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

[Anuba]

The Apple clone market is what almost killed Apple in the 90s.

Well, it wasn't the only thing that nearly killed Apple (they also had no software other than the OS), but it was a big part of it. But the clone ghost argument doesn't hold up anymore because the premise is totally different.

Back in the clone days, Apple had nothing except the computers. Today they're in at least five businesses at once (computers, software, cellphones, portable music/video players, music/movie sales) and the company would be able to survive somehow (I said survive, not remain unchanged) even if you sawed off four of those branches.

Also, since Mac evangelists generally argue that...

- PC hardware is junk that lasts a year, tops
- PCs are butt ugly
- PC manufacturers have horrible support and service
- Mac software-hardware integration is unsurpassable
- It's worth the premium / it's the experience that matters, not the price

...why would they suddenly run out and buy Mac clones?
You're saying they DO care about the price, after all?
Or maybe you're saying that a substantial part of the user base doesn't feel that PC hardware is any worse?

 

[AidenShaw]

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.

Yep.

 

[Journojulz]

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.

Where iphoto really comes in to it's own, is how it fits into the other products.

Scrubbing through the photos in a folder is neat,but it's when you start making iWeb galleries and uploading straight from an iphone - then it becomes really useful.

The joy of mac is how it works together,

Like making a tune in garageband I'd movie in imovie -then one button will share it with iWeb and 1 button will publish it.

It's not that if all works, but that it all works together.

That is why I love mac.

 

[briansolomon]

These ads have taught me that modern america is apparently a tasteless barren wasteland of empty concrete carparks and warehouse megastores.

That's about right.

 

[skaertus]

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.

Microsoft ads are not necessarily anti-Apple, as Apple ads are not necessarily anti-Microsoft. They're both about their own corporate culture. I doubt somebody will buy a PC instead of a Mac just because of the "Laptop Hunters" ad. And someone has to be seriously naive to completely believe in the "Get a Mac" ads.

Microsoft's strategy with these ads is the same one as with the ones with Jerry Seinfeld. The philosophy behind those ads is "Windows is for everyone, we don't distinguish people, we have something for everybody, we're inside both cheap and powerful computers, we connect people, life without walls, etc". Apple is not getting hurt with that at this point. At least not directly hurt.

 

[skaertus]

If I had a dollar for every time I've been late for baseball because my computer looked up things too slowly.

These ads have taught me that modern america is apparently a tasteless barren wasteland of empty concrete carparks and warehouse megastores.

I could bet these tasteless things on these ads are just on purpose. What about the ad with both Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld on the shoes store? Disgusting... but perhaps useful to build a connection between Windows and real life.

 

[Journojulz]

Or maybe you're saying that a substantial part of the user base doesn't feel that PC hardware is any worse?

I think you are right. Most people here think the top 10-15% of of hardware is up to the task. (even if they are almost entirely butt-ugly in comparison)

The problem is like you say - lack of integration.

There is no one man charged with making sure every aspect of the os is tuned to the hardware and vice versa.

The results are at best a compromise.

 

[Journojulz]

That's about right.

Google 'a short history of America' by Robert crumb.

Beautiful and sad.

 

[polaris20]

Come on slackers!! We're at less than a thousand posts on this one!! Is that the best you can do??!!!

We need a good Mosx multi-quoter, followed by a response in multi-quote. No wait, that's still only two posts.

 

[Anuba]

Microsoft ads are not necessarily anti-Apple, as Apple ads are not necessarily anti-Microsoft. They're both about their own corporate culture.

Yup. Some important clues are found in this exchange between Jobs and Gates in 2007:

Steve: You know, Apple was in very serious trouble. And what was really clear was that if the game was a zero-sum game where for Apple to win, Microsoft had to lose, then Apple was going to lose. But a lot of people’s heads were still in that place.

Kara: Why was that, from your perspective?

Steve: Well, a lot of people’s heads were in that place at Apple and even in the customer base because, you know, Apple had invented a lot of this stuff and Microsoft was being successful and Apple wasn’t and there was jealousy and this and that. There was just a lot of reasons for it that don’t matter.

But the net result of it was, was there were too many people at Apple and in the Apple ecosystem playing the game of, for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. And it was clear that you didn’t have to play that game because Apple wasn’t going to beat Microsoft. Apple didn’t have to beat Microsoft. Apple had to remember who Apple was because they’d forgotten who Apple was.

So to me, it was pretty essential to break that paradigm. And it was also important that, you know, Microsoft was the biggest software developer outside of Apple developing for the Mac. So it was just crazy what was happening at that time. And Apple was very weak and so I called Bill up and we tried to patch things up.

Bill: And since that time, we’ve had a team that’s fairly dedicated to doing the Mac applications and they’ve always been treated kind of in a unique way so that they can have a pretty special relationship with Apple. And that’s worked out very well. In fact, every couple years or so, there’s been something new that we’ve been able to do on the Mac and it’s been a great business for us.

Steve: And it’s actually–the relationship between the Mac development team at Microsoft and Apple is a great relationship. It’s one of our best developer relationships.

I think that Steve and Bill are chuckling at eachother's ads for the most part. It may look like a war from the grassroot level.

 

[twoodcc]

at least it wasn't an HP again this time.

 

[Anuba]

I think you are right. Most people here think the top 10-15% of of hardware is up to the task. (even if they are almost entirely butt-ugly in comparison)

The problem is like you say - lack of integration.

There is no one man charged with making sure every aspect of the os is tuned to the hardware and vice versa.

The results are at best a compromise.

Right. But even assuming that allowing OS X to be installed on non-Apple hardware would cut Mac sales in half initially, they'd still have the iPod/iPhone/Apple TV/iTunes Store sales, they would have a boom in software sales (both the OS itself and all their applications), the OS X install base would explode, garnering tremendous interest from 3rd parties who didn't bother to make software (or hardware drivers) for Mac before, and somewhere down the road -- if Mac hardware is indeed so much better than all PC hardware out there -- Mac sales would not only recover, but even grow, thanks to all the new OS X users who are hooked on something they never thought they'd like, and now they want the bona fide hardware, too.

 

[Eidorian]

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.

Dual vs. quad depends on the application. Intel introduced Turbo Boost to increase raw clock speed if an application was single threaded. Personally I'm going to lean toward quad.

 

[neemer5]

So basically this commercial, factual or not, is pushing that Apples put style over substance, along with a price penalty.

Given all the pounding Apple has been giving PC in the past few years when it comes to advertising, I'm actually glad PC finally is making good commercials with arguments that stick.

Why? Because all this does is benefit the consumer, regardless of computer choice.

 

[Journojulz]

-- Mac sales would not only recover, but even grow, thanks to all the new OS X users who are hooked on something they never thought they'd like, and now they want the bona fide hardware, too.

I see the advantages - but also the pitfalls.

Imagine the demand for call centre
tech support due to homemade machines not quite built to mac standards.

Jobs was right - know who you are.

 

[theimacdude]

By games, I think the kid just wants internet flash games, as a Vaio isn't a PC meant for gaming, they would have said about graphic cards etc.

 

[Journojulz]

So basically this commercial, factual or not, is pushing that Apples put style over substance, along with a price penalty. .

Not quite, they say there is price to be paid for style, but they say little about substance.

 

[KnightWRX]

...why would they suddenly run out and buy Mac clones?
You're saying they DO care about the price, after all?
Or maybe you're saying that a substantial part of the user base doesn't feel that PC hardware is any worse?

Not this again. The iMac and Mac Mini are well priced in their markets. The MB and MBP are competing against higher end models, though more and more low-end notebooks are now shipping with the features that Apple was shipping last year (gigabit, 802.11n, displayport)

Anyway, more to point, Apple sells you an experience. They hand pick the hardware, they make sure it runs best in OS X and then they sell it to you. Yes some slip ups happen but they are fixed or recalled and it's not like there's any perfect company in electronics and computers today. If they somehow allowed other people to sell OS X pre-installed, they just killed this experience. They suddenly have no control over the hardware, no QA over the integrated solution and are at the mercy of a 3rd party, who might cheap out on hardware. They don't want this, they don't want to be another Microsoft. They tried this once, and it failed them because they didn't have a Monopoly on operating systems they could leverage like Microsoft does.

EDIT: And I see Jobs agrees with me, I saw that interview and he's basically saying the same thing. They are happy being a niche player that can offer a certain level of quality. People buy this and even though some people might want to buy into it and whine they can't afford it, Apple doesn't want to cater to these people, let them buy PCs.

 

[BMWFan]

If they somehow allowed other people to sell OS X pre-installed, they just killed this experience. They suddenly have no control over the hardware, no QA over the integrated solution and are at the mercy of a 3rd party, who might cheap out on hardware.

Except this already happens. Remember the issues with the nVidia cards?

 

[parapup]

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

I bet you a buck you will not find any sane, properly substantiated test results that prove anything even similar to the claim the OP made.

People talk about Windows like everyone is still using Windows 98 when the fact is that Windows NT kernel (upon which every OS after NT -2000, XP, Vista, 7- is based) is a _very_ well designed piece of scalable software.

Remember NT was designed by Dave Cutler - probably the only person on earth who has designed *several* operating systems! Remember also that Windows has to work with lot more hardware than Macs - and that it does acceptably well with all sorts of crazy hardware and that it has nearly 50% of Server market share (where scalability is of paramount importance) is testimony to the good/scalable design.

You may have your reasons to use Macs or PCs (posting this from a MBP) but technical superiority of Mac OS is not one of them.

In other words, OP just drank the marketing cool-aid - would not blame him for that though - many do!

 

[KnightWRX]

Except this already happens. Remember the issues with the nVidia cards?

I covered this in my posts and it's impossible to be perfect in this business. They have a greater control of it though, being able to put pressure on the manufacturer or switch if they're unhappy with the resolution. 3rd party OEMs would just result in calls to Applecare for phone support on the OS that might be related to hardware problems they can't fix. This would be bad for the experience and would result in harm to Apple's image. They just don't want this.

 

[-hh]

I was commenting on the people who are basing arguments on specific features - such as weight, battery life and size.

The general theme of that criticism wasn't as much a bashing of specific features, but rather that the "Customer" said that they wanted "A" but then bought "B". An example being a desire for 'portability' (A) whereas the result was (B): a heavyweight with poor battery life.

Some people (say on-location photographers or musicians) might value power above all else - so a 6 kg quad-core system with 1 hour battery life might be *just* what they want.

With a large enough statistical sample, you'll cover every number on the Roulette Wheel, including Green "00". Given that you're at least inferring a 'serious' (if not pro) level, the simple reality is that the laptop probably isn't their most expensive piece of gear.

FWIW, my one camera carry-on bag packs out in the upper/mid-20lb range before I throw the laptop in its pocket. Going to a small/light laptop is an easy way to cut weight without really sacrificing important features and something like a MacBook is about the same price as one lens.

I carry my laptop to/from work, on planes and meetings, so about 2 to 2.5 kg is what I look for. I also don't want a big screen.

I made the mistake of a 7lb widescreen. Never again.

Choice is good though. I'm glad that laptops that I'd never buy are available.

I'm not glad: such excessive choice means that they all cost a bit more because the fixed costs of setting up the production lines gets fewer units to amortize it across because there's always a non-zero amount of cannibalization where volume is lost to all those minor variations. Everyone ends up paying more, even though most doesn't recognize it as such.


-hh

 

[Trajectory]

It will never end, will it?

 

[rish]

Sarcasm right?

Come on slackers!! We're at less than a thousand posts on this one!! Is that the best you can do??!!!

We need a good Mosx multi-quoter, followed by a response in multi-quote. No wait, that's still only two posts.

Let us hope the moderators close this one down. We appear to be going around in circles now. Besides this is now boring.

 

[BMWFan]

I covered this in my posts and it's impossible to be perfect in this business. They have a greater control of it though, being able to put pressure on the manufacturer or switch if they're unhappy with the resolution. 3rd party OEMs would just result in calls to Applecare for phone support on the OS that might be related to hardware problems they can't fix. This would be bad for the experience and would result in harm to Apple's image. They just don't want this.

You ignore the fact that like PCs, 3rd party OEMs will have their own warranty services. Applecare has nothing to do with it.