Apple Comments on Microsoft's Laptop Hunter Ads

[Anuba]

How is Apple responsible for supplying Windows based drivers? Apple does not need to supply ANYTHING for Windows. The fact that Apple even developed Bootcamp and the necessary drivers to run it is surprising. As such, how is Apple responsible for Windows running "hot" or imperfectly? I've run XP on my Mac Pro perfectly and even Vista. No issues. Before Apple supplied updated drivers for Windows I went out and installed the drivers independently for RealTEK audio, nVidia graphics, Intel drivers, etc. No issues. Blaming Apple for Windows issues seems a tad illogical.

While many of the hardware components have OEM-supplied drivers for Windows already (like the Realtek soundchip and NVidia GPU), some things like the multi-touch trackpad are Apple's own hardware so it's their responsibility to supply the trackpad driver for BootCamp, just like they do with the keyboard driver. It's also their responsibility to make sure that software-controlled stuff like the fan functions properly under Windows, as does everyone who makes custom logic boards and chipsets (NVidia for example).

No, I was just giggling at the HDD that's smaller than the RAM, with XP installed on it (XP requires 1.5GB)...

Yeah, I know. I went back and changed it to 100 GB. "Jiggabytes", as Doc Brown would say.

 

[sharky05]

Still, think of all the outtakes they must have had where the person ended up buying a mac.

Those adverts must have cost a bomb...

 

[Anuba]

Still, think of all the outtakes they must have had where the person ended up buying a mac.

Nah. None of the ten people they used went for a Mac.

Those adverts must have cost a bomb...

They were probably cheaper to make than the laptops they bought. What, one hand-held video camera, nine non-actors and one struggling actress who would probably strip for $50... the ad agency may have received millions but the actual production costs are no higher than for your average homebrewn YouTube clip.

 

[Wikinerd]

Nah. None of the ten people they used went for a Mac.

...Because they were paid not to.

 

[3282868]

...Because they were paid not to.

Personally, I'd take the newly purchased laptop back and keep the money. If you're that strapped for cash you don't really need a computer; food, clothing and shelter are more important than surfing the net. If you need a computer for work, then surely your office has a computer you can use.

 

[Goona]

Yeah I'm sure Microsoft would have aired the commercials with the people going for the Macs, LOL.

 

[Anuba]

Personally, I'd take the newly purchased laptop back and keep the money. If you're that strapped for cash you don't really need a computer; food, clothing and shelter are more important than surfing the net. If you need a computer for work, then surely your office has a computer you can use.

Well, none of them seemed strapped for cash. Lauren drove a Beetle convertible, Giampaolo drove something that looked like a Honda CRX... "Frank" on the other hand could've used the money. Being homeless and all, he could only use the laptop for as long as the battery lasted.

As an overall package though the both the MacBook Pro 15" and 17" are anything but low end

They're not low end, no, they're upper middle. But they're priced like bleeding edge which makes them low end relative to the pricetag. Professional notebooks in that price range usually allow up to 16 GB of RAM and optional quad CPU.

 

[AidenShaw]

But they're priced like bleeding edge which makes them low end relative to the pricetag. Professional notebooks in that price range usually allow up to 16 MB of RAM and optional quad CPU.

My Toshiba Satellite 400 Pro supported 40 MiB of RAM - 8 MiB onboard and up to 32 MiB on an EDO SO-DIMM. Same as the PowerBook Duo 280.

 

[Anuba]

My Toshiba Satellite 400 Pro supported 40 MiB of RAM - 8 MiB onboard and up to 32 MiB on an EDO SO-DIMM. Same as the PowerBook Duo 280.

Arrrgh, there I go with the megabytes again!

 

[awmazz]

Yeah I'm sure Microsoft would have aired the commercials with the people going for the Macs, LOL.

Actually, that they know there is no Mac in that particular price point so there would be no choice at all raises a point that MS may likely rather avoid - that there is absolutely no competition to Windows at the retail level for computers at that price point. It's a 100% Microsoft OS monopoly.

Is it even possible to give someone off the street $1000 to go buy a laptop off the shelf from a store which is NOT Windows? I don't think so.
I'm talking on the retail level here. In store, on display, with salesman. Off the shelf, ready to go, out of the box laptop. How many retailers stock and sell non-Windows based computers priced cheaper than Macs off the shelf? None that I've ever been to (in Australia). They all have Windows installed. The only way is to buy the Windows laptop and then after-market DIY it with Ubuntu or similar.

You have to go up to the next price point to get Mac OS competition to Windows at the consumer retail level. Below Apple's lowest price point, any and every single computer sold in retail stores is a Windows OS computer. Which says to me 100% stranglehold. (Okay, in the west, maybe not in places like the PR China where it's Red Dragon or something).

That's pretty much like every car sold under $20,000 only runs on Exxon fuel despite who makes them. What oil company wouldn't want that sort of monopoly - but would they actually be advertising something like that and drawing attention to it? Hey kid, here's $19,000, go buy a car with it and you can keep it, seriously it can be made by any manufacturer so take your pick! - oh, amazing coincidence the one you chose only runs on Exxon gas. Um, what are we advertising here again? Your lack of choice? Our monopoly? Um, maybe we need to run this ad campaign idea past our corporate lawyers again...

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

You have to go up to the next price point to get Mac OS competition to Windows at the consumer retail level. Below Apple's lowest price point, any and every single computer sold in retail stores is a Windows OS computer. Which says to me 100% stranglehold. (Okay, in the west, maybe not in places like the PR China where it's Red Dragon or something).

You must have missed the commercial where they gave a guy a $1500usd spending limit.

 

[Anuba]

You must have missed the commercial where they gave a guy a $1500usd spending limit.

Yeah but the people they used happened to want something bigger than a 13" MacBook, and 15" MacBooks start at $1999. So they were pretty much locked in to Windows.

That's pretty much like every car sold under $20,000 only runs on Exxon fuel despite who makes them. What oil company wouldn't want that sort of monopoly - but would they actually be advertising something like that and drawing attention to it? Hey kid, here's $19,000, go buy a car with it and you can keep it, seriously it can be made by any manufacturer so take your pick! - oh, amazing coincidence the one you chose only runs on Exxon gas. Um, what are we advertising here again? Your lack of choice? Our monopoly? Um, maybe we need to run this ad campaign idea past our corporate lawyers again...

But you're not forced to keep Windows. You got it cheaper than a Mac anyway, and you can still scrap Windows and run any of the fifty-twelve Linux flavors or even Hackintosh.

 

[Setmose]

I'll Buy That PeeCee In the Window Please

But please, according to the Microsoft / manufacturer agreements, I ask you to replace the current OS with the 7-year old one that works. Yeah, XP, that's the one. Now we have a "deal".

 

[AidenShaw]

But please, according to the Microsoft / manufacturer agreements, I ask you to replace the current OS with the 7-year old one that works. Yeah, XP, that's the one. Now we have a "deal".

Please explain why Vista "doesn't work"?

A couple of hundred million Vista users would like to know....

 

[awmazz]

That one also shows the monopoly when you view 'consumer' laptops and 'prosumer' laptops as different markets (the MacBook Air is a specialist niche market). The prosumer MacBook Pro is listed as starting from US $1999 on the US Apple store so again they knew from the outset there was no choice at all below $1999 when they gave him $1500 to go buy a laptop - it was either a Windows prosumer laptop at that price or nothing, short of dropping down to the $999 MacBook consumer market laptop.

The talk on these threads about the MS ads has mostly been about the hardware. But Microsoft doesn't make the hardware, so they're not advertising the hardware. They're just using the hardware to advertise Windows in a very surreptitious way - as the *only* consumer choice available below Apple's given price points. Not *a* choice, the *only* choice. Absolutely no alternatives to Windows at the given price available anywhere at the retail level. It's dangerous ground for them is what I'm suggesting.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

Yeah but the people they used happened to want something bigger than a 13" MacBook, and 15" MacBooks start at $1999. So they were pretty much locked in to Windows.

Thats nobody's fault but apple's. 1500 should be plenty to buy a good laptop but apple doesnt give customers a whole lot of choice, which is the point of the ads; with windows you can use any computer you want, any hardware you want, and any price you can find.

 

[Anuba]

The talk on these threads about the MS ads has mostly been about the hardware. But Microsoft doesn't make the hardware, so they're not advertising the hardware. They're just using the hardware to advertise Windows in a very surreptitious way - as the *only* consumer choice available below Apple's given price points. Not *a* choice, the *only* choice. Absolutely no alternatives to Windows at the given price available anywhere at the retail level.

But the ads are inviting Apple to change that. It's hardly a monopoly when anyone is free to go in and compete with Windows in those market segments. Apple chooses not to, because they're focused on extreme profit margins rather than OS market share. And very few consumers will accept anything other than Windows or OS X on their machines. So how is it Microsoft's fault again that they have a de-facto monopoly on everything below Apple's price points? The only ones who could change this are doing nothing. They Will. Not. Let. Go. Of. Those. Extreme. Margins. If Apple were ever to make a cheap consumer model, it would have specs way below a comparable PC model, so that the uber-margin remains intact. Anyone who wants bang for buck from Apple will never win, regardless of price point.

 

[awmazz]

I don't know about that. Apple doesn't need to lower its prices to offer a choice as there are already 12 dozen manufacturers already at that price point able to offer choice. But they don't. They only offer Windows as a choice.

Maybe one day HP will release a range of PCs at the retail level loaded only with Ubuntu and no Windows at all. Or maybe their own brand of HP Ubuntu.

Or maybe Google will release their own OS like they're doing with Android. They've said they wouldn't, but maybe Android will give them a taste.

 

[4D4M]

Please explain why Vista "doesn't work"?

A couple of hundred million Vista users would like to know....

Quite a few of them have already spoken up. Google it.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I don't know about that. Apple doesn't need to lower its prices to offer a choice as there are already 12 dozen manufacturers already at that price point able to offer choice. But they don't. They only offer Windows as a choice.

Maybe one day HP will release a range of PCs at the retail level loaded only with Ubuntu and no Windows at all. Or maybe their own brand of HP Ubuntu.

Or maybe Google will release their own OS like they're doing with Android. They've said they wouldn't, but maybe Android will give them a taste.

The bigger issue will be whether people want to choose those machines with Ubuntu on them or not. Us geeks will love that day, but many consumers can barely get past the idea that Open Office is free, let alone a free OS that runs better than OSX in many ways.

Consumers will still look for Windows PCs, or Mac OSX Macs.

 

[Synthetickiller]

But the ads are inviting Apple to change that. It's hardly a monopoly when anyone is free to go in and compete with Windows in those market segments. Apple chooses not to, because they're focused on extreme profit margins rather than OS market share. And very few consumers will accept anything other than Windows or OS X on their machines. So how is it Microsoft's fault again that they have a de-facto monopoly on everything below Apple's price points? The only ones who could change this are doing nothing. They Will. Not. Let. Go. Of. Those. Extreme. Margins. If Apple were ever to make a cheap consumer model, it would have specs way below a comparable PC model, so that the uber-margin remains intact. Anyone who wants bang for buck from Apple will never win, regardless of price point.

Normally I just read these forums as I'm only interested in an iphone, not anything else macintosh, but I wanted to say something.

Comparing apple to pc in terms of OS is a legit argument. That is the ONLY argument a mac user can legitimately use, no if, ands, or buts.

Comparisons amoung hardware is no contest. PCs have options while macs don't. Increasing ram is not an "option" in my opinon. You cannot typically increase your storage capacity, cpu, improve cooling, or really modify the computer to fit your needs, unless you want to shell out 3x as much as the cost of upgrading a pc to buy a more expensive version will lacks upgrabability.

I recently built a hackintosh to try out OSX instead of spending $600+ on an overpriced underpowered mac mini. Its alright compared to windows, but I really started to realize just how apple is screwing everyone. The hardware in my PC is much faster than a mac mini's, even though its AMD the cost is hundreds less. Apple uses low end or last gen hardware and touts it as brand new while most PC users have the option to adopt new hardware instantly.

Apple will never appeal to people who need a basic pc on the cheap. As other's have stated, apple by far and wide appears to many as more of a social status icon more-so than anything practical.

Microsoft could easily argue (although they aren't out right) that choice is the main point of a windows computer. Actually pricepoint in terms of upgrades, compatibility and choice. I have choice with a hackintosh, more so than an actual imac or mac pro even. That is sad. Besides a mac mini, I can build any of the other mac systems for half the cost or simply spend more and have a much faster system running a hacked version of OSX which apparently will work 100% properly.

My point is that apple charges too much money for hardware that is identical to that of a PC. This is why most people don't choose apple products.

I can't afford a 15" $2000 dollar PC which runs mac. I would be limited in my software availability and I can get a similar PC for much cheaper. Actually $1,200: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220499

Point being, where's the extra $800 in cost coming from? The OSX licence? Doubt it since that PC has a windows licence as well. Video? No, apple's is sub par compared, CPU? Its the same CPU.

Maybe someone could explain this to me since I can't see paying $800 for a different looking shell and a limited OS.

And before anyone says anything that I'm a windows fan boy, I own an ipod and plan on getting the next gen iphone since I hate windows mobile phones. I buy what works for my needs and a mac would not suit anything I do. Btw, the OS is growing on me, but I'm still too limited.

 

[Synthetickiller]

Quite a few of them have already spoken up. Google it.

Vista x64 runs more stable on my system than xp ever did.

 

[awmazz]

Thats nobody's fault but apple's. 1500 should be plenty to buy a good laptop but apple doesnt give customers a whole lot of choice, which is the point of the ads; with windows you can use any computer you want, any hardware you want, and any price you can find.

Again, why is it Apple's fault there is no choice at the lower price points? There are already dozens of PC manufacturers in the retail market already making and selling PCs at the lower price points. Why is it necessary to add Apple to the mix to provide that choice?

 

[4D4M]

Vista x64 runs more stable on my system than xp ever did.

OS X runs more stable on my system than Vista x64 ever did.

 

[awmazz]

Maybe someone could explain this to me since I can't see paying $800 for a different looking shell and a limited OS.

No explanation necessary. If you can't see or appreciate the industrial design and view it only as "a different looking shell" not worth paying for then you're not Apple's market, simple as that, so don't sweat it. Apple doesn't.

Same for cars and clothes and a myriad of other products where the same things cost more because of the design. Often those who don't appreciate the extra price you pay for good design usually deride it as "paying for the label' because it's just not in their mindset to see it differently. Ballmer at Microsoft is one of those people. Different strokes as they say. Everyone's different and appreciate and value things differently. Which is a good thing I say. Variety is the spice of life.