higher speced machines) im not saying which is better or worse, but when you pay more and have less specs......



09 June 2009, 12:58 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

BrownieBoy (User):

Quoting McBanjo:
>> Go get yourself a freakin' Macbook Pro 13". They're $1899 ($250 off), 7 hour
>>battery, SD slot and faster processor.

Sorry, but I have an aversion to built-in batteries. I don't like the Fisher-Price keyboards on the new Macbook Pros either. I'll stick with my Jan 2007 Macbook Pro which still gives good service and that's only like to improve with Snow Leopard if all the yada-yada turns out to be true.



Quoting McBanjo:
Quoting Tin:
>>>> Alternatively, users on both sides could download a Linux distro

>> Why? So I can spend the next week of my life figuring out how to make
>> it crash my computer less often?

When was the last time you tried it? Five years ago, maybe? Have you checked out the Linux Mint 7, for example?


10 June 2009, 12:37 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Anonymousewiuu2945u389 (User):

Quoting McBanjo:
Go get yourself a freakin' Macbook Pro 13". They're $1899 ($250 off), 7 hour battery, SD slot and faster processor. Apple Tax my ass


The odd thing is that I'm fairly sure SD card slots came to PCs before Macs, and are now standard on most. $1900 for a 13 inch model is also very expensive, I'm interested in what the processor actually is and 7 hour battery life to me means nothing - I don't use the computer for that long away from power and I prefer a replaceable battery.

Quoting McBanjo:
So I can spend the next week of my life figuring out how to make it crash my computer less often?


I've crashed Snow Leopard more than Linux. And used it less.

Quoting McBanjo:
The Intel transition was announced 4 years ago. IIRC, that's almost double a Windows Vista adoption schedule and plenty of time to realise that your computer is crap old. You should buy a new 13" Macbook Pro! Did I mention they're only $1899 now?


My upgrade cycle is 10 years

30 March 2010, 8:51 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Phil in NZ (New user):

Not relevant. People normally get their OS bundled with their PC's, which hides the price anyhow. Mac OSX compared with Windows anything is not comparing apples with apples (if you will excuse the pun). The pricing of OSX or windows 7 is not a consideration when I by a computer, rather what I intend to use the thing for. That decision making process often favors windows based machines (as is the case with most of the rest of the world). Its not a reflection on windows being better than OSX or linux or what ever, it is what it is.

Will I put windows 7 on my current PC? Probably not. Vista is just fine. Will I get another PC. probably will, my software is all windows based, and whilst there may be Mac versions, why license another copy? AKA, my copy of Office usually lasts 2 PC's etc etc. I know I can do the parallels thing or what ever to run this software but why bother.

Just my 2 cents

Phil

09 June 2009, 1:27 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Chris (New user):

It's irrelevant. The upgrades are aimed at completely separate markets. Windows 7 upgrade is aimed at people with older versions of Windows. Snow Leopard older version of MAC.

People can't say "Oh I was going to upgrade Win Vista to 7 but it's cheaper to upgrade to MAC."

As such I doubt it will have any influence on Microsoft.

10 June 2009, 4:27 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (User):

Quoting Chris:
As such I doubt it will have any influence on Microsoft.

I wouldn't be so sure about that Chris. Sure most will stick with the environment they already have, but cash strapped IT managers may be taking more than a passing interest in Apple's lower upgrade pricing.

It's a shrewd move on Apple's behalf which will go at least part way to changing perceptions on Apple pricing.

A lot of machines used in a business environments will go through at least one upgrade cycle and then that cost is considerable it has to be factored into selection decisions.

10 June 2009, 6:21 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

eaglex01 (New user):

if you only look at the os price, apple's may be cheaper... what about a full system? you often have to pay double the price to get a mac...

if mac were to be available (legally, i know we can crack these to install them on regular pc) only then, they may win the war

18 August 2009, 3:46 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user