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.
Microsoft Releases Second 'Laptop Hunters' Commercial
- Thread starter fpbecker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
no explanation, no click
Sorry, but without a description of what the link is about, I don't click.
Sorry, but without a description of what the link is about, I don't click.
I read it.... Its about Apples advertising. The title is: Are Apple's ads really better than Microsoft's?
"Are Apple's Ads Really Better Than Microsoft's?"
CNET said:
The answer is I don't think they're more effective, but they're certainly more entertaining. Either way I'm not an idiot sheep who bases $1000+ purchasing decisions on clever marketing. So I'll take Apple commercials, strictly for the chuckle between show clips.
For a company with a fairly large market share to feel the need to play catch-up to the brand image Apple has established is indeed remarkable, and at the same time, not difficult to understand, since MS's market share size is largely contingent on OEM lock-in alone, and not by merits worthy of enticing consumers. Yes, It does seem that MS has finally found its niche - a company which mass produces cheap for cheap.
Since when are Microsoft's products cheap? An Office 2007 Standard license is $399 ($679 for Office Ultimate), a Vista Ultimate license is $399 ($159 for Home Premium). Their bargain-bin edition of Office:mac 2008 (Home & Student for $149) is twice as expensive as iWork. Their Wireless Entertainment Desktop 8000 (keyboard + mouse) is $299(!). If I wanted cheap software, I'd probably go with iLife '09 or iWork '09 for $79, or Logic Studio for $499 ($499 is technically not cheap, but they're still doing some serious undercutting with that package. Cubase 5 is, what, $799?). An OEM license that comes with an inexpensive computer is the only Windows license the average joe will ever afford -- upgrades are sold primarily to businesses and enthusiasts.
Microsoft's products do however run on cheap hardware (if that's what the customer wants) as well as ludicrously expensive hardware. They looked at the state of the economy and figured that premium pricing might not be what the general public is looking for right now, so they highlighted some inexpensive alternatives. Only in the snobbish Apple universe does that translate to "our new target demographic is homeless people".
Makes sense, because it looks like Apple is abandoning making computers in favor of consumer Igadgets.
What's the point of the "halo effect" if none of Apple's computers are interesting?
It leaves the whole computer realm to Microsoft, doesn't it?
Yeah we should be thankful a company like Apple is around, they are the only company trying to even offer an alternative to others, Linux is pretty much irrelevant in the consumer pace. If it wasn't for Apple, Windows would probably be close to 100 percent marketshare, yeah I'm sure thats good for everybody. I can't think of one single market where a company has such a high share.
Giampaolo paid $1500. I think Apple's prices may have messed with your head so much that you think their prices are pretty average and anything below that is "cheap". A BMW looks moderately priced next to a Porsche, but you'd have to be Paris Hilton to refer to a BMW as cheap junk for hobos.
You know for the most part the prices of BMW and Porsches are pretty close with the exception of something like the 911 Turbo. You wouldn't see BMW airing an ad saying "Porsches are pretty cool but hey look at us, we're cheaper."
The main point of these ads is talking about getting PC's cheaper than Macs, even though the computers may not even be comparable to each other, the main point is getting it for cheaper. I mean the OS you want to run shouldn't matter is all about the undercutting a Macs price and the ads spell it out clearly.
Precisely, yet MS chose to project their image as a cheap solution by associating their OEM product with cheap units. Anyone willing to pay full price, a.k. anyone who actually chooses to, install a Windows system or suite on their machines will indeed pay a premium. Cheap is the image MS has effectively adopted through this association, and throughout this ad campaign. Incidentally, cheap can also be descriptive of something which hovers below the level of adequate.
In this particular instance, sure, but it's not like they're using the same sales pitch for business clients. "Get Windows Server 2008, two for the price of one and a free T-shirt"...? Nah.
They're like Volkswagen; you can get a VW Fox for 9,500 or a VW Phaeton for 72,700. Mac is more like Audi, starts at 21,000 for a basic A3. VW can't use the same ads for the VW Fox (which was designed for 18-year-old single moms with no money) and the Phaeton (an executive limo that plays in the Jaguar league).
Well, those damn cows have a de facto monopoly on milk. Almost nobody drinks cat milk, pig milk or rat milk.
Joking apart -- After Adobe acquired Macromedia, I'd say they have a Microsoft-ish marketshare in their field with their bloatware. There might be some poor sods out there still using CorelDraw or Quark, but Adobe pretty much rules supreme. The Flash plugin has closer to 100% dominance than Windows will ever get. The only alternative is Microsoft's Silverlight, but I don't see that taking off anytime soon. And I have a feeling you wouldn't be rooting for the little guy anyway.
My favorite part of the newest commercial...
My favorite part of the newest commercial: when the little kid looks at his mom in excitement and goes "Blu-ray!!!"
I fell on the floor. Out of the mouths of babes, a simple eureka that a handful of anti-Blu-ray denizens on here will never get.
And the first deathknell for Apple.
How many times the bell will toll is anyone's guess at this point.
The ship HAS sailed; the King is dying.
My favorite part of the newest commercial: when the little kid looks at his mom in excitement and goes "Blu-ray!!!"
I fell on the floor. Out of the mouths of babes, a simple eureka that a handful of anti-Blu-ray denizens on here will never get.
And the first deathknell for Apple.
How many times the bell will toll is anyone's guess at this point.
The ship HAS sailed; the King is dying.
Microsoft mass-produces really expensive crap software* to run on a clusterf**k of different hardware, some cheap, some not so much.
Because it might be a link to download "Itunes," someone's cunning plot to take down all your server farms in one fell swoop.
He's buying a Mac Pro then, I surmise. Lucky bastard.
I thought it was for pwning n00bz...or at least gaming is the only Windows advantage I ever hear cited.
* OK, I like Microsoft Word.
True that. Their ads, however, would like to draw our attention to machines which are cheaper than Macs (in more ways than one) and which happen to have an install of one of their crippled OEM OSs - they'll suck your money with upgrades afterward. The Windows 7 bait trap, on netbooks, will initially allow users to run up to three applications at a time - they'll milk you for an upgrade if you want to run more than three. Indirect extortion can be pretty expensive.
It's the only Mac with official 64-bit Windows support. You can run it on other Macs too, but at your own risk. Trackpad issues, overheating issues and other fun stuff awaits.
OK, I forgot that you are stuck with waiting on Apple for driver support if you load Windows on an Apple. I also see lots of comments on overheating issues even when running OSX, is it even worse with Windows?
On the other hand, Vista x64 will run in virtual machines on any x64 Mac - and you don't have to depend on Apple support.
It's worse, because there's no software control of the fan (this is something that the manufacturer of the chipset is supposed to provide in form of a Windows driver). And with nothing telling Windows about the temperature or how to control it, it defaults back to a fixed RPM for the fan no matter how hot the machine is. As for the trackpad, Apple have apparently posted a BootCamp driver for it, but it crashes, oldskool BSoD style. I don't know if Apple are waiting for the multitouch API included with Win7 or if they're just trying to sabotage Windows as usual. Probably the latter.
Even if the other Macs supported Vista 64, that isn't something I'd want to try on any less than 8 GB of RAM, VMs especially. A quad- or octo-core Mac Pro with 32GB seems ideal in that regard.
Things usually are.
that's just silly
Vista 64-bit doesn't need significantly more memory than 32-bit - where'd you come up with this nonsense?
You won't need a 32 GiB octo unless you plan on running a 20 GiB database in memory.
1 GiB is OK for a Vista VM (either x64 or x86) unless you're running big stuff in it.. A 2 GiB Apple OSX with a 1 GiB VM would be pretty tight on memory, but 3 or 4 GiB would be fine.
Vista 64-bit doesn't need significantly more memory than 32-bit - where'd you come up with this nonsense?
You won't need a 32 GiB octo unless you plan on running a 20 GiB database in memory.
1 GiB is OK for a Vista VM (either x64 or x86) unless you're running big stuff in it.. A 2 GiB Apple OSX with a 1 GiB VM would be pretty tight on memory, but 3 or 4 GiB would be fine.