Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, OS, Snow Leopard
Snow Leopard: The price is right!
After years of being thrown table scraps in the way of a few bucks off the price of Windows for the "upgrade" versions, I happily paid the $49 for my Family Pack of Snow Leopard earlier this week.Sure, there are a few people that say things like "Why should I have to pay Apple to fix the mistakes they made in Leopard?" On some level, that might be a valid argument, but let's set that aside because there's a better point to be made.
The handful of new features in Snow Leopard are well worth the price Apple is asking. Included are most of the QuickTime Pro features, text substitution, more expansive Spotlight integration, Expose in the Dock (sounds like a band name... hehe), and a host of other little improvements. Some of these can be added today via third-party apps, but those apps (*gasp*) cost money. Bundle all of those up, and $30 for the whole slew of apps would be a sweet deal in and of itself. I know I would spend half that just to get the new slider in Finder windows that changes the size of thumbnail previews!
Heck, the reported speed improvements make the shipped price of $29 per machine price (which, remember, drops to below $10 with a Family Pack) a bargain. Even if the overall increase turns out to be low, say 5% or so, the price of the OS upgrade turns out to be a good deal. Where else are you going to spend so little money for such a similar boost in speed and snappiness?
And remember, that $49 lets me upgrade five Macs, not just the one PC I can update to Windows 7 for over two and half times the price! (Microsoft is asking $129 for the Windows Home Premium Upgrade.) A friend of mine was excited to find out that he only needed to spend $150 to upgrade his three Vista machines to Windows 7, using Microsoft's family pack. I understand his enthusiasm: I'd gladly pay $150 to get rid of Vista, too!
Seriously, Apple did a very smart thing when it priced Snow Leopard below the cost of a typical family visit to the movies. If it would have asked the normal going rate of $129, I would probably have still upgraded, but I, along with millions of other users, would not have been happy about it.
Keeping the iPhone 3G around at $99, lowering the prices on new Macs, and now the awesome deal on Snow Leopard... I think Apple may, just may, be "getting it" when it comes to pricing lately.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Joshua Meadows said 3:38PM on 8-27-2009
Uh.
Windows 95, 98, XP, Vista, 7 (and the ancillary versions in between) are not "upgrade versions," they're full operating systems, usually released years apart. With each one there's usually two to three service packs, released for free, innumerable hotfixes and other updates from Windows Update. XP alone came out in 2001, and will be supported with routine updates through to 2010 for the first SP and 2014 for the second+ SPs.
This attempt at a Microsoft dig is really way off base. Vista was released in 2006, 7 is coming out at the end of 2009. There's been two service packs since then that dramatically improved the operating system. Leopard was released at the end of 2007, two years later there's Snow Leopard. How many comparable patches have been released to Leopard in the intervening time? And, of course, how long will Leopard continue to receive updates? Technically Tiger is unsupported now, despite being released in 2005, and XP is still supported by Microsoft even though it was already four years old at the time.
I think it's great that Snow Leopard is being released cheaply. My MacBook Pro appreciates it. But there's really no fair comparison between Snow Leopard and 7 in terms of "upgrade." If you want to make a comparison, the comparison is between the variations of Windows and their free service packs against OSX and the incremental updates they make every year and a half to two years that constitute a service pack, which they then charge you a hundred and fifty bucks for.
I think it's fair to say that everyone who's going to upgrade to Snow Leopard was going to, they don't need to be swayed over with fluffy digs against the Windows pricing structure that are really way off base.
Reply
snugs said 4:01PM on 8-27-2009
isn't tiger on 10.4.11? isn't that like 11 service packs or something? leopard has had 8. not to mention the numerous security updates, etc.
and when you say tiger is unsupported, apple still releases aforesaid security updates for tiger, even if they're no longer providing point updates for 10.4
and speaking of incremental updates, everything from windows 2000 to windows 7 is based on windows NT. seems like you fell for MS's marketing, and paid for what you call an 'upgrade' at full 'new-OS' prices.
As for XP's long-term support; yeah that is pretty cool. but when enterprise is a large part of your OS business, you basically have no choice but to support it for that long - especially if you release something like vista.
Quinn Taylor said 4:02PM on 8-27-2009
Some people never seem to grasp that what Windows users call "service packs" (in Microsoft marketing-speak) equate to maintenance updates (e.g. 10.5.7, 10.5.8) in Mac-land. If Apple had continued with from OS 9 on to 10, 11, 12, ... perhaps it would have been more apparent.
Windows has a "real" version number, too, MS just chooses to use different branding. By itself, using year numbers doesn't make a new version any more or less novel. If anything, claiming that Snow Leopard vs. Windows 7 is an unfair/irrelevant comparison, consider that Vista to 7 results in a whopping 6.0 to 6.1 update. Whoop-de-doo. MS isn't even trying to fool itself that it's a brand-spanking-new upgrade, either.
What I find most humorous is twisting the fact that Apple releases upgrades more frequently than MS (and charges less for each one) into a negative. Fewer patches doesn't imply greater stability of "done-ness" — in the software world, more often than not it means you're being outpaced and out-innovated.
Now that Snow Leopard is out, and does an admirable job of firming up the foundation of OS X, I for one am brimming with anticipation for the awesome new features in store for 10.7 in a few years. :-D Skating to where the puck will be, not where it was...
Joshua Meadows said 4:04PM on 8-27-2009
Sorry, I'm frankly incapable of taking either of you seriously when you use the phrase "you fell for."
They're operating systems. It's not a religion. I know that logic has no place in a good old fashion my-OS-kicks-your-mom's-OS circlejerk, but at least let's be accurate about it.
Michael said 4:07PM on 8-27-2009
i see what you are trying to say, but that's not the case between Windows 2000 and XP. XP was basically 2000 with a new theme, there were very few actual changes. Most of the published "features" were in 2000 already. Now, don't get me wrong, SP2 and SP3 have a lot of difference from 2000, but release XP did not.
Joshua Meadows said 4:21PM on 8-27-2009
* "isn't tiger on 10.4.11? isn't that like 11 service packs or something? leopard has had 8. not to mention the numerous security updates, etc."
Have you compared the number of changes in one Vista SP to the number of changes in one Leopard update? I would venture a bet that if you took all eight incremental patches to Leopard they don't amount to one Vista SP, much less both. However given the fact that Apple doesn't publish every change each version, I guess we can't really know.
* "and speaking of incremental updates, everything from windows 2000 to windows 7 is based on windows NT. seems like you fell for MS's marketing, and paid for what you call an 'upgrade' at full 'new-OS' prices."
Everything from OSX 10.0 to 10.6 was based on... OSX...
* "If anything, claiming that Snow Leopard vs. Windows 7 is an unfair/irrelevant comparison, consider that Vista to 7 results in a whopping 6.0 to 6.1 update."
Are you guys reading what you're saying? Cheetah to Puma was a whopping 10.0 to 10.1 update, which they charged full price for. How can you gripe about Microsoft's versioning system and gloss over Apple's?
The salient point is those who want to upgrade to Snow Leopard are going to. Those who want to upgrade to Vista are going to. Comparisons between the two are completely irrelevant for a variety of reasons, so using one as "Oh my OS is so much better than yours because of this!" is juvenile.
bioadam said 4:40PM on 8-27-2009
Snow Leapord is not an upgrade. It's a full OS that can replace a Tiger install. And just to clarify, Windows 98, ME, XP, Vista, and 7 were/are sold as upgrades. Notice how I didn't forget Windows ME. Believe, me, it's the most unforgettable upgrade in history.
chief said 4:51PM on 8-27-2009
Dude, the 10.0 to 10.1 upgrade was free!
You just had to show up at a store, flash your 10.0 install disk and receive a free upgrade disk.
Joshua Meadows said 5:12PM on 8-27-2009
Fair enough, that was pretty far back for me. What about the others? (That also doesn't change my point, all OSX updates are a one-point increase.)
Crash Gordon said 6:29PM on 8-27-2009
Actually, all the changes in the OS X point updates are on Apples support site, each one listing around 20 improvements, if not more. So thats very roughly 160 fixes/improvements. And the Vista SP2 change log only shows around 30. And why argue about upgrading vs a new OS? Even OS X 10.0 wasn't a new OS, it was based off of Darwin(BSD essentially). Even XP had legacy code dating back to Windows 3 and earlier, you ever work with the Windows API??? You know how stupid it would be, for Microsoft and Apple, to write an OS from scratch. Though one thing that Microsoft really needs to do is get rid of their monolithic kernel. Really Windows would actually be a great OS if they would just rewrite their kernel from scratch.
Kevin said 8:04PM on 8-27-2009
Sarcasm ahead.
Joshua, would you be more impressed if Apple called this OS XI? Then it wouldn't be "point release".
Do you cut your pie into ten pieces instead of eight, so you'll have more pie to eat?
Back in the first browser wars, Netscape (I think) jumped from 4.8 to 6.0. Were you twice as impressed by that astounding feat?
By your logic, though. I'm pretty impressed with Apple OS X. Apple is still using the SAME OS that it premiered almost a decade ago, and it takes advantage of the latest hardware with only a few point releases over the years.
Windows on the other hand has had to go back to the drawing board and release several MAJOR upgrades to get to the same point. Can you imagine trying to use Windows ME today? But OS X is fantastic. Especially after this latest little point release makes the OS 64-bit. Windows ME can't compete with that!
puhsitch said 8:43PM on 8-27-2009
"Everything from OSX 10.0 to 10.6 was based on... OSX..."
I think the point was that we've never seen Best Buy shelves stocked with copies of "Windows NT Vista"
snugs said 12:54AM on 8-28-2009
@josh meadows
hi, i know that OS X is based on OS X (duh); i never claimed otherwise.
you, however, claimed in your original post that "Windows 95, 98, XP, Vista, 7 (and the ancillary versions in between) are not "upgrade versions," they're full operating systems."
You were wrong, and i was merely giving you some constructive criticism. FYI, you used 'ancillary' incorrectly; it sounded big and cool though, so good job.
have a good one, and try not to get so worked up in the future. in the words of black mamba, "if you grow up and you're still sore, i'll be waiting."
Kevin Harter said 8:27AM on 8-28-2009
Just one point: When I said "a few bucks off the price of Windows for the 'upgrade' versions", I was referring to the upgrade price. After re-reading it, I can see why people thought otherwise, because it could be read that I'm saying the upgrades themselves were not worthy of being called full operating system changes.
But what I really meant was that Microsoft has traditionally discounted the price of a new OS, and called them "Upgrade versions". Maybe I should have capitalized the U in upgrade....
Sorry for the confusion.
ez said 2:50PM on 9-04-2009
Question, you guys sure are using language and verbage i dont understand a bit but can you tell me. I run a 15' macbook pro. I dont have leapord, im currently running tiger, can i buy Snow Leapord and it will download correctly and bypass leapord all together? Thanks
Kevin Harter said 1:21AM on 9-05-2009
Re: ez
If your Mac is Snow Leopard capable (Intel, 1GB RAM, etc.), you could technically buy the single $29 version and put it on as a clean install. You don't *need* to use the disc as an upgrade over an existing Leopard installation.
However, by doing so, you're violating the end user licensing agreement that you said you're agreeing to during the install process. Are the cops going to show up at your door? No. But whether or not it's unethical is debatable.
Check out fellow TUAW blogger, Dave Winograd's excellent post about the EULA in Snow Leopard: http://www.tuaw.com/2009/09/03/snow-leopard-in-eula-we-trust/.
snugs said 3:45PM on 8-27-2009
"I think Apple may, just may, be "getting it" when it comes to pricing lately."
look at their margins and pile of cash. i think they've been 'getting it' for quite some time now.
Reply
Tom said 3:46PM on 8-27-2009
The main difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Microsoft is a software company. The rely on the software sales as their main revenue source. Whereas Apple is a hardware company and they need to move computers.
Also Apple didn't change many features in snow leopard but they finally changed the OS to 64 bit. Which is a good reason to charge for this upgrade.
Reply
Brian E said 3:46PM on 8-27-2009
Yes, but were you actually eligible for that upgrade price? If you've ever made more than one backup copy of your hard drive (or upgraded your Time Machine disk by copying your backups from the old drive to the new drive), you aren't. I'm not joking - if you did that, you lost your license to use Leopard, and thus aren't eligible for upgrade pricing because you don't have a validly licensed copy of Leopard.
Reply
vandil said 3:50PM on 8-27-2009
I bought the family pack too, even though we have just two Intel Macs.
Sadly, I suspect the vast majority of 10.6 users will simply get the $29 single-user version, regardless of their current Mac OS X version or how many Macs they're going to use it on and not care.
Reply