Microsoft Releases Second 'Laptop Hunters' Commercial

[iMpathetic]

Yes, but for a computer to offer 90% of the performance and features for about 40% of the price is ridiculous.

I don't care if it's designed for the Pope, the Mac Pro is a terrible deal as a desktop.

 

[azentropy]

F
So, let Apple price the box at $1399.

• $130 extra for a "more aesthetic" case (the "Ive Tax")
• $200 extra for added profit margin (the "Apple Tax")

They'd "fly off the shelves like hotcakes" or whatever is the current cliché for a popular product.

They would fly off the shelf at $1599 or even $1699 too...

I've never minded paying more for Macs and I've always found them to actually be pretty competitive. But their current lineup (both laptops and "desktops") has me looking elsewhere. Offering only glossy screens on their laptops and having their lowest priced quad-core "desktop" system starting at $2500, whereas other manufactures have basic quad-cores starting at < $500 and systems with equal performance at around $1000, is a sad joke.

 

[AidenShaw]

I have a feeling that "Julio" never asked for a server-grade Xeon processor, the whole point here is that Apple isn't offering anything else. Fiberchannel? It starts at $600. Does Julio work at Pixar now?

Exactly - the maxi-tower is so far out of kilter with what normal people want and need, it doesn't even register.

Does an Imac have ECC memory? Does an MBP? A Mini-mac? How about those FB-DIMMs for the AppleTV? Five of the six systems listed under "Mac" at Apple.com do not have ECC memory.

If you want a quad-core to render those vacation videos, you shouldn't need to spend $2748 for the same performance that Dell offers for $1069!!

(Anuba - you're much too clever and astute. I'm sure that's what's annoying the 'bois . And thank you for keeping "Julio" in the discussion.).

OMG, I just noticed that I've graduated from 68K to a PowerPC ! I want to thank the Academy, the honored guests - and you, my loyal readers!

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't care if it's designed for the Pope, the Mac Pro is a terrible deal as a desktop.

Maybe it's because it's not some cheap desktop ?

Hasn't this been discussed to death already ?

Exactly - the maxi-tower is so far out of kilter with what normal people want and need, it doesn't even register.

Does an Imac have ECC memory? Does an MBP? A Mini-mac? How about those FB-DIMMs for the AppleTV?

If you want a quad-core to render those vacation videos, you shouldn't need to spend $2748 for the same performance that Dell offers for $1069!!

(Anuba - you're much to clever and astute. I'm sure that's what's annoying the 'bois ).

But again, Apple dropped out of the mid-range tower market. You faulting them for this will not change this fact.

It's either iMac or notebook. Pick your poison. Want a mid-range desktop ? There's a ton of OEMs willing to sell them to you. Apple just doesn't happen to be one of them.

I don't get this constant whining about the lack of a xMac. Get over it, "bois".

 

[iMpathetic]

Maybe it's because it's not some cheap desktop ?

Hasn't this been discussed to death already ?

What makes the dell a "cheap desktop"? I'd say it's mid to high end. But not pro, that's reserved for the Mac Pro. That's the only pro computer there is. Christ.

The fact of the matter is, it is going to be compared to the XPS i7 line because there isn't any other mere mortal machine to compare it with.

You can get the same performance for your $1000 as you can with your $2700. I don't give a damn how unfair you say the comparison is. It's not based on labels, it's based on performance.

Sorry. I'll leave you to cuddle with your MP now, guys.

 

[k2spitfire88]

For our "Desktop Hunters" ad, let's have Julio go shopping for a "Nehalem quad core under $1500". (This is an attempt to keep the discussion tied to the Microsoft ad topic .)

Instead of hitting Best Buy and Fry's, this ad is online shopping.

The Mac Pro is a "huge beast of a computer", but when he looks at the prices, Julio sees:

Dell Studio XPS Core i7 64bit                    Mac Pro Quad
=======================================          ======================================
 
Price  $ 1,069                                   Price     $ 2,748
 
Vista® Home Premium Service Pack 1,              Mac OSX, 32-bit kernel, 64-bit app
     with media, 64-bit

Quad Core Intel® Core™ i7-920                    Quad Core Intel® Xeon® W3520
     2.66GHz, 8M L3, 4.8GT/s, Turbo                   2.66GHz, 8M L3, 4.8GT/s, Turbo

4GiB, 1066MHz,DDR3 SDRAM,                        3GB, 1066MHz,DDR3 SDRAM,
     NECC (4x1GiB DIMMS)                               ECC (3x1GiB DIMMS)

512MiB ATI Radeon HD 4670,                       512 MiB NVIDIA GeForce GT 120

640GB SATA 3Gb/s with NCQ                        640 GB SATA 7200

16X DVD+/-RW w/ Cyberlink PowerDVD™              18x DVD+/-RW
     and Roxio Creator™ Dell Ed

Dell USB Multimedia Keyboard                     Apple Keyboard with numeric pad

Dell Premium Laser Mouse                         Apple Mighty Mouse

3 Year Basic Limited Warranty and                3 Year AppleCare
     3 Year InHome Service

Wow, $1700 Apple Tax for a simple quad core tower.

We know how the ad ends....

==========

But, that's not where I'm going here.

Dell is making a good per-box profit here (I know, because I buy these for my corporation, and we pay quite a bit less than $1069 for them). (Of course, this is just sale price minus manufacturing cost - "profit margin" overall includes development and marketing overhead.)

What could Apple do here....

How about "innovate" and offer the system in two or three different models:

Let's do the two larger ones, laid out so that they can use the same motherboard. (Motherboards are cheap to design, but let's err on the conservative side.)

The only difference is expandability - the larger one has a couple more usable slots for IO and disk/optical.

Now, what about the all important issue of margins?

We know that Dell is making about 20% on the $1069 box (sales price - manufacturing cost). We also know that Apple is big enough so that their prices on commodity disks, memory, optical and whatever will be much the same as Dell's costs.

So, let Apple price the box at $1399.

• $130 extra for a "more aesthetic" case (the "Ive Tax")
• $200 extra for added profit margin (the "Apple Tax")

They'd "fly off the shelves like hotcakes" or whatever is the current cliché for a popular product.

It's a great idea, IMO. Unfortunately, it would never happen, as Apple would have to drop prices on everything else, as to not appear ridiculous, and as much as we would all love to see it, it isn't happening. Priced maybe in the low $2000 I could see it maybe happening, but you still have the MBP price to deal with.

Oh well. I for one am happy with my purchase, even if I could have gotten more for my money with a PC. The sticking point for me is OS X. It is unbeatable, and a hackintosh laptop (for me) doesn't compare. Plus, it also looks great. So, to sum it up, do I wish they would do something like this and lower prices? Yes. Do I see it happening? No. Will I still buy a Mac as my next computer when the time comes? Yes.

 

[KnightWRX]

What makes the dell a "cheap desktop"? I'd say it's mid to high end. But not pro, that's reserved for the Mac Pro. That's the only pro computer there is. Christ.

No, in fact it's not. Dell has the Precision line, HP has the Z line or the XW line. Lenovo has the Thinkstation D10 line, etc.. etc..

Those are all fair comparisons to the Mac Pro. Cheap consumer desktops, these are not.

If you think your comparison is in anyway valid, then you are not the Mac Pro's market. It's as simple as that.

 

[h'biki]

Yes, but for a computer to offer 90% of the performance and features for about 40% of the price is ridiculous.

I don't care if it's designed for the Pope, the Mac Pro is a terrible deal as a desktop.

Except it runs OS X (and Linux and Windows.) For some people, like me, that is worth paying for. I spent a large proportion of my life - for pleasure and for work - using a computer. I will pay the premium for OS X and Apple's hardware/software integration.

There are plenty of allegories one can apply:

Cheap ass corner store whisky is going to get you drunk as well as the single malt stuff -- but goddamn don't I prefer drinking a good single malt over a bad blend. Not every one can afford single malts or considers them worth paying for - but that don't mean good Single Malts aren't better than moonshine, that they aren't worth paying for, or that the distilleries don't make money.

What about furniture? Compare couches. Most couches offer the same basic feature set - seats! Some are two seaters, some are four seaters. You can probably buy a $50 four seater and a $500 four seater. They both offer the same "performance" and "features"... but y'know, I reckon the $500 couch is better, and probably even 10x better. Same goes for shoes: a $20 pair of trainers is worse than a $200 pair of trainers.

What about instruments? A $10,000 grand piano offers the same 'features' and 'performance' as a $1,000 upright. But the $10,000 is better. Same goes with guitars, bass guitars, keyboards, trumpets, saxaphones etc. etc. Musicians are willing to pay the premium to get better tools because it matters to them. But it doesn't matter to everyone.

Better is better, but it doesn't always matter to everyone. I don't give a **** about cars, so I own a ****** car. But I care about computers so I buy a better computer. Its about value, not cost.

 

[KnightWRX]

Except it runs OS X (and Linux and Windows.) For some people, like me, that is worth paying for. I spent a large proportion of my life - for pleasure and for work - using a computer. I will pay the premium for OS X and Apple's hardware/software integration.

See, this is a bit why the Mac Pro gets a bad rap. Basically, people thinking it's a consumer level machine and treating it as such. OS X isn't worth 1700$. If you're not in need of a professional level Workstation, don't buy one from Apple. If Apple isn't offering the computer you need, buy it from someone else.

That's the only way the cheap desktop is ever going to come back to Apple's line-up, by proving to them the market segment is still ripe with opportunity for them.

 

[k2spitfire88]

Except it runs OS X (and Linux and Windows.) For some people, like me, that is worth paying for. I spent a large proportion of my life - for pleasure and for work - using a computer. I will pay the premium for OS X and Apple's hardware/software integration.

There are plenty of metaphors one can apply, but the one that I like is whisky. You see, cheap ass corner store whisky is going to get you drunk as well as the single malt stuff -- but goddamn don't I prefer drinking a good single malt over a bad blend. Not every one can afford single malts or considers them worth paying for - but that doesn't mean good Single Malts aren't BETTER than moonshine, that they aren't worth paying for, are that the distilleries don't make money.

The same metaphor can be used when talking about furniture -- you can get something to sit on for like $50 second hand, but a $400 couch IS better. Luxury cars are better than second hand utes, even though they do the same thing. Good shoes are better than crappy shoes, even though you can walk in either of them.

Music instruments are another good metaphor. A $40,000 grand piano offers the same 'features' and 'performance' as a $2,000 upright... but it is BETTER. Same goes with guitars, bass guitars, keyboards, etc. etc. Musicians are willing to pay that premium for their tools.

Why not computers?

I think the point people are trying to make is, aside from the OS X/Apple Software, they lack common features. To use guitars, (being a guitarist myself), I would gladly buy a Gibson Les Paul Standard for well over $2000. I would pick this over a cruddy starter Peavy any day of the week. But don't sell me the Les Paul at that price (with all it's beauty) and sell it to me without pickups, and the ability to put the pickups in! Without the pickups, it is worthless to me. It just looks pretty.
I hope that makes sense. Did I sum up the argument well?

 

[KnightWRX]

I think the point people are trying to make is, aside from the OS X/Apple Software, they lack common features. To use guitars, (being a guitarist myself), I would gladly buy a Gibson Les Paul Standard for well over $2000. I would pick this over a cruddy starter Peavy any day of the week. But don't sell me the Les Paul at that price (with all it's beauty) and sell it to me without pickups, and the ability to put the pickups in! Without the pickups, it is worthless to me. It just looks pretty.
I hope that makes sense. Did I sum up the argument well?

No, because an electric guitar without pickups just doesn't work. The Macs work.

 

[Anuba]

But again, Apple dropped out of the mid-range tower market. You faulting them for this will not change this fact.

It's either iMac or notebook. Pick your poison. Want a mid-range desktop ? There's a ton of OEMs willing to sell them to you. Apple just doesn't happen to be one of them.

I don't get this constant whining about the lack of a xMac. Get over it, "bois".

If Apple would be catering exclusively to professionals, nobody would be saying a word. But they're not. They're also targeting consumers, right down to college students ($999 MacBook, etc).

[car analogy mode]

Ferrari has a handful of extreme sports cars, and nothing else. That's fine. But imagine if Toyota had this great gaping hole in the middle of their lineup:

Yaris = Mac Mini
Corolla = iMac
Camry = ?
Avalon = ?
Highlander = ?
Sequoia = ?
Land Cruiser = Mac Pro

[/car analogy mode]

The standard retort is "Mac only caters to the high-end segment blah blah" but it's just not true. They have a bottom and a top, but no middle. Like a T-shirt that's available in XS, S and XXL.

 

[k2spitfire88]

No, because an electric guitar without pickups just doesn't work. The Macs work.

I understand that part. My Mac works great. I meant if it doesn't have something that someone needs, and it lacks the ability to this item in there. That is why I used pickups as an example. I guess it didn't work all that well. iFail.

 

[k2spitfire88]

If Apple would be catering exclusively to professionals, nobody would be saying a word. But they're not. They're also targeting consumers, right down to college students ($999 MacBook, etc).

[car analogy mode]

Ferrari has a handful of extreme sports cars, and nothing else. That's fine. But imagine if Toyota had this great gaping hole in the middle of their lineup:

Yaris = Mac Mini
Corolla = iMac
Camry = ?
Avalon = ?
Highlander = ?
Sequoia = ?
Land Cruiser = Mac Pro

[car analogy mode = off]

The standard retort is "Mac only caters to the high-end segment blah blah" but it's just not true. They have a bottom and a top, but no middle. Like a T-shirt that's available in XS, S and XXL.

Just to be clear, does iMac also equal Macbook? And where are the Macbook Pro's?

 

[iMpathetic]

If Apple would be catering exclusively to professionals, nobody would be saying a word. But they're not. They're also targeting consumers, right down to college students ($999 MacBook, etc).

[car analogy mode]

Ferrari has a handful of extreme sports cars, and nothing else. That's fine. But imagine if Toyota had this great gaping hole in the middle of their lineup:

Yaris = Mac Mini
Corolla = iMac
Camry = ?
Avalon = ?
Highlander = ?
Sequoia = ?
Land Cruiser = Mac Pro

[car analogy mode = off]

The standard retort is "Mac only caters to the high-end segment blah blah" but it's just not true. They have a bottom and a top, but no middle. Like a T-shirt that's available in XS, S and XXL.

Analogy Olympics: Gold medal.

 

[AidenShaw]

I hope that makes sense.

Doesn't matter - this thread has gone surreal.

I feel like I'm arguing with Salvador Domingo Felipe Jacinto Dalí i Domènech, 1st Marquis of Púbol on acid. (Dalí)

And I'm not sure if he's on acid, I'm on acid - or we both are.

Analogy Olympics: Gold medal.

I think it's time for a Platinum Medal !

 

[Anuba]

Just to be clear, does iMac also equal Macbook? And where are the Macbook Pro's?

It's just the desktops really. I wouldn't say there's a hole in the portable range. They might wanna add a netbook at the very bottom, and I wish the MacBook Pro was more Pro than prosumer (quad, more powerful GPU, more ports etc), but... it's a pretty solid lineup.

 

[k2spitfire88]

It's just the desktops really. I wouldn't say there's a hole in the portable range. They might wanna add a netbook at the very bottom, and I wish the MacBook Pro was more Pro than prosumer (quad, more powerful GPU, more ports etc), but... it's a pretty solid lineup.

My bad. Missed that part. Thanks.

 

[jtimleck]

Well, the ads are what they are.....ads......

Yes, and ads don't always tell whole truths... I'm boogled by the claim that this "G" guy thinks that PCs are more "powerful" - if PCs were more powerful then why do physics labs, chemistry, engineering etc. end up using macs in order to do their HEAVIEST computing chores... Could it be... um... power? Look, with a Unix core the mac will beat the crap out of Windows in terms of stability AND power. Just because you have a big ____ I mean, big chip, doesn't make you powerful. For years mac folk have defended their power PC processors which *looked* like they were less powerful by the *number* on them but their *through put* was usually higher - which is THE measure of power (and the number of threads/tasks then it can process) correct?

Now if Microsoft wants to battle Apple then point out the stuff Apple *still* sucks at doing - and why I keep a PC on a KVM switch still - almost ANYTHING with a database: ArcGIS, MS Access, even genealogy databases lack software coded to do the job on a mac. And for users of FileMaker Pro and Bento don't even bother defending them - put them beside MS Access and try to do ANYTHING close to what MS Access can do. Not happening. So Microsoft has some legitimate software advantages - but not "threading pictures together in a panorama" (who the hell at Microsoft thought that should be THE benefit of Windows VISTA anyways???) and those are the things they should be hyping...

 

[AidenShaw]

Yes, and ads don't always tell whole truths... I'm boogled by the claim that this "G" guy thinks that PCs are more "powerful" - if PCs were more powerful then why do physics labs, chemistry, engineering etc. end up using macs in order to do their HEAVIEST computing chores...

Every time that I've visited the major labs, it seems to be almost all Linux.

Where are these Mac labs?

Even the Virginia Tech "System X" cluster has gone 404 http://www.arc.vt.edu/arc/SystemX/SystemX.php ...

 

[Anuba]

For years mac folk have defended their power PC processors which *looked* like they were less powerful by the *number* on them but their *through put* was usually higher - which is THE measure of power (and the number of threads/tasks then it can process) correct?

Well, no. Apple's marketing speak insisted that the PowerPC processors blew everything else away. Until they switched to Intel one day and merrily proclaimed that Macs were now 3-6 times faster. The processor they had mocked for many years was suddenly vastly superior. The low-end MacBook Air with a 1.6 GHz processor is 2.5 times faster than the fastest PowerBook G4 (1.5 GHz) ever built.

At the end of the day, what matters is how fast the software you want to run is on either platform. For example, if you're a Photoshop guy who uses a Mac Pro, you'll get much better performance if you run it in BootCamp and Vista 64-bit. PCMag ran some test and found that what took 1:30 in Photoshop on OSX clocked in at 1:08 in Vista. Adobe didn't feel like doing a 64-bit version for Mac this time around.

 

[polaris20]

I really think those aren't $1700 differences.

The fact remains: Apple computers are ridiculously expensive. Not a good value at all, no matter how much we piss and moan.

expensive? Yes. Good value? That's subjective. I feel my MBP is a good value. I feel my TiBook continues to be a good value.

I think the $3000 HP workstation laptops we have at work are a poor value, since they're very unreliable.

 

[polaris20]

For our "Desktop Hunters" ad, let's have Julio go shopping for a "Nehalem quad core under $1500". (This is an attempt to keep the discussion tied to the Microsoft ad topic .)

Instead of hitting Best Buy and Fry's, this ad is online shopping.

The Mac Pro is a "huge beast of a computer", but when he looks at the prices, Julio sees:

Dell Studio XPS Core i7 64bit                    Mac Pro Quad
=======================================          ======================================
 
Price  $ 1,069                                   Price     $ 2,748
 
Vista® Home Premium Service Pack 1,              Mac OSX, 32-bit kernel, 64-bit app
     with media, 64-bit

Quad Core Intel® Core™ i7-920                    Quad Core Intel® Xeon® W3520
     2.66GHz, 8M L3, 4.8GT/s, Turbo                   2.66GHz, 8M L3, 4.8GT/s, Turbo

4GiB, 1066MHz,DDR3 SDRAM,                        3GB, 1066MHz,DDR3 SDRAM,
     NECC (4x1GiB DIMMS)                               ECC (3x1GiB DIMMS)

512MiB ATI Radeon HD 4670,                       512 MiB NVIDIA GeForce GT 120

640GB SATA 3Gb/s with NCQ                        640 GB SATA 7200

16X DVD+/-RW w/ Cyberlink PowerDVD™              18x DVD+/-RW
     and Roxio Creator™ Dell Ed

Dell USB Multimedia Keyboard                     Apple Keyboard with numeric pad

Dell Premium Laser Mouse                         Apple Mighty Mouse

3 Year Basic Limited Warranty and                3 Year AppleCare
     3 Year InHome Service

Wow, $1700 Apple Tax for a simple quad core tower.

We know how the ad ends....

==========

But, that's not where I'm going here.

Dell is making a good per-box profit here (I know, because I buy these for my corporation, and we pay quite a bit less than $1069 for them). (Of course, this is just sale price minus manufacturing cost - "profit margin" overall includes development and marketing overhead.)

What could Apple do here....

How about "innovate" and offer the system in two or three different models:

Let's do the two larger ones, laid out so that they can use the same motherboard. (Motherboards are cheap to design, but let's err on the conservative side.)

The only difference is expandability - the larger one has a couple more usable slots for IO and disk/optical.

Now, what about the all important issue of margins?

We know that Dell is making about 20% on the $1069 box (sales price - manufacturing cost). We also know that Apple is big enough so that their prices on commodity disks, memory, optical and whatever will be much the same as Dell's costs.

So, let Apple price the box at $1399.

• $130 extra for a "more aesthetic" case (the "Ive Tax")
• $200 extra for added profit margin (the "Apple Tax")

They'd "fly off the shelves like hotcakes" or whatever is the current cliché for a popular product.

When we're done beating the Quad horse to death, can we compare the Octo MP to the HP Z600 and Dell T5500? Because besides the graphics, the differences aren't so big.

 

[dejo]

Even the Virginia Tech "System X" cluster has gone 404 http://www.arc.vt.edu/arc/SystemX/SystemX.php ...

Might this be what you're looking for?

 

[ceezy3000]

Well, no. Apple's marketing speak insisted that the PowerPC processors blew everything else away. Until they switched to Intel one day and merrily proclaimed that Macs were now 3-6 times faster. The processor they had mocked for many years was suddenly vastly superior. The low-end MacBook Air with a 1.6 GHz processor is 2.5 times faster than the fastest PowerBook G4 (1.5 GHz) ever built.

At the end of the day, what matters is how fast the software you want to run is on either platform. For example, if you're a Photoshop guy who uses a Mac Pro, you'll get much better performance if you run it in BootCamp and Vista 64-bit. PCMag ran some test and found that what took 1:30 in Photoshop on OSX clocked in at 1:08 in Vista. Adobe didn't feel like doing a 64-bit version for Mac this time around.

fastest powerbook was actually 1.67 ghz