Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Ballmer takes another Jab at Apple
- Thread starter macfan881
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Steve Ballmer has ever made statements like that. He's definitely not subtle.
Of course he has used a Mac before. He has even stated last year that Apple provides a great user experience. But it's definitely more expensive, and that's what Ballmer was talking about.
Does anyone have an original source for Ballmer's remarks? It's not even clear what he's talking about, since the Engadget article begins with the curiously opaque line,
They both took a "16% hit" compared to last year? Really? Any interest as to whether the premise is even accurate?
They both took a "16% hit" compared to last year? Really? Any interest as to whether the premise is even accurate?
Alright, we all know that Ballmer is a complete, total, hopeless retard, do we need to keep paying attention to what he says?
I've wondered too whether he'll drop dead on stage. I'm not wishing that on him (or anybody) but it has crossed my mind more than twice.
This is a pointless argument if you bring software into the equation, since you get peeps saying Windows is teh Roxors and people saying Macs are on top. What you use is a matter of personal preference - but it should be noted the only people who have the 'right' (so to speak) to bash one or the other are those that have used both in similar environments or similar tasks and speak from experience. The bottom line is, the software argument doesn't work here since everyone has their own personal preference.
The thing that makes Ballmer's opinion completely irrelevant are things that are well documented, notably Apple customer support, which is consistently rated much higher than in the PC world.
Goona Agree about Sony. Ballmer should watch his words; His software is showing up on similarly-priced hardware, thus rendering his entire argument moot.
There are more factors than price, and I didn't say I necessarily agree, I'm not committing myself to either side. I haven't looked into the matter really so I'm not going to align myself. Also, even if price was the only factor, dell may not be selling the cheapest computers. I'm not bothering to check, just saying.
Finally, Apple sells hardware and software, dell is just hardware as far as I know, at least to an extent that matters.
Yeah, he's retarded, save for the fact that he runs one of the most successful businesses in American history.
What are some of you all getting upset about - Apple's "Mac vs. PC" commercials had plenty of you laughing. Oh, I get it - when Microsoft fights back, it's because they are retards. Gotcha.
You can say what you want about his goofy antics, but he makes very good points. By the way, I see a awful lot of people here casually returning 2,3 and even 4 iPhones, and it's seen as totally normal.
For a long time I had pondered why Microsoft's spokesman were the most annoying people in business this decade has to offer. Even on the Xbox 360 side with that "Greenberg" (? whatever his name is) guy they all just like to talk a load of smack. But, then it dawned on me and this thread is the very reason they do it.
You see, it's business. The fact that this forums (and I'd imagine countless others around the world) are creating threads talking about how much they hate this guy and how he's taking cheap shots at Apple is exactly the result they are going for. They could care less that you hate them, because the end result is that you're now talking about Microsoft - and even better you're listening to his price comparison and many people are in agreement that the only reason you really spend more on an Apple machine is arguably the software (which btw, sells relatively cheap from Apple...so it really raises the question, why DO you pay so much more if it's not just name brand?)
I'll jump in on the price bandwagon by first saying that there are several angles you can look at the price argument. For starters: a Mac could either be the same price as a similarly spec'd all-in-one or be considerably more expensive depending on how you look at it. Apple chooses to always compare against All-In-Ones because thats the only real grounds they have for their price argument since the All-In-Ones tend to be relatively more expensive since they are bundling in a large screen. One thing I've always noticed though is that Apple only compares themselves to companies like Dell and HP; who I'm sure most of us will agree do not deliver the same type of quality that a company such as Sony or Alienware would. Please don't try to argue about quality with Sony either, as Apple and Sony literally use the same components and many of Apple's products are "borrowed" ideas of Sony (i.e. the chiclet keyboard was first used/created by Sony... Apple was just who made it more popular... go look it up if you don't believe me)
So, lets take a look at that comparison using both stock configurations and options configurations since I think this holds more merit and I'm sure is also why Apple chooses to not compare to a more "qualified" competitor like Sony (I've highlighted the advantages one has over its competition):
Entry Level All-In-One Stock Configurations
Sony JS250J - $1,099.99
2.5 GHZ Core 2 Duo
4GB DDR2
20.1inch Screen
320gb 7200 RPM HDD
Vista Home Premium 64-bit
nVidia GeForce 9300M GS
1.3MP Motion Eye Camera
Multimedia Card Reader
Against Apple's 20inch iMac - $1,149.99
2.66 GHZ Core 2 Duo
2GB DDR3
20inch Screen
320gb 7200 RPM HDD
Leopard OSX
nVidia GeForce 9400M
The differences here are minor and this is still a pretty close comparison. Both offer same screen size with same resolutions, same hard drives and 64-bit OS. Apple beats Sony in a very small margin on the processor side with a 2.66 compared to a 2.5 (which no one will notice any performance difference) and a slightly better graphics card and Sony ups Apple with twice as much memory, a multimedia card reader, and a better built in camera. Another point worth noting is that for Sony, for only $150 more you can get a 500gb hard drive, 2.8GHZ processor, and a Blu-Ray Player/Re-Writer by going up to the next model while the iMac only nabs you 4gb of memory (matching Sony's standard included memory) and a 640gb HDD for the same $150.
------------------------------->
High End All-In-One Stock Configurations
Sony LV190Y - $2,549.99
3.16 GHZ Core 2 Duo
24inch Screen
1TB 7200 RPM HDD
4GB Ram
Blu-Ray Read/Re-Writer
HDMI Port
Multimedia Card Reader
1.3 MP Motion Eye
9300M GS
Apple iMac 24" - $2,099.99
24inch Screen
1TB 7200 RPM HDD
4GB Ram
GT130 or optional Ati 4850 at additional cost
Here, the Sony has a whopping $500 price hike over Apple, but once again adds in a Blu-Ray Player/Writer, HDMI port (making the screen useable for other devices), a better camera, and multimedia card slot. At $500 more though the price hike might be a little steep, but if you're paying $2k+ for an all-in-one some people might find the Blu-Ray player and HDMI port worth it. Apple only bests Sony in the graphics card department, this time more significantly than the entry levels. Also worth noting, Sony has a model for $1699 that offers same 24" screen, but shortens the processor to 2.5 and HDD to 500gb while still offering everything else.
From these two you can see prices are somewhat close, but the PC side still manages to offer a few additional perks that Apple hasn't jumped on board as of yet.
If you're like me and understand that when you buy an all-in-one you're going to ultimately be stuck with what you have (limited upgradeability) that extra $500 for a Blu-Ray drive and HDMI port that allows me to connect it to other peripherals and use the monitor in other ways suddenly becomes a bit more of a better consideration.
-------------------------------
But, All-In-Ones are the only real argument that Apple can pose when playing the price game because if you compare them to a standard desktop, the price differences are more noticeable. For starters, All-in-Ones are all using laptop components. A Desktop uses (guess what) desktop grade components. For those not in the know, a laptop grade Ati 4850 is not the same as a desktop grade 4850 and the same applies to many of the rest of the components as well, as core clock speeds, etc. are toned down for the laptop versions. So, lets compare it to a "low-end" (Dell, HP in my opinion) desktop to the iMac (and even Mac Pro if you want). I'm only going to use the more expensive model here since it shows how bad Apple gets beat here and even the less costly models are the same. I'm also factoring in a $500 top of the line 24" monitor with the PC purchase.
Apple iMac 24" - $2,099.99
24inch Screen
1TB 7200 RPM HDD
4GB Ram
GT130 or optional Ati 4850 at additional cost
Dell XPS 730x - $2,399 (Price includes Dell 24"
Intel Core i7 920
9800 GT 512 MB Graphics Card
6GB Triple Channel DDR3
500 GB HDD
Soundblaster X-Fi 7.1 Audio
HDMI Port
Multimedia Card Reader
ABILITY TO UPGRADE AT ANY TIME
I think the differences speak for themselves at this point. The list is pretty huge and the Dell spanks the iMac in pretty much every aspect but the standard Hard drive. These same configurations are found from even higher quality competitors for the same price and even as low as $2000 from certain ones. A PC builder can actually up the specs to a 1TB HDD, Ati 4870 X2 2GB Graphics card, and Intel Core i7 940 for around $2,400 (including monitor).
The only thing Apple offers in this aspect is the Mac Pro starting at $2,299.99 with only 3GB Ram and a GT 120 graphics card. Oh, and that DOESN'T include the monitor. Apple only bests this machine on the processor side MARGINALLY since the Xeon in this machine is a quad core and the Core i7 is also Quad Core but uses DDR3 as opposed to ECC memory.
-----------------------------
I hope this shed some light to why the "Apple is more expensive" argument is actually a legitimate argument.
Now, I say all this, yet I still bought a Mac (and I came from the PC side). Why? Particularly because I wanted to try something different and Mac OS is actually quite nice as you all know. But, there isn't a day that doesn't go buy when I realize what my money "could have" gotten me and it eats me up inside that I'm missing quite a bit because of how Apple chooses their components. I'm actually more than likely going to build a nice gaming machine on the side. Would be cool if Apple just started selling their OS instead of computers. The world would be a much better place if we could just load OSX on anything we want. Much better deal IMO.
Using the Mac OSX in the price argument (while OSX is incredibly sexy) doesn't really hold too much merit. OSX sells for $149.99 (?) by Apple for Mac machines while Windows Ultimate (the PC equivalent - or as close as you could get anyway - to Mac OSX) is like $500. So, by that argument, OSX is very inexpensive. Apple also gets beat in that with a desktop computer you can actually upgrade it over time, as opposed to an iMac the only things you can touch are the memory and hard drive and if you have an older iMac, the highest you can go on them is 4GB and then you're done anyway.
IJ: Balmer is just doing the job Kramer got busted doing... rumor mongering AAPL down. IJ: What do you think about Kramer's futzing around with AAPL all these years to short it for his friends? Makes me sick, but then again, everyone on Wall Street was doing it...
Interesting article here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aB1jlqmFOTCA&refer=home
I think the Mac OSX is the argument and that's really what's bugging Balmer.
No viruses on Mac OSX? Priceless.
Mongo Good. Apple Bad!
Anyone notice the Mac OS X system font "Myriad" some sneakily ironic, mac based design company has used for the backdrop to his little gathering?
Mongo won't be happy about that. I think Mongo needs to dance to make himself feel better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zEQhhaJsU4
Developers, Developers, Developers...
Anyone notice the Mac OS X system font "Myriad" some sneakily ironic, mac based design company has used for the backdrop to his little gathering?
Mongo won't be happy about that. I think Mongo needs to dance to make himself feel better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zEQhhaJsU4
Developers, Developers, Developers...
NPD numbers for February, which is likely what Balmer was talking about. Apple took a fairly big hit, larger than most analysts expected. The main product that helped other PC manufacturers hold off bigger losses were their netbook sales.
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/03/10/mac-sales-bottomed-out-in-february-says-analyst/
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/03/16/mac-ipod-sales-each-down-16-in-february-npd/
http://www.macworld.com/article/139425/npd_mac_sales_figures_dropped_16_percent_in_february.html
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtrader...eb-mac-units-off-16-vs-yr-ago-npd-data-shows/
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE52F7KS20090316
You do realize Vista Ultimate is 179, right?
So many people use that in their arguments for Macs aren't overpriced, but the difference of 30 is negligible.
And large OEMs, the ones loading it on your computer, get an even larger discount on the licenses.
Soooo, let me seeeee.
Mac Mini: $599
$599 - $500 = $99....
I can get a Windows Vista Machine for $99???
What a COMPLETE idiot...
Dear Bill Gates:
Thank you for putting Steve Ballmer in charge. He actually is making Apple more popular than ever...
First, even according to these articles, the line used in the Engadet article is still wrong. Second, we heard the exact same thing last fall, that the trend of the last several years had suddenly reversed, and Mac sales were declining and Windows PCs sales were growing -- but when actual sales figures were released for the quarter, it turned out not to be true.
Ha, don't attack the guy for making a valid point. It's stuff like that where the whole "we're better than you" Apple stigma comes from. Anyone that thinks Mac's don't get viruses is just part of the kool-aid drinking crowd.
I'll admit, it's a bit more difficult for a Mac to get a virus, but it's far from being obsolete. Last I checked, Macs were hacked the fastest as well in the Pwn2Own competition in a matter of seconds using simple exploits that completely opened up the entire system to another person's control. Me thinks Apple and its fanboys are getting too lax in their whole imaginary world of security. I'll be looking for your credit card numbers on eBay tomorrow.
Point being, nothing is perfect.
Exploits that he knew of and prepared months ahead of time.. Its not really accurate to say that he hacked it in seconds when all he did was go to a website that was purpose built long ago. It just to seconds to so the final step which is no real surprise when you consider that such executions are performed quickly by the OS. He came into this prepared its not like he sat down and and worked from nothing and finished in seconds.