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 Remains on Offensive with 'Apple Tax' Report and Latest Laptop Ad
- Thread starter Eidorian
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would hope so...Apple really doesn't have a "desktop" anymore. Yeah, the iMacs are cool but I (and most others) already have a nice monitor and/or would like a little more beef/power for my $1400 that I plunk down. I have to give Apple credit that the past 2-3 years of iMacs have been really slick. Except for the ridiculous price (the prices in the last refresh seem to be giving more bang for the buck but still $1200 for the bottom of the barrel). And I don't require a machine that, in size, is essentially a laptop on it's side. Again, very cool idea, but I am not counting inches in my room that requires me to get an all-in-one computer.
In PC land you can get a very high powered desktop (no monitor) for about $700. Add $100 for a 22" monitor and you're at $800 which is hundreds below a comparable iMac...$600-$800 depending.
Don't get me wrong, love the iMac design...but I know I'm getting a black-box solution that I'll never be able to upgrade and am basically forced to "configure" at time of purchase at ridiculous prices.
I have a Mac Mini from a few years ago...does exactly what I need it (mainly video editing) but for $1200 it was wayyyyy expensive. I knew that going in...I just wanted a nice video editing machine (software actually). I'm thinking of upgrading the drive to a larger and faster 7200RPM and plopping in 2gig more of ram to max it out...but very weary on using a putty knife to take it apart.
I'll say it for the 97th time in so many years...Apple should bring back a true desktop mini-tower for around $700...no monitor...just the darn box, a quad core chip, 3gig+ ram, a 600GB hard drive, and a dvd drive. Something like this you can EASILY find in pc land for $450-$500 from any vendor. You don't have to hold me to the exact price or specs but gimme something like the old Quadras that were designed exactly like 100% of every desktop pc: something I can pop the cover off in 20 seconds, easily add multiple drives/peripherals, upgrade the ram, etc. There are plenty of PCs out there that are mini and "slimline" and the like...they're not all the size of coal stoves as some folk think.
I'll be first in line for such a new line of Macs. The Pro boxes Apple sells are insanely expensive for the tech specs you get...and they are clearly not targeted to any kind of average or home user.Apple is living in an Intel/pc world these days...Apple machines, from a guts perspective, are made from the same vendors that PC land uses (video manufacturers, CPUs, memory specs, SATA drives, etc). They should re-release the desktop.
-Eric
Yes, negative ads aren't flattering. We all remember what McCain's ads did to McCain.These cheap-shot Microsoft Ad's are really changing my view of Microsoft.
It's ok to have fun with Advertising, but these are just a bag of bile.
But isn't Apple the one that's been using negative campaigning for, what, 25 years now? In his very first "keynote address" where Steve, in tux and bowtie, introduced the Mac, he talked about how much IBM computers sucked. Just like he's been trash-talking Microsoft for decades, both in his own words and through ads. Intel was also a favorite target... until Macs started shipping with Intel Inside.
Actually I would buy a Sony Vaio as well...IF I wanted a PC. The rest of the world of PC lappys are just pure junk.
I had a Sony Vaio laptop awhile back. It was a fragile piece of junk that was even worse than Dell. IBM Thinkpads stand up, though....but they're not a $699 machine.
Maybe this is how GM and Chrysler should go about marketing their cars versus Mercedes, BMW, Lexus, Audi.
They've tried...perhaps the phrase "Rich Corinthian Leather" rings a bell? (1975 Chrysler Cordoba) There was also a model put out by Detroit that was almost an exact copy ... tail light designs, etc ... of the rear of IIRC a MB.
I have now. This "White Paper" from Roger Kay ... and Brandon's promotion of it ...is a perfect example of why I don't give my money to unethical corporations such as Microsoft.
Its duplicity includes assuming that everyone has a "free" copy of MS-Office laying around, and that at the end of 5 years, the residual value of the $1748 worth of Windows hardware will be exactly the same as $3499 worth of Mac hardware.
Merely drop the $750 for MobileMe (since the PC has no equivalent), recognize that a 5 year old G5 PowerMac is still easily worth $800 retail and a similarly old 12" G4 PowerBook another $600, and eliminate the dishonest MS-Office license for $150 ... and the "Apple Tax" is less than $18/month.
If the difference in OS results in 20 minutes less time troubleshooting per month, for the typical direct labor rate of a typical mature white collar professional ("Dad"), there is no "Tax", for he's effectively broken even.
I expect that Apple won't materially respond until June.
But I do believe that they should license that statement from thread#2:
"Your hardware is only as good as your OS allows it to be" (sic)
-hh
Apple Tax vs Windows Tax
I just posted this response on :http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/wi...indows.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
Not sure if it's see light of day... so I posted here too
Apple Tax vs Windows Tax
Ok, so this is from a personal perspective:
I have been a Windows user from the start. About 6 years ago I made the leap to Mac/OS X for my personal PC. I still use Windows every day for work. So here's my 2 cents:
You have to look at the a) TCO - Total Cost of Ownership and b) Satisfaction level.
Personally, I spend less time messing about with the silly things on my Mac... like actually getting it to work versus doing the work. In general it does just work I reboot less, spend less time messing about getting things to work.
In the past few years I have converted a bunch of every day PC users to Mac, as I am their defat family/friend tech support. Phew life has got easier for both them and me
My father phoned my in a panick as something was not working the other day on his Mac Air... his Mac had frozen, he could not do anything or click anything... after about a minute I worked out his batteries in his wireless mouse had gone flat. Seriously, this is the about as bad as it has got. We have had an issue or two with running a few old DOS programs he still uses, so he had to succump to VMware Fusion which he runs from time to time. Even with this hurdle life seems much easier.
A friend of mine, a plumber, converted to a Mac several months ao - he's over the moon. He's running Entourage etc on Mac. He initially was worried that software he was running was PC only... with a little investigation he found that he could run everything natively on the Mac - Office, Mail, GPS software,,,, In his life before Mac, every few months I used to help him rebuild his PC from scratch as it came to a grinding halt. His poor Windows Machine suffered from Windows-bloat, a common nasty, the machine would slowly come to it's knees. We actually got good at this "refresh" and could do it over a few hours on a weekend. Imagine teaching each and every car owner to repair a head gasket?
On the other hand my mother inlaw went with a PC. The machine was cheaper but a year or so and the the thing as lamost ground to a halt. Takes many minutes to start up, do things etc Very very painful.
So, yes... look at the complete picture but be honest with how much time folk are going to spend fixing and waiting for the Macs vs PCs when you want to compare them.
My 2 cents on why windows machines are cheaper vs Mac: Mac tests most things (hardware, software...) working together... so the complete package is more fool proof. In general, Windows lets the periphal creator do it's own testing. The net result is a cheaper less robust Windows machine. So I'd pay a little more for the hardware, OS etc for a more robust system. So Microsoft... perhaps you need to think about this approach and providing better quality machines & peripherals for a higher cost?
I just posted this response on :http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/wi...indows.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage
Not sure if it's see light of day... so I posted here too
Apple Tax vs Windows Tax
Ok, so this is from a personal perspective:
I have been a Windows user from the start. About 6 years ago I made the leap to Mac/OS X for my personal PC. I still use Windows every day for work. So here's my 2 cents:
You have to look at the a) TCO - Total Cost of Ownership and b) Satisfaction level.
Personally, I spend less time messing about with the silly things on my Mac... like actually getting it to work versus doing the work. In general it does just work
I reboot less, spend less time messing about getting things to work.In the past few years I have converted a bunch of every day PC users to Mac, as I am their defat family/friend tech support. Phew life has got easier for both them and me
My father phoned my in a panick as something was not working the other day on his Mac Air... his Mac had frozen, he could not do anything or click anything... after about a minute I worked out his batteries in his wireless mouse had gone flat. Seriously, this is the about as bad as it has got. We have had an issue or two with running a few old DOS programs he still uses, so he had to succump to VMware Fusion which he runs from time to time. Even with this hurdle life seems much easier.
A friend of mine, a plumber, converted to a Mac several months ao - he's over the moon. He's running Entourage etc on Mac. He initially was worried that software he was running was PC only... with a little investigation he found that he could run everything natively on the Mac - Office, Mail, GPS software,,,, In his life before Mac, every few months I used to help him rebuild his PC from scratch as it came to a grinding halt. His poor Windows Machine suffered from Windows-bloat, a common nasty, the machine would slowly come to it's knees. We actually got good at this "refresh" and could do it over a few hours on a weekend. Imagine teaching each and every car owner to repair a head gasket?
On the other hand my mother inlaw went with a PC. The machine was cheaper but a year or so and the the thing as lamost ground to a halt. Takes many minutes to start up, do things etc Very very painful.
So, yes... look at the complete picture but be honest with how much time folk are going to spend fixing and waiting for the Macs vs PCs when you want to compare them.
My 2 cents on why windows machines are cheaper vs Mac: Mac tests most things (hardware, software...) working together... so the complete package is more fool proof. In general, Windows lets the periphal creator do it's own testing. The net result is a cheaper less robust Windows machine. So I'd pay a little more for the hardware, OS etc for a more robust system. So Microsoft... perhaps you need to think about this approach and providing better quality machines & peripherals for a higher cost?
3rd verse, same as the first two. Sing it with me:
"I had 3 Macs. 2 cracked. OSX crashes a lot for me, therefore it is universally bad. I know tons about video though! I learned it all at Wikipedia, the truthiest place on the the Internet"
"I build PeeCees that are so much more awesomer than Macs. You guys are so getting ripped off!"
I know the lyrics don't rhyme, but I'm still working on it.
Woops, OS X crashed again (well, the system preferences crashed).
I was changing my screensaver, picked a new one and checked "show with clock" and then I clicked the "Test" button. As soon as the test was done when I moved my mouse, I get the beach ball when my mouse is over the system preferences window. Wow.
EDIT: It crashes only if I select the screen saver as "ITunes Artwork"
I was changing my screensaver, picked a new one and checked "show with clock" and then I clicked the "Test" button. As soon as the test was done when I moved my mouse, I get the beach ball when my mouse is over the system preferences window. Wow.
EDIT: It crashes only if I select the screen saver as "ITunes Artwork"
I just built myself a "PeeCee" I'm retiring it to a Media PC here after I get my MacBook Pro. Total amount paid :$1200 Total Lifespan: 9 months... It was, at the time, top of the line, EVGA 780I - Q6600 - 4G ram - 512M Graphics - 1.25T of Storage. XP DRAGS on this machine, Started with Vista installed and while I was running Pro-Tools I would get "Out of Memory" errors every other time, XP is only half. Funny though, after XP yells at me I hit okay and then go back to mixing and it works... for the most part. I should have bought a Mac Pro instead of this... its a shame.
-Robb
-Robb
You should realize that you can't "film" people on the street and show them on national television night after night.
The "passers by" are actors or extras hired by the production crew. Yes, they should hire more extras or at least get them to the wardrobe trailer to change outfits between shots.
Did you know that Justin Long is not a Mac computer? He's actually a human being.
You know that pointing out logical flaws in the advert has no affect on the truth of its message. You don't get much choice with an Apple - whether or not there are continuity issues with the ad is irrelevant to that point.
I think a few pages back someone was calling Itunes "malware". Seems fitting....
I just pointed out a continuity flaw with the commercial that is surprisingly obvious. Relax man. I didn't say anything about the message of the advert in my post.
There is no reason to treat me like I'm a stupid *******. Justin Long is a human being. Really? Thanks for that.
Maybe you should take your condescending attitude to another forum.
It is an interesting attempt by MS to try to marginalize Apple.
That report perfectly parallels Microsoft: an utter lack of honest objectivity.
The good news is that by publishing that piece of trash, that "Roger Kay" has identified themselves for what they are: willing to do anything to make a buck.
And that price is relative to the duration of the utility.
Consider an HP laptop that costs $850 but only lasts 10 months before it fries its motherboard (based on a true story). Its a complete loss (no OEM Warranty), so its cost was roughly $85/month.
Now take a MacBook for $1100...okay, let it even have problems such that Apple has replaced it twice for free...but its now already lasted 18 months, so its cost is roughly $61/month - - and if it lasts for another month, it will drop to $58/month (and so on).
Assuming for sake of argument that OS X is "Nothing Special" for this user, given that his past experience incurred an expense of $85/month and his Apple experience is already down to $61/month, can we honestly say that the Mac was an "Overpriced rip-off" (sic)?
I have a T61 as well. Its sufficiently rugged, but I'm finding it to be a bit too inconveniently big/heavy...the T41p is 2lbs lighter which makes for a perceptible difference in business travel...just need to get it running again.
Glad to see that what I pointed out last week has finally been accepted by you.
The exterior stayed the same, as well as the philosophy of the layout, but the guts are predominantly "All New": new motherboard, new thermal analysis, etc.
Nevertheless, I agree from the aspect that I'm quite concerned about its cost point as well, particularly the SP version: my reading of the tea leaves is that it is based upon anticipation of a huge reduction in desktop sales volume, for which there's dramatically fewer units to amortize its fixed costs across...call it the "Incredible Shrinking Desktop Segment".
On the one hand, some people would argue that a huge amount of web-surfing occurs at work: within the USA, the day after the Thanksgiving Holiday is considered the first shopping day for Christmas and has been called 'Black Friday' for years, for the huge sales rung up on that one day ... and the more recent phenomenon is that the first workday after Thanksgiving is now called 'Cyber Monday' for the huge amount of internet sales (again for Christmas) rung up during the day - - which can effectively only be done by people doing their Holiday shopping from their Work PC.
Nevertheless, even if we ignore all that, for the target demographic of the home consumer seeking a computer to buy, then the browser stats are thus relevant. Ditto for if we're looking for metrics centric to a particular market segment, such as the US Consumer, EU Consumer, etc.
The basic point is that if we slave ourselves to only look at the aggregate sum "Worldwide" values, we would be forced to make interesting conclusions. For example, take any food analogy: from a worldwide perspective, roughly 40% of all of the calories consumed worldwide this week has to have come only from rice...so did you eat your 10lbs worth (cooked) share?
-hh
I dont have time to reply to the rest right now. This one caught my attention though.
I have a better question for you.
Can you find an Apple notebook with a Core 2 Quad? Because Newegg has quite a few notebook PCs running Core 2 Quads
I have a better question for you.
Can you find an Apple notebook with a Core 2 Quad? Because Newegg has quite a few notebook PCs running Core 2 Quads
I'm waiting for the first bit of information to leak on the internet of some of the actors being used in the commercials actually owning Macs. lol.. or being Microsoft employees, or family of Microsoft employees. No informed person is going to choose Windows.. but hey, these commercials will work on idiots. The perfect Microsoft customer!
Of course Macs are more expensive!!
Not exactly world shattering news is it? If you want quality (a property that is never mentioned here) then you must pay for it. PCs made with the same quality as the Apple product are very very close in cost to the equivalent Apple product. Apple provide a quality product that is reliable and straightforward to use; being a closed system makes this much easier. Microsoft have an impossible job to do: make a reliable piece of software work on a myriad of different hardware configurations that are built down to a price and not up to a quality. I tend to look at it this way, using cars as an example: You can buy a Pontiac with a 450 bhp engine for less than half the price of the BMW alternative. On the arguments given by Microsoft nobody would ever buy the BMW. However the BMW has a strong thriving market because some people, but not all, will pay for the quality (and the first person to suggest that you are paying for the name in a BMW has never driven one, or does not have the skills to tell the difference). I have both PCs and Macs. I have Macs because I can rely on them to work. The PCs are fun to play with but break very easily (every time an updates occurs for example...). "You pays your money and takes your choice". Me, I am glad I have a choice.
Not exactly world shattering news is it? If you want quality (a property that is never mentioned here) then you must pay for it. PCs made with the same quality as the Apple product are very very close in cost to the equivalent Apple product. Apple provide a quality product that is reliable and straightforward to use; being a closed system makes this much easier. Microsoft have an impossible job to do: make a reliable piece of software work on a myriad of different hardware configurations that are built down to a price and not up to a quality. I tend to look at it this way, using cars as an example: You can buy a Pontiac with a 450 bhp engine for less than half the price of the BMW alternative. On the arguments given by Microsoft nobody would ever buy the BMW. However the BMW has a strong thriving market because some people, but not all, will pay for the quality (and the first person to suggest that you are paying for the name in a BMW has never driven one, or does not have the skills to tell the difference). I have both PCs and Macs. I have Macs because I can rely on them to work. The PCs are fun to play with but break very easily (every time an updates occurs for example...). "You pays your money and takes your choice". Me, I am glad I have a choice.
So what, they are ads. Are there "stop the press" announcements if someone in a Toyota ad owns a Ford Escape Hybrid?
No, because most people will realize that ads are actors playing roles. (Justin Long is not a Mac, d'oh).
I have a better question for you.
Can you find an Apple notebook with a Core 2 Quad? Because Newegg has quite a few notebook PCs running Core 2 Quads
What's the battery life like on those quad notebooks ?
Yeah, I noticed that, too!
What ever happened to the year of hd that jobs promised, like 2 or 3 years ago?(side rant - maybe it was the same bull he was feeding the java developers when he said mac would be the best platform for java ever - yeah whatever jobs) Will we ever get blu-ray? It is really making me mad now!
No, the question is can YOU read? The guy said quite correctly that Blu-Ray *IS* compressed also. Now whether you want to believe it or not, I couldn't care less, but it shows how ignorant you are about Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray uses LESS compression than something like broadcast HD, but it definitely still uses compression. I don't know where you got the idea that it does not use it.
You insist Blu-Ray is choppy on a Mac, but there is NO support for Blu-Ray on OS X, so WTF are you talking about? How can it be choppy if it won't even play? If you play it through Boot Camp, it will use Windows drivers if you have them installed (you can use any Mac GPU Windows drivers with them; I have the Nvidia drivers for my MBP). Thus, it will play Blu-Ray just fine in Windows if you have a BD drive and a proper GPU (e.g. Mac Pro). If you are trying to play Blu-Ray in a virtualized Windows environment inside OS X then maybe it would be choppy, but can Windows virtualize OS X period? No. It's therefore a stupid comparison in the first place.
You seem to be totally ignorant of all things Mac and therefore seem to be here just to troll. I mean a successful troll at least needs to know what he's talking about or he just plain looks dumb.
For instance, you rave about X-Fi, but it's a Creative Labs mode on their newer soundblasters. Soundblasters aren't exactly my idea of a great basis for a high-end home theater. Frankly, I wouldn't use ANY processing inside my computer, but simply export the digital signal to a decent quality external piece of Hi-Fi equipment. Computers are too noisy an EF environment to be doing analog operations. My PC's sound card actually puts the equipment OUTSIDE the case (Game Theater XP) where it's not exposed to all that EF noise. But then I don't have any interest in using my PC for home theater. I have dedicated equipment and an AppleTV to receive my music library and DVDs around the house. If I was going to go BD, I'd get a dedicated BD player since you can't easily put them in your computer library at this point anyway.
BTW, Z-5500 speakers are toys. They cost less than even ONE of my satellite speakers in my 6.1 setup and my PSB speakers aren't exactly top of the line equipment. Even so, I've got almost $4000 worth of speakers in my home theater. The frequency response on my speakers are +/- 1db and +/- 3dB on the $1500 subwoofer. If your idea of "amazing bass" is based on those cheap Logitech speakers, I guess you'd be in for a rude awakening if you heard a really good system. My audiophile speakers are upstairs, though (2-channel music only system). They're $2000/pair ribbon speakers with a custom active crossover system and almost 500-watts per channel total into 4ohms.
You tout Windows Media Center for various things, but iTunes does most of those things already. Tuners aren't terribly useful if your feed is encrypted (i.e. it would be USELESS with my cable feed) so features that don't work don't matter (EyeTV for the Mac will do the same thing, though). I can easily watch other video feeds through my system even on my AppleTV through Xbox Media Center and Boxee (both are available for the Mac as well) and that mostly covers the other things you mention. My iPod Touch makes a better remote than any Harmony remote since it's a WiFi remote. Apple's only mistake was not including IR ports on it to handle regular equipment. Other than that, I see NOTHING else listed in your Windows Media Center brag list that's not available on my Mac or AppleTV. Yes, Apple needs to add support for Blu-Ray, but I do not would not use my computer to watch Blu-Ray regardless.
Can WMC rent HD movies off the Internet? Will it let me buy HD tv shows and music from an integrated store front? Will it connect to my iPods? Will it even READ integrated album artwork that has been around for years embedded in music files? Will it stream movies and music around the house like I can with iTunes + Airtunes and Apple TV devices? The answer to all of those is NO. So what exactly am I missing by not having WMC? Nothing.
Yes, iTunes is available for Windows also. I have nothing against Windows for the most part (other than endless amounts of viruses, spyware, etc. and the fact Vista is a major downgrade from XP) and I use it for gaming quite a bit both on a dedicated tower and my MBP can boot into XP. But this idea you seem to want to present that somehow shows OS X and/or Macs suck is based on ignorance and bologna. Try reading about a platform before you spazz off next time.
I would say it's more like X-Fi proves you have a $150 sound card and that your idea of "home theater" is more like a kindergartner claiming his big-wheel is a "car" and if you don't have a big-wheel, you don't have a car! LOL.
Go ahead. Keep making ignorant statements about Hi-Fi. I followed the audiophile scene for over 10 years. You seem to have spent about 10 minutes on it.
3 tries: three customers who settled...
What's so stupid about these ads is that in all three, the customer sets out to buy something. They then point out good things about Apples (so far we've learned that Macs are well made, are hip/cool, are stylish -- basically macs are something to aspire to). They then settle on a Windows machine that doesn't meet all of their needs either.
Now, they couldn't buy a Mac at any price that met those needs either, but that's not the point.
The cute woman: said she wants SPEED, 17", full-size keyboard. Settles for 2 out of 3 (no speed in that machine). Now, there is no Mac with a fullsized keyboard (if you count the number pad) but medoubts that Lauren uses the number pad.
The guy: wants power, portability and battery life. He settles for average power, marginal portability, and poor battery life. He can pay more for a better battery, but still less time than the Macs provide. And his machine is heavier, less portable (even the power adapter on the Mac laptops is compact and more portable).
The kid: wants a gaming machine and other features. Gets many of those other features, but not a gaming machine. There's nothing he can do to upgrade that computer to a gaming machine. Oh well, he's a spoiled kid who's getting a $1000 laptop to play games on, instead of an XBox or a Wii...
So, what does this say? It says that ALL computers are tradeoffs when your priority is cost. Low end Mac, low end Windows, doesn't matter. You are trading off unless you build it yourself. Why are there very cheap windows machines out there? Mostly because they are stuffed with very old technologies or very slow versions of current processors and chipsets. Might as well buy a used computer and save even more money if that's what you want, and if you buy a used high-end machine, you'll actually get more power and features! Buy a used MacBook Pro. Just make sure it has some AppleCare left on it...
What's so stupid about these ads is that in all three, the customer sets out to buy something. They then point out good things about Apples (so far we've learned that Macs are well made, are hip/cool, are stylish -- basically macs are something to aspire to). They then settle on a Windows machine that doesn't meet all of their needs either.
Now, they couldn't buy a Mac at any price that met those needs either, but that's not the point.
The cute woman: said she wants SPEED, 17", full-size keyboard. Settles for 2 out of 3 (no speed in that machine). Now, there is no Mac with a fullsized keyboard (if you count the number pad) but medoubts that Lauren uses the number pad.
The guy: wants power, portability and battery life. He settles for average power, marginal portability, and poor battery life. He can pay more for a better battery, but still less time than the Macs provide. And his machine is heavier, less portable (even the power adapter on the Mac laptops is compact and more portable).
The kid: wants a gaming machine and other features. Gets many of those other features, but not a gaming machine. There's nothing he can do to upgrade that computer to a gaming machine. Oh well, he's a spoiled kid who's getting a $1000 laptop to play games on, instead of an XBox or a Wii...
So, what does this say? It says that ALL computers are tradeoffs when your priority is cost. Low end Mac, low end Windows, doesn't matter. You are trading off unless you build it yourself. Why are there very cheap windows machines out there? Mostly because they are stuffed with very old technologies or very slow versions of current processors and chipsets. Might as well buy a used computer and save even more money if that's what you want, and if you buy a used high-end machine, you'll actually get more power and features! Buy a used MacBook Pro. Just make sure it has some AppleCare left on it...