Microsoft goes after Apple online too
In a new online ad, Web viewers can spin a wheel and see what they can get for a certain amount of money. In this spin, for example, readers can get a 13-inch MacBook, a twig, and a thumbtack. Or they can choose a Toshiba PC, a Samsung smartphone, and a skydiving lesson.
(Credit: CNET)After launching its most direct TV assault yet on Apple, Microsoft is extending the battle onto the Web.
The software maker has launched an online spot, in which Web surfers spin a wheel and compare what they can buy for the same amount of money. In each case, users can get a Mac and, say, pocket lint, or they can get a PC and two other things of value.
In one "spin," a user is told they can choose from a shoelace, pen cap, and MacBook, or get a Lenovo Y530, a photo scanner, and pair of Supras (I didn't know what they were either, but apparently they are some hip skater shoes).
David Webster, a general manager in Microsoft's central marketing unit, said that while some people are enticed by lower prices alone, some like to think of value in terms of what else they could spend that money on. In the online campaign, Microsoft tries to play up those things.
Webster said Microsoft is also trying to play up the variety of the PC marketplace, saying a customer is likely to get "a better fit" with Windows.
"If you want a machine with racing stripes and lights and a Blu-ray drive, we've got it," he said. "If you want a PC that's 2.5 pounds and that's still got an optical drive, we've got it. That contrasts with a different story on the other side of the fence."
Microsoft is clearly taking a page directly from Apple's "Get a Mac" campaign. Even the placement of the ad itself and its chrome look of the spinning buttons make it look like an Apple ad.
The online campaign, which is on the front of the New York Times and Wall Street Journal Web sites on Friday, complements the TV ad that debuted on Thursday (see embedded video below).
Webster acknowledged those places precisely because they are the places Apple had been running its own ads.
It's the latest in a series of direct attacks on Apple, which have included recent comments from CEO Steve Ballmer, as well as Microsoft's "Apple Tax" PR campaign.
As for the TV campaign, Webster said Microsoft placed a Craigslist ad looking for people aiming to spend a certain amount on their computer. It told respondents it was a market research firm looking to follow computer buyers through their buying experience.
Webster said the deck was not stacked against Apple. "As you will see in subsequent spots, these are customers that have $1,500 or $2,000 to spend, where clearly, they could have chosen Apple, if that's what they wanted to do," Webster said. "We were pretty thoughtful and picking price points that might have been met by an Apple."
As Webster's comment indicates, Microsoft isn't stopping with the red-headed Lauren, who starred in the first spot. The software maker said it followed around about 10 PC buyers, and plans to spotlight four or five of those experiences (though Webster tells me that none of the 10 bought Macs).
"You will see those over the coming weeks," Webster said. Incidentally, Webster is the man who came up with the idea that became Microsoft's Mojave Project, in which people blind-tested Windows Vista.
As for Lauren, Microsoft says she was a real PC buyer, even though she is also an aspiring actress. Webster said Microsoft only learned about her acting ambition in the process of filming the piece and added that the ad segments were filmed in Los Angeles.
"Most waiters and baristas (there) tend to have Screen Actors Guild cards, from what I am told," he said.
Microsoft has gone in a variety of directions with its Windows ads, beginning with the Jerry Seinfeld-Bill Gates spots last fall and continuing with the "I'm a PC" campaign and most recently the "Rookies" spots, which featured kids using Windows Live Photo Gallery.
Webster said Microsoft is pleased with its series of ads, even if they have received only mixed feedback from the blogosphere.
"Obviously, people in the blogosphere and in comments sections will come to their own conclusions, but that doesn't bother us because at the end of the day, we look at the numbers," he said.
Webster said Microsoft's internal research has shown a 10 percent increase in the number of people who say they will buy a Windows PC when they buy their next computer, though he would not say what percentage have that intent.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 



Their ads have humor.....On one side you see.....Twig, thumbtack and then Macbook....LOL
I have nothing against Apple, they make good products. But this thing is just funny.
A high quality PC, like a Lenovo Thinkpad or an ASUS is just as high quality as a Mac. ASUS actually makes MacBooks I think.
ease of use depends on the user. some find it easier to use Mac OS, some Windows, some Linux.
Sure you may prefer OS X (in which case go go MacBook), but if you were after a Linux or Windows machine and wanted the best you can do better than a MacBook. Unless of course you're just wanting something to play music, surf the web, all the while looking cool, where I admit the Thinkpad takes defeat.
Let's face it, the apple ads (PC and Mac) were excellent, even if they usually stretched the truth. Now this is just funny and it's about time MS talked about what millions already know...
I love the line when she says "I'm not cool enough to be a mac person". LOL Are there any "cool" mac people? I wouldn't know because I've never met one. Does "cool" mean gullible, or "herd like"? I've been around thousands of mac users, I've just never met one that was cool/smarter than the rest/etc. because of their computer.. Darn, I guess you really can't buy cool. perhaps it means you dress in jeans and wear a black turtle neck Is that "cool".
The truth is, and it's something some of us have known for over 20 years, is that paying too much for an apple computer doesn't make you "cool", it pretty much says you're a sycophantic idiot looking for approval and acceptance....
Oh well, there are people that will buy anything. No doubt rplat is lining up to buy the new $2700 17" mac. Now that's got to be worth what, close to $1500 or something?Sorry, rplat, you can't buy cool, you can't convince anyone else that you're cool or even moderately hip... You're just another mindless sheep looking for grass while Steve jobs picks your pocket.... LOL
Oh, BTW, go match a Dell 1330 with LED screen for $1100 to a 13" mac book for the same price. Yeah, that's a fair comparison.. That macbook is such a piece of sheep droppings in comparison. The rest of the world knows that.. it's just you and your herd that's more interested in what apple dropped out of its behind to notice..
@ rplat: Why certainly, if you want an over-priced piece of crap buy a Mac... but if you want the same or better quality and no walls then save some good bucks and buy the best, buy an HP with the upcoming Windows 7.
So was that supposed to be an ad for MS or one for HP?
I mean, if I was going for the absolute best hardware with no OS-tax while still being able to do every last bit of work or play that I ever wanted to, I'd go with Linux. I'd also keep away from HP since so many people I know have had bad experiences with the hardware.
A few extra? Try upwards of $1000
With MS as your friend, who needs enemies?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20090327/bs_nf/65597
lol
and no I'm not trolling just spreading facts !
So I'm not just a PC.
I'm also a Mac.
So...I get twice of exactly what I wanted. lol
With Vista improving with each service pack, Win7 on the horizon, and the explosion of Netbooks, the question of whether the extra premium charged for Macs is worth it will be put to the test.
Apple will be asking for bail-out money soon :-)
I am a PC technician, and I run Linux.
However, Windows on a "netbook"? Windows isn't designed for the "small screen" and Vista doesn't run well on the Intel Atom processor (I doubt Mac OS X would fare much better). Windows 7 will have a "netbook" edition, but that'll only run three apps at once (nice) and I don't see how that helps the UI. Oh and "netbooks" are cheap. How much is Office?
Lots of "netbook" have custom distros of Linux, customised for the "small screen" and running quite well on the plucky little Atom processor. Now, if Google's Android gets on to "netbooks" we might see something. As far as I can see Microsoft seem to be in a worse bind with "netbooks" than Apple (Apple have the iPhone version of Mac OS X... sounds like a "netbook" OS to me).
The same netbook preloaded with XP is more expensive than the same netbook preloaded with Linux, so MS is not making the PC market cheaper.
The fact remains that by economy of scale HP can build PCs that are cheaper than those PCs build by Apple, MS is getting the same or better revenue through its licensing scheme, and this is not translating to the customer; HP on the other hand in order to be competitive has to cut costs, and in the end make marginal profits through gains in cheap materials, and crap-ware that is preloaded.
HELLO!!! this is the creator of the iPod, the iTunes Store, the iPhone and the hugely successful App Store. Their pretty much swimming is money. Plus Mac sales continue to grow and Mac OS X Snow Leopard is coming very soon.
I'd watch what you say because it quite clear that you haven't do your homework.
And Apple gives you a $130 upgrade what seems like 3x as often as Windows. Apple sells you service packs essentially. And your range of $300-$800 for Windows upgrades? What orifice did you pull that from? If you're talking about server software, it would only be fair if you quoted the upgrade price for Xserve software, which ain't $130.
I AM A PC!
The recognition the logo gets is because of the product, not the other way around.
So why do people buy a Mac? It's different reasons for different people here are a few (I'll do why they DON'T after):
1) For the design. Now this isn't the logo, it's the whole look. Now you can get some "nice" looking PCs too (HP's TouchSmart PC, or Dell's XPS One) but all these products have a price premium.
2) For Mac OS X. It's Unix for mortals. You want to run Microsoft Office on your Unix box? This is the easy way. Now sure, you could run Linux, but that requires a bit more effort. (Will this doodah run on my system? How do I configure this printer?) There isn't much you can do with Linux that you can't do with Mac OS X (nothing I can currently think of).
3) To run iLife. Is iLife that good? It's easy and powerful, does fun things in a friendly and fun way.
4) To run iWork. Sure this is more lightweight than Microsoft's Office, but what isn't? Brings some of the same sensibility as iLife to office productivity. Personally I love "Numbers": a spreadsheet that thinks it's a layout program.
5) Because it's cheaper. Sounds weird this, but for some the Mac is cheaper. If you want proper developer tools, and can't cope with the hassle of Linux (you want to get peripherals and know they'll work). Every Mac comes with the development suite for free. Not a cut down version: the whole shooting match. Visual Studio is expensive. For those people the Mac is cheap. Or you want to have a server and connect machines to it for email, calendaring, file & print etc. The Mac is cheap, Mac OS X Server comes in two versions a "10 User" or "Unlimited", compare that to Microsoft's prices for what you actually need - you might find Apple is MUCH cheaper.
OK so why don't people buy Macs?
1) They want to play games. If you're getting your new system first and foremost for gaming, the Mac is really unlikely to be your best choice.
2) They need to run Windows most (if not all) of the time. As I've probably alluded to the real reason people buy Mac isn't the logo, but Mac OS X (either itself or more likely one or more applications that run on it). If you run a Windows app all day everyday - what benefit will you get running that on Apple's hardware? (No I can't think of one either)
3) They have been convinced by some "Mac Myth" that the Mac isn't worth getting. Such Myths include: "You can't upgrade a Mac", "there isn't much software for a Mac", "Macs are expensive", "Macs aren't compatible" and my personal favourite: "Mac users are idiots".
OK, full disclosure: I am an IT professional, I do have a Mac, I also have a huge Linux (sometimes Solaris) box that has even run Windows (wanted to see what Windows 7 was like - "What's it like?" It's like Vista, some things are nicer, but it's mostly like Vista).
And you still have not challenged my claim. Quote: "And just like the fashion clothes, they make big profits on a fraction of the sales. You bet you're paying for the logo."
Of course I can only go by my own experiences but I do not know anyone who has bought a Mac because it was "cool/hip" (or, frankly, know anyone who uses such terms). As I said, Macs are bought for the software, which is pretty much the only thing that matters with a computer. The idea that an Apple advert would be sufficient for someone to spend thousands of pounds on a computer is both insulting and laughable. Everyone shops around and I guarantee that everyone who has bought a Mac has at least considered a Windows PC, although for those who grew up with a Mac I expect that consideration is briefer than for others.
funny, his post was pretty informative and way more useful than yours...
i use a pc simply because i have used Windows all my life. im not adverse to switching though and im not an apple basher; i own an (jailbroken) ipod touch 2g and love the product. mainly the only thing keeping me from a mac is the price.
There is something at work here more than the price of the machine.
Personally, I'd rather get a netbook with Ubuntu preinstalled, pay around $300. Maybe even get two of them. Or I could get a Mac with all the software included there. Or do a little research and find a notebook OEM who will either provide me a notebook without an OS or who will install a Linux distro. Won't really need the support, but they can include it if they'd like.
MS really needs to be careful with these "value" ads. I can already see it coming back to bite them in the ass.
Also, purchasing a netbook with Ubuntu installed would leave enough cash to buy a better screen to link into for when I'm at home. Most likely I could find one with a larger size than 17" or at least find one with better resolution at 17" and still have money left over after the $700.
Maybe you should try looking at other articles as well. There's another one released by CNet with a bit more info. I didn't say they should have, that's what they claimed they were doing. They looked up people on Craigslist who were looking to replace their computers with a budget of between $1500 and $2000. Now, with a budget between those two amounts, she could easily have walked in and walked out with a 17" Macbook Pro with very respectable specs and fully capable of doing everything her "budget" machine could.
Personally, if I pay more than $500 for a computer of any kind, it's too much. My next system will be built by me, reusing parts I already own and buying the ones I need.
Of course, I'm doubting she's got the technical expertise to do so and I'm even more certain that MS wouldn't buy her laptop had she chosen Mac or something running Linux. Pretty sure it was part of the deal that we just won't have heard about.
Now, try reading the articles and please try reading my actual comments. It's the second time today I've had to ask someone to read what I actually wrote rather than their own poor interpretation.
A Netbook might be your personal preference but I merely highlight that this has no relevance to the article given that the advert shows some one looking for a 17" laptop.
The article stated that MS was looking for people who wanted laptops in the $1500-$2000 range. I mentioned my own personal preference after that to continue the argument that these advertisements were trying to make. By removing Windows from the box, I've removed some of the price as well, meaning I can get the same hardware for less money. In fact, I can get the exact same hardware for less money.
Now, if given between $1500-2000 with the stipulation of buying a single notebook, I'd go for the Macbook because the hardware actually is better. It's manufactured such that every piece of hardware should work with every other piece of hardware with no problems. The software is developed specifically for that hardware in order to best utilize the hardware.
Again, I mentioned explicitly that the netbook would be my own personal preference. And as I said, by choosing one running Linux, I'd save over one running Windows. Show me a 17" laptop that comes preloaded with Linux and I'd choose that one over the exact same model running Windows for the same reason.
Besides, Linux does wonders with the same hardware that Windows can barely run on and it's used in most of the worlds supercomputers. It's definitely good enough for a 17" laptop.
Hate to break it to you, but the Mac and PC guys in the Apple commercials are not real either.
The point is, they aren't presented as real people, but parodies. Microsoft has twice tried to pass off paid actors/copywriters as real people that they found on the street. That's the point.
the point of all this was not to give away a PC but to make you witness decision making in the progress - the way it's done thousand times a day, every given day.
the sentence "i'm not cool enough to be a Mac person" is a bottom line - although everyone wants one ,most of us are not going to shell out extra grand for apple tax just to be hip.
there probably is psychic evaluation somewhere for what "owning a Mac" is compensating.
BTW: Paying a bit more for something stylish and well made isn't wrong. You do have to look at and use it for many years. For some, ~$400 xtra spread over 4-5 years is worth it.
BTW, I checked the prices for 17" HP laptops, and the lowest retail price is just short of $1000, nothing close to what it is in the video. Even Amazon.com's slashed prices peg them at at least $150 more expensive than in the vid. False advertising?
Let's point out some other things, shall we?
HP's 17" screen: 1440 x 900
Apple's 13" screen: 1280 x 800.
Which will have the sharper picture?
Some other things:
The MacBook has multi-touch, the HP does not.
The MacBook has an LED display with highly adjustable brightness settings to avoid eye fatigue, the HP does not.
The MacBook has DDR3 memory, the HP does not.
The MacBook has NVIDIA graphcs, the HP does not (making the HP screen pretty much useless for Vista or games).
The MacBook weights almost half of what the HP weighs.
The MacBook has a Core 2 Duo processor, the HP does not.
The MacBook has a battery life 3x longer than the HP.
The MacBook has a webcam, the HP does not.
The MacBook has a 64bit operating system, the HP does not.
The MacBook runs an OS which has no viruses, the HP does not.
The MacBook requires no yearly $50 payment to protect against viruses and malware, the HP does.
The MacBook supports the highly superior and far cheaper iWork (as opposed to MS office), the HP does not.
Are you really going to call the ads fair?
And yes, the MacBook would have a sharper screen. My old 13" TV obviously had a sharper screen than my 32" one, that didn't make it better.
Did you know the HP has a choice of different types of screens? Did you look or check on this? Your comments indicate you did not.
Did you compare the price of that DDR3 memory? Let's give you a clue- to upgrade the MacBookPro 15" model to 8 Gb costs... get this.... $1200 from Apple. To do the same thing from HP? $400.
Your comments are biased. That's fine. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously. You choose to think different and that's not a problem. You have chosen to pay 2-3x the going rate for hardware. That is indeed your choice.
If you are happy with your choice, then what does it matter? Go back to an Apple forum and enjoy your machine. You're not going to convince anyone to switch to Apple with your comments alone.
2. The HP has ATI Radeon HD 3200- Graphics is fine for Vista.
3. The HP has an HDMI port to EASILY connect to a flat screen TV- Apple DOES NOT.
4. The HP DOES HAVE A WEB CAM
5. The HP DOES HAVE A 64bit OS- It comes with Vista64
6. HP comes with a 320 Gig HD - Apple 13" 120gb - HP wins again
7. HP - 4 USB ports / Apple 13" - 2 USB ports
8. HP 5-in-one Flash Card Reader / Apple NONE
9. No Apple Viruses?? http://www.securemac.com/
or http://www.sophos.com/security/analyses/viruses-and-spyware/osxleapa.html
10. You can get a variety of FREE antivirus programs.
11. HP comes with a remote control. - Apple none
12. HP comes with Hard Drive protection against damage due to dropping the unit- apple NONE
13. HP 17" has a 3 speaker sound system
Oh yea, those fancy MacBooks are so Great... Specially the abundant graphics problems they're having-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIal-kioG8g
http://theappleblog.com/2009/03/06/graphics-problems-surface-with-17-macbook-pro
http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/05/nvidias-geforce-9600m-causing-issues-in-17-inch-macbook-pro?icid=sphere_blogsmith_inpage_engadget
[Editor's note: Personal attacks deleted]
As for slamming the competition, name one thing derogatory that was said or portrayed against a mac in that ad. This is not anything like what apple did in the mac/pc commercials.
Kelmon, I agree. My point is that the ad doesn't really do a fair comparison when they list ONLY screen size and price.
Mrmuppet, they're too expensive if they're above your budget. They're not too expensive for the specs. Just compare them to Dell XPS.
Vegaman_Dan, you're not making a logical and full refutation of my arguments.
Joshsc, thank's for letting me know that PC users are hate-filled flame-throwing fan-boys.
Seaspray0, yes, yes. Different types of computers, different animals. Exactly my point. Don't just go and say "You shouldn't buy a MacBook because you can get a cheaper HP with a larger screen," because that isn't really a full, fair comparison, which is my whole point. And I'm not sure what you're thinking of to say that Apple's ads were nothing like Microsoft's ads. The only difference was humor.
1. You compare weights and battery life of a 13" vs. a 17" laptop.
2. You say it doesn't have a Core 2 Duo, compared to what? The HP repeatedly cited has an AMD chip.
3. You say that the Macbook "requires no yearly $50 payment" when no Windows PC does either.
4. Your "highly adjustable brightness settings", have you played with the HP and compared? My Thinkpad's brightness and most PC laptops I've used have more available steps in brightness than the MacBook.
5. You misspeak about the 64 bit OS-- Apple doesn't have one until Snow Leopard, and the HP comes with Vista 64
6. The HP does have a webcam
7. There are viruses/malware for OS X, you haven't had any yet
And then there's your subjective views on iWork (which I find to be crap next to Office Pro) and NVIDIA.
Calling you an idiot repeatedly may not have been the best approach, but I'll agree that you can't fit much more uninformed, misinformed, and misleading stupid in one post.
@Mac OS XP "Vegaman_Dan, you're not making a logical and full refutation of my arguments."
1. You compare weights and battery life of a 13" vs. a 17" laptop.
2. You say it doesn't have a Core 2 Duo, compared to what? The HP repeatedly cited has an AMD chip.
3. You say that the Macbook "requires no yearly $50 payment" when no Windows PC does either.
4. Your "highly adjustable brightness settings", have you played with the HP and compared? My Thinkpad's brightness and most PC laptops I've used have more available steps in brightness than the MacBook.
5. You misspeak about the 64 bit OS-- Apple doesn't have one until Snow Leopard, and the HP comes with Vista 64
6. The HP does have a webcam
7. There are viruses/malware for OS X, you haven't had any yet
And then there's your subjective views on iWork (which I find to be crap next to Office Pro) and NVIDIA.
Regarding Mac OS 10.5 not being 64 Bit, this is straight from the Apple website. Interpret it anyway you want.
"Leopard delivers 64-bit power in one universal operating system. Now the Cocoa application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the UNIX foundations of the Mac, are all 64-bit. And since you get full performance and compatibility for your 32-bit applications and drivers, you don?t need to update everything on your system just to run a single 64-bit application."
Ina. Nooooo!
Ack. Submitted too fast. "Noooo!' is about the grammar, not the content.
Most companies would want to brand value and differentiate themselves from their competition, not identify themselves with cheap as possible. If cheap as possible is the goal, then why pay for Windows or Office. In fact, Windows and Office together would almost cost a much as the low end laptops being promoted.
The ad also opens the door wide for Apple to run a series of ads that show value beyond the the sticker price.
Then they go into the actual software in another ad, show what comes preinstalled with the computer right from first boot. Pretty easy to show dissatisfaction from a customer standpoint when his $700 laptop is filled with crapware.
Next you can go into performance. Side by side comparisons.
Pretty sure it wouldn't take much to give a very good, very honest, very pro-Mac response to this "cheap" PC ad.
Oh and my Linux box has racing stripes (it's in a Coolermaster Cosmos "S" case - you can't get more sporty looking than that).
Yes, it opens the door for "apple to run a series of ads that shows value beyond the sticker price." It seems to me that microsoft is actively trying to challenge that value now and almost demanding that apple respond. I agree with you here.
Kia doesn't advertise that they are the cheapest car on the planet, or insinuate that you're an idiot if you spend more than their cars cost - they try to interest you in owning their product first and then try to close the deal with a good price.
Microsoft is doing this backwards by selling price first, cutting out any chance to hook buyers who could be interested in anything else. They are advertising something that they don't even sell (hardware) and failing to mention what they do sell.
As a result, I see no brand or product enhancement from these ads and no reason other than price to buy. In fact, I'd say that this kind of advertising is damaging to a product or brand, unless the brands only claim is "cheap".
If they're trying to appeal to those hard hit by the crisis, I don't think they'll be buying computers now, period. There are also plenty of choices of used computers in the craigslist near you, many much cheaper than $700...there are even some MacBook Pros at that price as people raise cash by selling excess goods.
Many of you prefer to spend less to buy something that gets the job done, many of us prefer to spend more and get it done differently (better is really a matter of opinion and taste). Nothing wrong with either...
Unless of course you take long-term ownership costs. For those who are comfortable maintaining their own machines, it's a moot point. For the average consumer however who frequently replace their computers every 18 months because of performance degradation, I believe the Mac offers a lower long-term cost. From a business perspective, I used to work for the phone company where my group supported 100 PCs and 300 Mac workstations (which were purchased as a replacement for standalone X11 workstations because, in addition to X11 support, they could also run Office, and if needed, Windows applications, although to be honest, the *only* PC app I ever saw running was Solitaire). I alone supported 300 Macs in the call center. There were three people supporting those PCs. So which solution was more expensive???
For my current job, I bought a Mac Mini over three years ago. It's been running continuously since and has not had a single failure. My co-workers who are all using Dell laptops have each had their systems reimaged at least once (most of them twice) in that time, and several have had to replace their systems due to hardware failures. So again, which solution is more expensive?
I'll also say that I really hate the car analogy because it simply doesn't work in this scenario.
I agree with most of the reports I've read - that for a beta release (particularly of an operating system), Windows 7 feels very much Gold-release ready. From all appearances, it looks to be feature complete, and aside from poor performance (which I suspect is due to the fact that I'm running on a machine that, despite having a reasonably fast processor, is still using DDR1 memory and only one gig at that) has been very stable. Less so than I've found OS X to be, but far more so than XP or Vista was. Then again, I haven't really installed much on it - I wanted to play a game, and my XP install was so overloaded that I couldn't get more than a few FPS and rather than reinstalling the whole deal from scratch, I used one of my removal drives and installed Windows 7. So it lives next to the Orange Box (clearly I'm not up-to-date on my games), Thunderbird and Firefox and nothing more.
Anyway, I do think the car analogy is quite relevant. You want a computer to accomplish certain things. Want to check email? A Mac, PC or Linux box can do that. Write a book, crunch some numbers, edit a presentation? Ditto. Which machine you choose is mostly going to be based on your personal preference, just as with a car.
Oh and a funny anecdote? I'm on a conference call as I type this. The host was late. He apologized, saying, "sorry I'm late all. My PC has the blue screen and I was trying to get it going again." Hence the reason I will never go back...
*hugs his Mac*
With the Jerry Seinfeld era behind it, Microsoft is moving ahead with a new Windows advertising strategy that aims at Apple's Achilles' heel: Higher prices. The commercial appears to be the first in a series called Laptop Hunters, and it puts Microsoft on the offense instead of the defense.
Microsoft's just-released Windows commercial taps into the price-conscious, recession-driven consumer mind-set by following a woman on a mission to find a laptop that's fast and has a comfortable keyboard and a 17-inch screen -- for $1,000 or less.
In the ad, the voice-over says Microsoft told Lauren, a redhead with glasses, that if she could find a computer that met her demands, she could keep it. In other words, Microsoft would buy it for her. With that, she becomes a laptop hunter.
'I'm Just Not Cool Enough'
In the commercial from advertising agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky, Lauren goes into an Apple store, quickly walks back out and reports, "For $1,000 they only have one computer available, and that's a 13-inch screen. I would have to double my budget, which isn't feasible. I'm just not cool enough to be a Mac person." That statement is a direct hit against Microsoft's longtime rival that implies you don't get much computer for your money when you buy a Mac.
Last week, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer set the stage for the new ad's debut when he said, "Apple gained about one point, but now I think the tide has really turned back the other direction. The economy is helpful. Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be."
Lauren was excited when she entered a retail store with a variety of PCs. She tries out a few keyboards and looks at the specs on a few others. Finally, the look of one PC draws her. She settles on a Hewlett-Packard model that meets all her qualifications -- for under $1,000. The commercial ends with Lauren telling the camera, "I am a PC and I got just what I wanted."
Guru Sees Another Failure
According to brand guru Rob Frankel, the ad is typical of Microsoft's weak, misdirected efforts. He predicts it will fail miserably.
"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."
You Apple Fans might have had an argument when you were on Power PC and it was really a closed computer but these days you are running off the shelf PC parts, Intel Chips and Nvidia Graphics just like all of us PC people.
Icing on the cake. Apple is offering to upgrade their 15" MacBook Pro's for the small, small price of $1,200. No, that is not a typo. Give me a fricking break YOU ARE PAYING FOR A LOGO!
So, what, you are now wanting Apple to go back to PowerPC to make them more different? To make the comparisons even more convoluted? And by the way, even when they were using PowerPC architecture, they were using (or could use) third party "standard" video/graphics cards. I had an ATI card in my G3/300.
Keep fighting your el cheapo computer with arguably the worst OS in history. You seem to like it. Quick question, have you ever actually used a Macintosh? A modern one? I don't mean a Macintosh SE that your dad had, but a modern Mac OS X machine? One that was contemporary with the PC you love so much? And I mean really used it, not played around with it expecting it to act like Windows for an hour.
When Apple upgrades hardware... the price of the hardware says the same 99% of the time. Sometimes it even gets reduced.. sometimes they discontinue the base model.
MS on the other has to work one the rest of world. Gee all that and the advantage of half the hardware cost. Real tough decision there. You cant run apple OS on any hardware......... unless you want to be sued that is.
That's just the way it is.
I have NEVER gotten anyone but an American. And I have RARELY had to call them. When I did, I was able to resolve the issue myself, not have to send the machine back to Apple. You can't say that for most PC manufacturers other than Apple. Oh and Apple consistently gets the HIGHEST rating in customer support of any company in the industry.
Come to think of it, I remember an article a year or two ago stating that Steve Jobs shot down the idea to move customer support to India. It would have been cheaper to do so, but he stated that it would degrade their customer support.
Prove they use an Indian call centre, please. I'll eat my hat if they do.
No machine is perfect. And no machine is immune from mis-use.
Who cares what the laptop's cost. The commercial will be - Priceless!
Now that's funny!
You don't need a chimp you could use Ballmer :)
No, that's about right. The FUD is that Macs cost too much and are exactly the same as everyone else's $700 computer.
Microsoft and it's advertising agency are engaging in a FUD campaign, it's all they know how to do.
There are several reasons why Macs don't have a large market share and much of it has to do with the 1990s during which, frankly, Apple lost the plot and effectively surrendered the desktop PC market to Microsoft and Windows 95. This enabled Microsoft to dominate the market and businesses became addicted to Windows. As great as the Mac platform is, it doesn't offer a sufficiently attractive platform for businesses when compared to the Windows ecosystem, and this isn't helped by having only a single supplier that charges a relatively high price.
As far as the personal computing market is concerned, the principle problem (aside from the price) is that people know Windows and Apple is something different. Change is always scary and sticking with what you know is seen as the safe option.
And it still wouldn't change the fact that the M-B is of a much higher quality than the lowly Kia in our analogy. There is a big difference in them, and there is a difference in the computers too (albeit not as big a difference as in our analogy).
But the major difference between our analogy and the Apple/Windows PC comparison is that the M-B would be comparably price to a Kia of the same specs.
Until you do that, stop issuing FUD.
It's not FUD, and I haven't the time, nor the inclination to do YOUR homework for you. FUD is what I'm trying to refute. You say what I'm saying isn't true, then YOU prove it.
Again.
Oh and Google 'Rescuecom' if you fancy a laugh. :)
Like I said yesterday, I have neither the time nor the inclination to do someone else's research for them. I've done mine, several times, and always reached the same conclusion. Anything I posted here, no matter how well documented, would be rejected wholesale by such close-minded people such as yourself and all the other Microsoft cronies here. So, why should I waste my time? If you are open-minded and are actually looking for information to show the Macintosh as a better buy, you will look it up yourselves. The information is out there. Just a quick Google search brings up pages of hits, just for starters.
The Merc analogy is apt in an unintended way. Mercs are elegant, pleasing, powerful status symbols that are less reliable than Toyotas. People for whom value and practicality are paramount will go for the Toyota.
ok here's the point the Macs are better because they have higher resale value
just head over to used mac sites and you'll be suprised by the selling rate of 4 yr old Macs which sell for more than this POS 17" Pc in question !
this alone makes makes the point at hand that Apple sells quality Microsoft sells you POS 17" laptops that don't last !
- by QuetzalcoatlUSA March 27, 2009 12:42 PM PDT
- Apple asking for a bailout? Not with $24.5 billion in cash (and short-term investments) on hand.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by mssoot March 27, 2009 2:27 PM PDT
- now worth about 12
-
-
- by topgunb2 March 28, 2009 1:56 AM PDT
- wait till next financial year, the figures haven't even started coming yet
-
-
Showing 1 of 5 pages (267 Comments)