Comments on: Microsoft goes after Mac on price in new ad
In a new TV commercial from Redmond, a "random consumer" says she would have to double her budget to get what she wants from Apple.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About Technically Incorrect
Chris Matyszczyk brings a fresh and irreverent perspective to the tech world in his CNET blog, Technically Incorrect. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Technically Incorrect topics
My Mac Book Pro cost way more than many low-end PC notebooks; true, but not much more, if any, than a high end PC notebook. Would I spend less and take a PC? No way! I have done too much product support for my Windows friends to be taken in by the lower apparent price of the PC notebook. Frankly, I have saved on lost time for reformatting, virus problems, spyware problems, and best of all, I don't have to use Windows. I can put up with a dead pixel far easier than I can Windows.
Is my Mac perfect? NO, but it is less imperfect. It is a pleasure to use it every day and not be fighting with it.
Yup, there have been dozens of INDEPENDENT studies that report this same fact. Total cost of ownership is much higher on a Windows computer. They conveniently skirt that issue don't they?
15 inches
Spacious hard drive 320gb (alrho I will never use it all)
Pretty case....but
Battery only lasted 1.5 hrs even on the best settings
VISTA was installed.
It was HOT.
Crashed 2x.
Network would never stay connected
For 300 bucks...I got a Macbook and I am happy with it!
You get what you pay for.
We are so Wal-mart-ized in this country that we think that right way to do things is ultra-cheap. But, it will always be true: the right way to do something and the easiest (or cheapest) way to do something is most often not the same.
And FYI: $700 HP laptop 7.8 lbs, 17" Macbook Pro (in an aluminum enclosure no less) 6.6 lbs. Don't tell me that's that same engineering quality.
FYI: To get 17" in a notebook from apple will cost you $2799.
I'm always carrying my laptops around, so they see reasonable wear and tear. My Apple laptops have each broken down, or cracked, or lost a fan, etc. My Lenovo laptops have run like diesel tanks--never stopping, tough as can be.
Obviously I like the Macs, and I think OSX is great for most consumer scenarios, but the "more reliable, well-built" argument has always seemed like bunk to me. If you want something that's built well and can really take a beating, run away from Apple products--buy Lenovo.
(Side story, I also owned an Apple G4 Cube at one point, which developed very real cracks in the polycarbonate).
I'll admit, I don't know much about Lenovo's consumer line. My loyalty is probably more to the Thinkpad brand than to Lenovo proper. It's interesting that you call out the MacBook Pro for comparison. Does it have improvements in structural integrity over Apple's consumer line of products?
If you forget the old line of iBooks (haven't made those in over 4 years), and the one model of MacBook left, all of the Apple laptops, MacBook and MacBook Pro are made from a solid piece of aluminium. They are exceptionally strong, yet remain very light. Go into an Apple Store or an authorised retailer and look for yourself. So, in short, to answer your question, yes the ENTIRE line of Apple laptops are much improved.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pwn2own-mac-hack,2254.html
Let's do this with nothing but our operating systems and the firewalls they came with. We can close this little exercise after about, oh say...a week? A month? (I'll let you choose).
Let's just see how comfortable we are doing this. Knowing my finances....the price paid for the Mac is INSTANTLY justified.
It is about RISK, not security. If my risks are reduced because less people target OSX then great! PLEASE run (don't walk) to your local Best Buy and purchase that lovely $699 17" amazingly functional and wonderfully adorned machine.
Speaks Volumes of the Credibility of the contest
obviously you didn't read the article... The point was that Mac OS was more susceptible to viruses but a lower threat level. Which is fine for now, but if it somehow gains a lot more market share then look out. It's going to be just as bad as Windows. Windows has more anti-exploitable software (patches, fixes, etc...) than Apple does because its threat level is so high. Windows has this high threat level and a low(er) susceptible level than Macs do. It's all about market share really. Don't tell me its not, don't tell me it's different OS, different architecture etc... (I KNOW THIS). All the same, if Apple was as big as Windows it would be in close to the same situation with viruses and the like. Realtive to the article that I posted... Your point is moot as sh**.
seven7dust,
Yes, I realize that he says Macs are more secure... He also says that's because of there lower threat level. All in all the point is, it's easier to hack a mac than a windows box.
How you came to the conclusion that I am "hurt", I'll never know. I can't stand the fact that there are so many Microsoft cronies out there spewing half-truths and lies. There are too many people out there with minimal knowledge of computers that take that garbage as gospel. I did my homework. Every time I need to get a new computer, I do my homework, from scratch. I start by looking at every major manufacturer. I compare ALL the specs of every machine. And invariably, I come to the same conclusion. The Macintosh is a better buy. Now, if I keep getting the same result from my research, wouldn't that tell you that it IS the better buy? I'm a born sceptic. I have used computers of every make and a LOT of different OS's over the past 25 years or so. My decision was based on facts. When this computer is hopelessly out of date, I will start the search all over again. Things change. And in the world of computers, they change very quickly.
unlike Microsoft Apple does not try to be everything to everyone
even Steve jobs acknowledged that he was not trying to take over the world
but Increase his marketshare by a few percentage points
and Apple is slowly increasing it's share in the higher price points
if you look at these price points then Apple has a much higher share than Expected
The thing about about Apple is that they care about Quality and Profitability first and marketshare later kind of like the luxury brands like BMW Lexus etc.!
just because MS is a successful company it doesn't make Apple any less
they both can co-exist and bring more choice to the consumers !
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12003603?nclick_check=1
$599 base model, $499 a year before that. Everybody already has monitors, speakers, and Ethernet cables, so all I needed were PS/2-to-USB adapters. Those are $14 a pop. And that's what I convinced everyone to buy since 2005. I don't get the "Apple is more expensive" POV because of the Mac Mini. Unless that user wants malware and only plays games on Windows.
MacBooks are high end. When you compare spec for spec the Apple tax is closer to 500. Howevre to a lot of real people their needs are well covered by lesser specs and lesser prices on the PC side. For them the Apple tax is a lot more.
I never seen anybody owning a mac needing to do that ...
Lets just not hope Apple does those cute little drawings like in the Mac Pro commercials.
The fact is that we are in a recession and there are less "cool" rich people out there than the rest of us. Some of those cool rich people lost their jobs. Will they be rushing out to spend those unemployment checks on Macs? No. I don't think so. Part of the reason the iPhone 3G sells so well is due to it being less expensive than most other Smart phones out there. If it was still selling for $599, you'd see even more Blackberry's and Palm Centros out there than we do. The fact that Macs and Macbooks are now using Intel x86 Technology under the hood of fancy looking chassis while charging double (or close enough) for computers that do pretty much the same things accept the PC has more software available, speaks volumes on that whole "you get what you pay for" nonsense that the rich elitists use to justify over spending on fruit flavored kit.
Apple computers are expensive. In this recession, that becomes even more obvious. I can't see Apple sales increasing during these tough times. And if they don't wise up and create a "Macbook Nano" type Netbook before Windows 7 arrives running on inexpensive netbooks, their sales will drop even further.
Apple isn't for "rich" people. Most of the people that own them have regular jobs. I've never been far above the poverty line, if ever and I always choose the Macintosh. Why? Because it is a better product, period. I'm certainly no "rich elitist". If you are satisfied with third rate products, treating your computer as a commodity, then by all means, feed the beast. But I prefer to look at my computers as tools, and I don't buy cheap, shoddily made tools.
And the whole, they are using x86 technology is a convoluted argument at best. For one thing, Apple uses the best of the Core 2 Duo variants, your $700 computer uses the economical variant. Just look at the chip specs, not just the clock speed. Someone on here already tried that by comparing an aluminium MacBook to a HP G70. I refuted it already, look back up the line.
Apple's sales are increasing, not receding. Look it up. People are starting to see their computers as an investment instead of as a consumable. And by the time that that bloatware Windows 7 is finally released, Snow Leopard will have been out for some time, further widening the technological gap.
"Microsoft has no brand strategy. Never did. They have an identity, but no brand strategy. As a result, Microsoft is never proactive, but always reactive to its competition," insisted Frankel, author of The Revenge of Brand X. "The main beneficiary? Apple, which gets tons of extra media exposure because they're Microsoft's main target."
Frankel said attacking Mac's "higher cost" will fail because it's a misdirected message. As he sees it, Microsoft is making a poor bet that a short-term recession strategy will connect with price-conscious consumers.
"For one thing, most shoppers now know that by the time they add in all the built-in Mac components to a PC, the costs are close. Macs are also retained longer and replaced less often than PCs. And then there's the reliability and repair cost issues," Frankel said. "Another failure, big time, for Microsoft.""
(Jennifer Leclaire, newsfactor.com)
becasue most Apple Computers r only sold in the 1000+$ range
compared to most Pcs sold by different manufactures in the 500-800$ ranges
look up the Marketshare of Apple computers in the 1000+$ range of computers
then you'll see that Apple is in a comfortable position !
bottom line Apple cares about quality first and Marketshare later 1
- by Go_Bruins March 27, 2009 1:18 PM PDT
- "The HP is such a bargain that she pays cash. Is it because she happens to have about $700 in her purse, as all average female consumers do? No, because a helpful producer hands her the money."
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 4 of 9 pages (448 Comments)Chris, did you watch the ad with a blindfold on and the sound turned off? She tells the viewer that the challenge was to find a 17" laptop with all the bells and whistles for under $1000 and if successful then she'd get to keep it ... as in she'd get $1000 free and clear from the MS team.
In 'theory' she could have paid by check and or credit card but in a wiser economic move she uses the cash she was just handed and walks away debt free.
Seriously dude, don't let your MS hatred cloud your assumed journalistic integrity.