Microsoft Remains on Offensive with 'Apple Tax' Report and Latest Laptop Ad

[flopticalcube]

Yes, because these adverts really are pointless compared to the shining pinnacles of knowledge that are the mac adverts.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think Apple went WAY too far with the "I'm a Mac" series and I agree that they have become cliched and pointless. I think, however, that MS's last few attempts have been rather bizarre and bewildering experiences. I guess they are keeping their advertising powder dry for Windows 7, which would be wise.

 

[ForceQuit]

That stops only 1 attack vector though. There's still a very big risk without the 9 months old patch that you will get infected throug the network (doesn't even need to be the Internet, one stray laptop on your unsecured wireless could do it).

Basically, updates/firewall/NATing/anti-virus. A combination of all those will help secure you from worms and viruses, even today. I know you've never claimed otherwise, but the few that do obviously just don't want it to be true because it is a good argument against Windows.

The problem with Windows is that it insists on having doors opened on the network (it's filesharing services, ports 137-139, 435) while Unix in general opens nothing and lets the administrator decide what it needs. By default, a Mac is not listening on any non-local network interface at all :

# netstat -an | grep LISTEN
tcp4 0 0 127.0.0.1.631 *.* LISTEN
tcp6 0 0 ::1.631 *.* LISTEN

Same goes for Ubuntu. You don't need network services that accept remote connections in order to surf the web and these should always come disabled by default.

Hey you two - get a room!! (JK)

 

[polaris20]

yes but alot of apps already do, even WINRAR and the xvid encoder can do multithreads, even if your app doesnt, at least it has a deticated CPU

windows does an excelent job in dividing cpu usage amoung cores, if your running 2 programs that need full cpu usage windows will assign them their own cpu and have your other processes spread evenly amoung the remaining 2

in the end your still getting more done by running things simultaniuosly more so than a dual core.

also the price diffrence, its cheaper to get a quad core than an apple dual core

Yeah, hence why I said not universally faster, and depending on what apps you have. Benchmarks have clearly shown that even within a model line less cores/greater clock speed are sometimes better than more cores/lower clock speed.

And if you could find me a quad core laptop that was less than 8 pounds and an inch and a half, that'd be super. Thanks.

 

[ryanrul]

Marco gives a great rundown of how the figures were padded:

"By omitting the ******** figures, his Mac premium shrinks from $3367 to $508. And if he’s making a supposedly comprehensive 5-year TCO report, I challenge him to include resale value at the end: What are two 5-year-old Macs worth? How about those PCs?

In addition to the heavily flawed figures, the writing is amateurish and inflammatory. Microsoft’s willingness to sponsor, publish, and promote this report speaks volumes about their integrity and dignity."

 

[Rob0711]

in germany there´s a saying (i don´t know if there´s an english version of it so i can only try to translate it) "don´t trust a study you didn´t fake yourself"
these are just ads. and in the u.s. advertisers are allowed a lot more than they are in europe either way.

 

[ikramerica]

4 cores at 2.4GHz is faster than a 2 core at 2.93 or even 3.2GHz, a dual core cannot outperform a 2.4GHz quad core unless its clocked over 4GHz (all core2duo 45nm)[/url]

While it might be true that a 4 core MAC would be faster than a 2.93 dual core MAC, there are problems with your argument.

Most Windows apps are not very multi-core efficient. Nor is the OS. So because so many programs would benefit most from a fast single core of their own, no, 4 cores on a PC are not by default faster than 2 faster cores on a PC for general use.

Mac OS X, as it stands now, is better optimized for multi-core processors. But even then, there are certain things that would run faster with a 2.9G dual core vs. a 2.4G 4-core. We see that on tests of the 3G iMac vs. the quad 2.6G Pro. All depends on what you are working on.

Quad core chips will come to the Mac laptops and iMacs relatively soon, as a new round of chips have been introduced by Intel. Part of the reason Macs don't always have the latest, greatest processors is because of things like heat and fan noise. The fastest Windows machines get very hot and very loud, and as part of their design philosophy and research, Apple has found that many people are willing to sacrifice bleeding edge speed for longer battery life and a cooler, quieter machine. My MBP never gets hot enough to burn me like many Windows machines do, and the fan, even when on full, is much quieter than most Windows laptop fans, some of which are on 24/7 due to poor heat management in the case design...

 

[ikramerica]

Marco gives a great rundown of how the figures were padded:

"By omitting the ******** figures, his Mac premium shrinks from $3367 to $508. And if he’s making a supposedly comprehensive 5-year TCO report, I challenge him to include resale value at the end: What are two 5-year-old Macs worth? How about those PCs?

In addition to the heavily flawed figures, the writing is amateurish and inflammatory. Microsoft’s willingness to sponsor, publish, and promote this report speaks volumes about their integrity and dignity."

And let's get real here. Where are the repair costs after year 3? Macs are quite expensive to repair, but so are Windows machines depending on the part, and people tend to just "buy a new one" so the replacement period, especially for laptops, is more like 3 years anyway.

As for resale: just look at the used prices for 4th gen iPod Classics on eBay to get a sense of how well Apple products (that are still working) retain their value.

Also, look at a working iBook G4 auction some time. Those things retain their value, too. Mac minis? Yep. Mac Pros? Yep.

Windows machines become disposable. That's partly because, with so many various iterations and models made by so many companies, it takes an expert simply to know which model they are buying and what it may be worth.

 

[rafdesign]

About quality of the components?

I am a mac person for over 15 years, I love he system, love the design. I am very careful with my macbook pro. But recently it just felt down 10 inches and it bends like...butter.
It works fine, but Apple want over $1000 to repair, saying the lower case needs to be changed as well the motherboard because the ethernet plug was a little bent.
So I found someone local who did the change, bought a lower case on Ebay and now it's fixed for less than $300.

So from that story I mean to say that: macbooks pros are not only pricey, but the quality of the components are not good. You should see how the inside is built: plastic tape to hold cables, poor connectors quality, nothing better than any PC. I don't care about a sexy case, if it's means a laptop that is not portable and too fragile. I think I'll keep buying desktop, but no more Mac laptops. And screw the Air macbook too, who cares to have a super light computer? make it 1 pound heavier and half price then I'll think about it.

My dream would be to run Mac OS X on a Dell or Sony.
That would be the worst nightmare for Microsoft and the best move for Apple.

 

[KnightWRX]

My dream would be to run Mac OS X on a Dell or Sony.
That would be the worst nightmare for Microsoft and the best move for Apple.

The Apple clone market is what almost killed Apple in the 90s. You said you've been using Macs for 15 years, you must remember the Microsoft deal and the darker years...

 

[polaris20]

Marco gives a great rundown of how the figures were padded:

"By omitting the ******** figures, his Mac premium shrinks from $3367 to $508. And if he’s making a supposedly comprehensive 5-year TCO report, I challenge him to include resale value at the end: What are two 5-year-old Macs worth? How about those PCs?

In addition to the heavily flawed figures, the writing is amateurish and inflammatory. Microsoft’s willingness to sponsor, publish, and promote this report speaks volumes about their integrity and dignity."

PowerBook G4 15"

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/stats/powerbook_g4_1.33_15.html

PowerMac G4 dual 2.5

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/stats/powermac_g5_2.5_dp.html

Most PC's aren't worth a damn after 5 years. Which is pretty cool, because you can pick up some decent machines for dirt cheap to use as servers and such.

 

[dmlogs]

in my opinion, performance is overrated. price/cost/warranty arguments are as well. i've given up trying to argue that os x > windows or any such argument. it comes down to personal preference and personal experience.

 

[AidenShaw]

Most Windows apps are not very multi-core efficient. Nor is the OS. So because so many programs would benefit most from a fast single core of their own, no, 4 cores on a PC are not by default faster than 2 faster cores on a PC for general use.

Mac OS X, as it stands now, is better optimized for multi-core processors.

Do you have test results for anything to prove these statements?

I find the claim that the Windows OS is not efficient with multi-cores to be a bit odd, since Windows 7 Server supports 256 CPUs from the same codebase as Windows 7 client. "Vista" Server (Win2k8) supports 64 CPUs.

For a few weeks Apple's had a 16-CPU system (8 cores).


Here's a phonecam picture that I took of a Windows system "Task Manager" display with 256 CPUs shown:

(Originally posted here at https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=6561145#post6561145)

 

[BMWFan]

Windows has much better multi-processor support. There was a article with benchmarks showing OS X not scaling well with multiple CPUs compared to Windows and Linux (Linux was the best).

The problem here is as usual marketing. Apple have this buzzwords like "gran central" that gets everyone excited and skews perception.

 

[Eidorian]

Do you have test results for anything to prove these statements?

I find the claim that the Windows OS is not efficient with multi-cores to be a bit odd, since Windows 7 Server supports 256 CPUs from the same codebase as Windows 7 client. "Vista" Server (Win2k8) supports 64 CPUs.

For a few weeks Apple's had a 16-CPU system (8 cores).


Here's a phonecam picture that I took of a Windows system "Task Manager" display with 256 CPUs shown:

I don't know where this "Windows can't handle multiple cores/CPUs" FUD came from.

XP handled them just fine and so does Vista. The applications are the ones that need to provide the support for scaling beyond a single thread. Process scheduling is Windows works just fine otherwise.

 

[aznguyen316]

Bzzzt, WRONG. Blu-Ray looks great and is neccessary if you have a high resolution display. I have a 22" 1080p monitor that I use for gaming and movie watching in my den. Blu-Rays look waaaay better than upscaled DVDs. FAIL.

Your whole argument is based on the old "screen size versus viewing distance" argument regarding how many pixels your eye can pick up. I'm not 10 feet from my 22" display. I'm not 10 feet from my notebook.

It even looks way better on sub-1080p monitors, such as the 1680x1050 displays that are popular (well, not on Macbooks, what's up with the lame 1440x900 resolution, but on every other 15"+ notebook that has 1680x1050). I have a 15" 1680x1050 Thinkpad with Blu-Ray; Blu-Rays look way better at 1680x1050 than upscaled DVDs. They look better on sub-1080p. They look better on small 1080p sets. They look better on large 1080p sets.

Of course, how would you know this -- you have a Mac with a low resolution display and incapability of playing Blu-Rays. Sounds like you don't have an HDTV either. Where do you get off saying something looks good or not when you don't have a display capable of it nor a player capable of reading the discs? Gotta love when someone who doesn't have something tells everybody else how lousy and unnecessary it is. Not like you tried Blu-Ray on your 1680x1050 Mac and decided it wasn't any good, is it?

Oh, and if you buy the Blu-Ray for your 70" TV, would you really want to have to buy the DVD too for playback on your notebook, or would you like to be able to play one disc everywhere?

And on the Porsche-VW thing? Be careful with analogies you don't fully understand. Ferdinand Porsche (and Adolf Hitler) designed the VW bug. The first Porsches (356, 911) were based on VW underpinnings. The Porsche 914 and 924 were designed for Audi (nee VW). The 914 was sold as both a Porsche and a VW. Even today Porsche is looking at a new 4 cylinder car based on VW underpinnings, shares the Cayenne with VW (Toureg) and Audi (Q6), and actually owns a majority stake in VW.

You don't know home theater. You don't know cars.



Wanna bet? Blu-Ray is already following in DVD's footsteps and is ahead of DVD at the same point in its lifespan. Blu-Ray is well on its way to being a household format.

No increased online bandwidth will ever be able to give me 50 mbps I get from Blu-Ray. ISPs are already capping the bandwidth we have now. You want to stream a live HD movie over the internet? Yeaaaaaaah.

Gone faster than Beta-Max? It's already 2 years old and sold 1 million discs of one movie in a single week.

Gone faster than Beta-Max? How's Apple TV doing?

Your arguments pwned. Good job! haha. Blu-ray kicks ass and yes I agree, streaming HD content is not going to be the wave of the future. I myself am lucky enough not to have a bandwidth cap under verizon, but I know a lot of other ppl that do and streaming three or four HD movies will put them over already, and that's 720P content! Also Blu-rays are dropping in price too, though I won't need bluray in my MB b/c my screen resolution only goes up to 800, so until I can get res higher than 1080P on my MB, I will be doing 720P. So I guess this is an argument against the commercial b/c I don't know of any laptops with that high of screen resolution anyway. Unless of course they use an external, and then might as well just watch it on the home HDTV.

I feel macs should adopt Blu-ray, til then I am buying them for use on home entertainment on my PS3 and downloading 720P rips to play on Front Row.

 

[janstett]

Oh, that hilarious argument ... again.

Every laptop manufacturer puts their logo on the lid of their system, be it Apple, Sony with the Vaio, HP, Dell, etc.

When you sit in said Coffee Shop (I don't drink coffee, for the record ... I have high blood pressure and can't drink anything with caffeine), and flip open that laptop, your logo is going to be "on display" regardless of who makes it.

What do you want Apple to do, cover up the logo to allow those engraved VAIO logos to stand out in the crowd?

Honestly, that's the biggest failure when it comes to an argument ... the old coffee shop analogy. It doesn't matter what manufacturer you have, when you sit down and flip that lid open, everyone who looks at your system is going to see a logo, regardless of who's it is.

Except Apple is the only one that allows precious LCD backlighting to escape to broadcast their logo in a glow. (Well, I've seen an old Alienware do that too).

 

[aznguyen316]

Except Apple is the only one that allows precious LCD backlighting to escape to broadcast their logo in a glow. (Well, I've seen an old Alienware do that too).

did they patent it or something?

 

[polaris20]

I don't know where this "Windows can't handle multiple cores/CPUs" FUD came from.

XP handled them just fine and so does Vista. The applications are the ones that need to provide the support for scaling beyond a single thread. Process scheduling is Windows works just fine otherwise.

It came with PR5user or whatever the hell his name is saying that more cores is always better than less cores at a higher speed, which isn't always true, no matter what OS you're talking about. Linux, OS X, and Windows do well with more cores, provided applications can take advantage of them. If you're running a single application that only utilizes one or two cores, higher clock speed is better. If you're running an app that can use as many cores as you can throw at it, or are running many apps at once, then of course more cores is better.

Somehow this got turned into "Windows doesn't handle multiple cores well" or "OS X is better for multiple cores". I don't know, because I didn't say it, nor do I believe one is drastically better than the other.

 

[ericinboston]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I think Apple went WAY too far with the "I'm a Mac" series and I agree that they have become cliched and pointless. I think, however, that MS's last few attempts have been rather bizarre and bewildering experiences. I guess they are keeping their advertising powder dry for Windows 7, which would be wise.

Also, have you noticed that MS has pretty much NEVER advertised on tv except for Windows95 about 15 years ago? Seriously. Sure, I think I saw 1 Windows XP commercial a few years ago but Apple has been advertising on tv a lot MORE and more OFTEN than MS in at least the past 15years...whether it's iPods, iPhones, Macs, Apple TV, or whatever.

MS typically hasn't had the need to advertise on tv (to the audience who doesn't/hasn't read a computer magazine or business magazine). MS has been advertising print ads since it's existence. TV's only avenue for MS is the audience that doesn't read tech magazines (PCMag, PCWorld, etc) or business magazines (CIO, Newsweek, etc).

I have yet to see these new MS ads on tv...wonder when they are airing.

As for other's statements on this thread that MS is afraid of Apple's whopping 6% marketshare (and may someday hit 10% if Apple plays its cards right), I don't think it's that simple. I think MS obviously blew it with Vista in a number of ways...nobody wants it. But I think they are timing these new commercials to get the tv viewers to notice MS...and then when MS starts advertising Windows 7 later this year (only a few months prob) then the MS logo and jingles will be more in the audience's head.

MS probably has more to fear from (from a business perspective) the Linux crowd than the Mac crowd...mainly because Linux has been open source and basically free (you still should pay for Support if you are a business) and the other (Apple) is crazily expensive and always has been nutty expensive. Businesses aren't going to adopt and roll out Mac servers by the truckload before they give up on MS and give up on Linux and give up on Sun and give up on IBM.

And until numerous (and large) businesses start shifting towards Mac servers and Mac desktops/laptops, the mainstream home user folks are not going to use a PC at work and a Mac at home...no matter how much you try to convince them that the apps are similar and the file formats are interchangeable, etc. I like the iMacs and laptops...mostly for their cute design...but spending 2-3x more money ain't my gig for what **I** use computers for. This and other threads has had heated battles over the price but I don't want to get into it again.


-Eric

 

[newb16]

What I love about these commercials is that Microsoft is probably doing us all a big favor in that maybe they can eventually shame (or due to actual loss in sales) Apple into lowering their prices. Let's face it. Their profit margins are way too high.

With low profit margins they'll end up like Dell. They've found their niche - computer for those who like mac os and can afford its hidden price - why change anything?

They could easily sell for hundreds less and still make money. Just offering a mid-range tower to compete with the most typical PC configuration for casual use and gaming would be a good start, though....

And then people begin to throw in it third-party cards, third pary drivers, kernel panics and blame Apple for this like all windows users do?

 

[aznguyen316]

With low profit margins they'll end up like Dell. They've found their niche - computer for those who like mac os and can afford its hidden price - why change anything?

Unfortunately, this is true. I paid the cost for the Mac b/c I like the OS and was willing to pay this cost. Granted they can't charge ANYTHING, but the cost they were asking wasn't outrageous to me, or else I would not have bought it. And the fact their market share continues to grow, why not make the bang for the buck and keep them around safely for the future. Shoot I've read several articles already saying Apple is beating the recession etc. Their model is obviously working.

 

[charlituna]

Apple has been silent in responding to these commercials. Wonder what they have up their sleeves.

I think that Apple has nothing up their sleeves. well nothing in direct reply to this ads.

consider. Apple takes the most often heard complaints about Windows and turns them into a series of ads basically saying "we aren't like this" and it gets Microsoft worried. Double when Vista blows up in their faces. So they hit with the only thing they can. Money. We are in a recession so they know that a lot of folks are price tag aware. They don't care if the specs are off, if the prices aren't correctly listed. The message is "these ordinary folks got what they wanted with a budget and it's not a Mac"

But have the ads really hurt Apple. Probably not. Maybe a handful of folks that were on the fence didn't hop over. but all those Mac heads that have been yelling for upgrades are likely flocking to get the new iMacs, the new software etc. They are downloading apps like crazy. the schools are still getting those bulk leases on computers for the labs. here in LA the studios are still buying/leasing those Mac Pro towers. I work at a mall and every day there are dozens of folks in the Apple store at least looking. but many come out with the computer, the phone or whatever

so why should Apple pull their focus off the phone and the apps and let Microsoft call them out. Especially when they know that they have a higher price. Its a fact. It's also a fact that many folks think it is worth the price and do buy Mac.

 

[Journojulz]

you realize i have not seen a windows laptop that didnt have a card reader? it has 1 hole that fits almost all the currently used memory cards (except for CF)

also a USB-SD reader takes up both slots on the mac because its too wide and apple decided to put the usb ports too close together.

I have a 2" USB extension lead that came free with the poundshop 4-way USB.

It's not exactly a dealbreaker.

If the only problem with a MacBook can be solved for £2, that seems worth the price really.

I have no problem with 'apple tax', just as I enjoy the benefits of "jaguar tax", or indeed "Havana club anejo" tax.

If you do the sums honestly, it rarely breaches 20%.

And i would pay that for anything I actually had to spend over 10 hours a week using.

Want to save money?
Go vegan, walk everywhere, sell your computers and join a library.

 

[ericinboston]

Unfortunately, this is true. I paid the cost for the Mac b/c I like the OS and was willing to pay this cost. Granted they can't charge ANYTHING, but the cost they were asking wasn't outrageous to me, or else I would not have bought it. And the fact their market share continues to grow, why not make the bang for the buck and keep them around safely for the future. Shoot I've read several articles already saying Apple is beating the recession etc. Their model is obviously working.

Disclaimer: I am not bashing Apple. I have owned and used Apple stuff all the way back to the //e I got in 1983 if I remember correctly.

You hit the nail on the head...Apple has found a niche. A niche. Niche's aren't 50% marketshare.

So if Apple (and it's loyal followers) are happy knowing that Apple never wants to own more than, oh, 15% marketshare of personal computers (and probably never more than 5% servers) than that's cool and I'm not raggin' on Apple. But all the developers of the world are going to write code for the 85% (assuming the 85% is still owned by 1 giant: MS) and then later write for the 15%...all about money my friends...you don't sell refrigerators to Eskimos. At least, not 85% of them.

I love my Mini but I paid HEAVILY for it (got it decked out at $1200) and I knew that going in and after lots of research. But I wanted it for the iMovie/iDvd...not really for the OS. iMovie, for me, hands down beats a lot of the movie software in the pc world (at least it did 3 years ago). The good side was that I was able to try all the pc software for free before switching to the Mini. If I didn't need to do any movie stuff, I never would have bought it. My wife now uses it all the time for iPhoto. But to me, iPhoto isn't worth getting a Mac. Plenty of freeware apps (and ones that come with our cameras) to organize a few hundred photos.


-Eric

 

[charlituna]

This commercial hit Apple for its failure to acknowledge and incorporate new technologies like Blu Ray.

i disagree. the ad didn't really do any such thing. it was a throwaway line. and it wasn't like all the PCs were said to have blu ray "but not the mac"

also, Apple has totally acknowledged Blu-ray. they are just choosing not to incorporate it because of a variety of reasons one of which is likely cost to the environment. Blu-ray disks require disk media, packaging, shipping etc costs that aren't needed by an HD digital copy. and they are working on such copies. right now their HD is still 720 in part because of filesize. when you can have a 1080 file at a reasonable size they will likely switch.