This thread is hilarious. I think most of us agree that the car analogies are too ridiculous to continue being used, so there's got to be a more apt comparison between PCs and Macs that makes a lot more sense.
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.
Apple Continues 'Get a Mac' Ad Campaign with 4 New Ads
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah but they all do the same bloody thing, get you from point A to B. You also pay for the Mercedes brand premium. Why do you think Mercedes charges more for their cars than Lexus, Infiniti, Acura, etc. Apple has a higher brand than all those PC companies, studies also show Apple has the highest satisfaction rates in the industry while the rates for the PC companies are dropping through the toilet because they can't match the experience Apple provides. Apple also differentiates themselves through their superior OS and software solutions. What software solutions does HP and Dell develop? When you add in all that I'm willing to pay a premium to buy from Apple because at the end of the day I care about how satisfied I'll be about my purchase and not how cheap the computer is.
Oh its stupid because it makes your point useless eh.
Nissan -> Infiniti, Honda -> Acura, Toyota -> Lexus, Chevy -> Cadillac. In some cases VW -> Audi -> Lamborghini
I know it isn't two exact vehicles, but it does count because the latter is (in many cases) the former with just a different label.
Yes - because a £130k Gallardo really is made of the same components as a £15k 1.9 litre Audi A3.
Stop it. Please. Just stop it.
Stop it. Please. Just stop it.
So better software, a better build quality, better materials...lets see. Well Apple has often practiced a unique philosophy of engineering in making something elegant but also simple and stresses quality as well. Can you say the same about HP, Compaq or Dell? Also, while a Mac and a PC have circuits and hard drives and electrical components from the same manufacturers, are they assembles into a computer in the same way? Also, last I checked and correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't Apple stay away from buying 2nd rate components for use in their computers while some PC companies are happy to put a component that skidded by QC in their computers?
A Kia has an engine as does a Merc (and in keeping with the original analogy of a $90,000 Merc, a C180 is...well short) and while one is made in Germany and the other in Korea they are both cars. You're in the UK right?
Ask Clarkeson, Hammond or May...well maybe not May to illustrate the differences in cars and price points and MAYBE you'll get an inkling to the car analogy.
Exactly, so then you need to say..
If you could buy a Pontiac Solstice or Saturn Sky, the same car with two different tags.
Now make one $40,000 and the other $30,000.
The car analogy favors Microsoft, not Apple.
I remember I use to have an Infiniti I30, it was the exact same model as a Nissan Maxima just with a different exterior styling, everything inside was the same, same engine but yet the Infiniti commanded a premium compared to the Nissan even though its from the same company.
Infinit's has a higher brand than Nissan so they charge a higher premium. That's the just how the world works. Some Louis Vuitton bags cost almost a thousand dollars but you can get some cheap knockoffs for like 50 dollars or even cheaper bags for like a 100 dollars but because it's a Louis Vuitton it commands that price.
I wonder why the Dell Adamo costs more than the Macbook Air even though the components ain't as good, I thought all PC's were cheap?
I wonder why the Dell Adamo costs more than the Macbook Air even though the components ain't as good, I thought all PC's were cheap?
What are you trying to prove besides making Apple supporters look like fools. You are now using the exception to try to make a point?
Apple computers cost more than PCs, we all accept that. We choose to buy them anyways because we prefer them.
No it's stupid because it falls apart for cars almost as bad as it does for computers. Take my friend who paid $45,000 for a BMW M3. For the first six months he did little more than wax it because he was so afraid to get a scratch on it. WTF is the point of having a ridiculously expensive trophy? Meanwhile I spent $10,000 on a used Outback that will run forever, can go absolutely anywhere, and costs nothing to maintain outside of oil changes. Wow, he can go faster than me occasionally on a dry road and get $500 speeding tickets -- what an incredible investment that was. Meanwhile, who has to drive when we go snowboarding? Who has to rescue him from his apartment when so much as an inch of snow falls? And who looks like a rich showoff d-bag with penis issues to 90% of people around him?
Look like fools eh, I guess every PC costs the same, it's ok for Sony to charge more than Dell or HP but Apple who builds their own operating system charges more and everybody is up in flames. Dell actually builds a computer to compete with an Air and it ends up costing more but I don't see everybody lining up with pitchforks ready to torture them.
I think it's odd that Apple seems to be spending more time telling us why Windows computers are bad rather than telling us why Macs are good. The problem is that there are a *LOT* of people who don't have any of the problems that the PC has in the adverts (me included!), and therefore don't identify with that character. As such, it seems the Mac adverts only target those Windows users who do have those types of problems, and it's almost as if Apple have castrated their target market.
Maybe they've done this deliberately though, as it is easier to sway a customer who is not satisifed with their current product. Equally, it would be more difficult to sway the opinion of a person who is satisified with their Microsoft product, as all they would see in the Mac is a tool which does the same things, but costs more.
As such, this seems very much like a consious decision by Apple to market to Windows users who are disatified rather than to try and change the opinion of those who are satisified. This fills me with mixed thoughts...
A) The market of disatisifed Windows users is apparently quite large (although satisfaction surveys also includes hardware and hardware support, not just the software, so it's probably not as bad as these reports make out), so there is a big pool of potential customers (good thing).
and
B) Apple don't think their product is strong enough to tempt those who aren't disatisfied with Windows (bad thing).
I'd really like Apple to start pushing the good things about a Mac so that even satisified Windows users would consider buying one.
1) Macs don't get viruses - I don't care, I spent 5 minutes installing a free anti-viruses that keeps an eye on my system and installs updates automatically.
NEXT!
2) Macs don't need many updates, and they do them without a fuss - Macs need updates just like Windows. Windows downloads updates silently in the background, and tells you when they are installed.
NEXT!
3) Macs don't crash, freeze or lockup - Vista rarely crashes, and my friends iMac locked up within 30 minutes of it coming out of the box.
NEXT!
4) Macs are user friendly, and everything is easy to find and use - I already know how to use Windows, so I too can find everything quickly and use it easily.
NEXT!
and so on and so forth. I want to be told why I *NEED* or should *WANT* a Mac, but I'm not really hearing it from Apple!
Maybe they've done this deliberately though, as it is easier to sway a customer who is not satisifed with their current product. Equally, it would be more difficult to sway the opinion of a person who is satisified with their Microsoft product, as all they would see in the Mac is a tool which does the same things, but costs more.
As such, this seems very much like a consious decision by Apple to market to Windows users who are disatified rather than to try and change the opinion of those who are satisified. This fills me with mixed thoughts...
A) The market of disatisifed Windows users is apparently quite large (although satisfaction surveys also includes hardware and hardware support, not just the software, so it's probably not as bad as these reports make out), so there is a big pool of potential customers (good thing).
and
B) Apple don't think their product is strong enough to tempt those who aren't disatisfied with Windows (bad thing).
I'd really like Apple to start pushing the good things about a Mac so that even satisified Windows users would consider buying one.
1) Macs don't get viruses - I don't care, I spent 5 minutes installing a free anti-viruses that keeps an eye on my system and installs updates automatically.
NEXT!
2) Macs don't need many updates, and they do them without a fuss - Macs need updates just like Windows. Windows downloads updates silently in the background, and tells you when they are installed.
NEXT!
3) Macs don't crash, freeze or lockup - Vista rarely crashes, and my friends iMac locked up within 30 minutes of it coming out of the box.
NEXT!
4) Macs are user friendly, and everything is easy to find and use - I already know how to use Windows, so I too can find everything quickly and use it easily.
NEXT!
and so on and so forth. I want to be told why I *NEED* or should *WANT* a Mac, but I'm not really hearing it from Apple!
Look like fools eh, I guess every PC costs the same, it's ok for Sony to charge more than Dell or HP but Apple who builds their own operating system charges more and everybody is up in flames. Dell actually builds a computer to compete with an Air and it ends up costing more but I don't see everybody lining up with pitchforks ready to torture them.
Apple consistently charges more than PCs for a machine that has identical or extremely similar hardware.
I think they should drop the Mac guy and the PC guy (even though John is adorable) and just have an ad featuring a Mac computer and a PC that is similar. And then they can talk about the actual features that blow Windows away. Now these Microsoft's ads for Windows and Apple's Mac ads are just flaming each other and not actually showing the benefits of either OS (I know the PC ads are saying that PCs are cheaper, but all of the computers they've shown are ****). Apple needs to step it up, ad wise.
But the ads were still hilarious.
But the ads were still hilarious.
Yeah I guess it must be the same reason Sony consistently charges more than other PC's for a a machine that has identical or extremely similar hardware.
Oh SO WRONG. My family is in the car business, selling Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infiniti, Volkswagen/Audi/Porsche (as well as BMW, Land Rover), and while parent companies that sell luxury vehicles may utilize certain aspects of their "economy" based line they are NOT the same. I have owned an Inifiniti FX45 (2007) which is not based on any Nissan platform (some assume it is based on the Nissan Murano which is it not). They are completely different vehicles. As is the G line and the newly released Infiniti G convertible. The only Nissan/Infiniti model that is related in frame is the top of the line SUV, the Q line, to the Nissan Armada - but that thing needs it's own gas station. The Lexus GS, IS, and SC are independent lines from their Toyota division. The Lexus LX shares its frame with the Toyota Landcruiser, the Lexus ES used to share its frame with the Toyota Camry, and the Lexus SC used to share its frame with the Toyota Solara (that has since changed). Volkswagen only shares it's Tourag with their luxury line Porsche Cayenne, and those two vehicles have COMPLETELY different engines (no one in their right mind would state that any Porsche is any thing similar to its Volkswagen line). Audi used to share frames with their Volkswagen division yet with the newly released A line that has changed.
In short, while a handful (meaning 2-3) luxury divisions may utilize the frames of their "economy" division line, most do not. As well, the engines and interiors of Lexus/Nissan/Audi/Porsche are completely different from their other divisions. Torque, horsepower, Lexus' hybrid "-h" line, liters, etc. are very much different from their other divisions. No one in the automobile industry would ever state that a Porsche Cayenne is similar to its Volkswagen Tourag, or that the Lexus LX470 is similar to its Toyota Landcruiser, or that an Infiniti G35 is similar to the Maxima (Nissan has completely revamped its Infiniti line since the "I" series, as I used to drive BMW's I have since fallen in love with the Infiniti lineup, they are excellent cars and any serious car aficionado will agree that Infiniti is nothing like Nissan). Audi's DUST Volkswagen's any day of the week (with the exception of the decommissioned Phaeton, topping out with a W12 450 HP, shared parts with Bentley and Audi).
Some of you may know computers more than I, however when it comes to auto's, sorry, don't go there. Stating that luxury automobile manufacturers simply rebadge their economy based divisions with higher price tags is simply ignorance. NO ***** WAY. Stating that a Lexus is like a Toyota, or an Audi or Porsche like a Volkswagen, or even a BMW like a Mini Cooper, and making further claims from there, is so wrong I can not even stress it enough.
FYI Saturn is the old Oldsmobile, and while GM may own Saturn I would certainly not claim that Saturn or Pontiac are "luxury" vehicles. Further, GM also bought out Volvo and Saab, hence why their quality has slipped in the past few years.
Ha, you just did all of that for?
I never claimed Saturn nor Pontiac to be luxury vehicles. I never claimed that higher lines claimed to rebadge a vehicle and sell it for more. For some one claiming that you know so much about autos I find it funny that you start with "Oh so wrong."
The Sky and the Solstice are identical cars. They have the same engine, the same frame, but slightly different styling. I really have no clue what you were trying to say with your post.
My point was that most people would find it foolish to buy one for $10,000 more because of the styling. As many people would find it foolish to pay more for a Mac because of different styling.
Bashing Mac? Absolutely not, I love mine. I just hate the car analogies.
Simply the claim that since some cars are alike and use the same parts, therefore some computer companies do the same (and not just from you, this is directed to a lot of others on Macrumors, I just happened to read your comment which is what prompted this response). Second, you are making sweeping assumptions about cars and lines, hence my comment.
Ugh, forget this, it's the same exact handful of people that turn EVERY thread into a fight between mac and windows. I simply know the car analogies some try to throw around are false. Seriously guys, give it a rest. It's annoying that after all these years a few people are hijacking Macrumors into fights about whose package is bigger and how they're great cause they're a bunch of obsessed gamers living at home and spending all their money on a suped up beige box that is faster and "cooler" and cheaper than Apple hardware. Great, I'll run down to the local mall and grab that poster of one of Manet's paintings, after all, a Manet is simply an expensive piece of art that anyone can get cheaper.
So basically 1 out of 4 commercials manage to advertise macs. At least one of them do it this time.
I may not know a lot about some of the other auto manufacturers you were talking about but Nissan and Infiniti share platforms. The FM one is the major one shared. Out of it comes the G35/37 (coupe/sedan) the 350Z/370Z M35/M45. In the case of the V6 used it is the same for all the vehicles just tuned differently, Intake/exhaust and displacement are the major differences. Nissan has a few platforms that they use to reduce costs across lines. Now the chassis designation is different for the models but that doesn't mean that they don't share parts.
Now as far as the whole Audi and Gallardo comment. No I don't expect everything from the Gallardo to be on the Audi. I would figure they share parts where it makes sense though.
FM one? You mean FX? No, that is not shared. The FX does not share the same body or engine as any Nissan vehicle. I own an 2007 FX45 (the 2009 FX line is RIDICULOUS, completely revamped and blowing the X5 out of the water) and a 2008 G35x, nothing about those vehicles is anything similar to a Nissan. Not the Altima, Maxima. The M class competes with the Lexus LS and BMW 5 series, the M line shares no major components with any Nissan vehicle.
