You're missing the point entirely.
The ad shows that Apple offers NO choice and is extremely overpriced.
Then it goes on to show that PCs offer EVERY option for EVERY budget.
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
You're missing the point entirely.
The ad shows that Apple offers NO choice and is extremely overpriced.
Then it goes on to show that PCs offer EVERY option for EVERY budget.
Wonder how many of these adds MS has made?
In this add they have a reasonable point about a cheap gaming machine. Each to their own.
In this add they have a reasonable point about a cheap gaming machine. Each to their own.
Why ?? But why are they still going on about ? Microsoft are not making computers anyway ! And everybody knows Vista is crap, just try it and it will crash within the first use.
That's my thought also. I'm thinking if I wasn't familiar with Macs and wanted a new laptop, then these ads would make me want to check them out.This is the biggest advertising Apple got for free, the Mac gets more attention than any other brand in these commercials.
That white paper about the "Apple Tax" is so full of holes it isn't even worth the time debating.
I didn't like the commercial, but they did bring out good points about the Blueray drive and lack of a $1500 apple with a larger (17"" laptop. The kid was annoying to watch however.
Apple needs to answer these ads in two ways.
1. They need to make more ads to educate the public about the extra features you get with a Mac & OS X instead of the PC. Things such as multitouch trackpads, magsafe, immunity to computer viruses need to be put before the general public. The walk in and get applecare should also be played up, maybe by going in to a store where the just bought a PC from the "Geek Squad" and asking them to fix the computer for free, then show them being pawned of to dell, acer, etc....
2. Ads are not enough on their own. They need to do some more innovating, They need to make the larger screen Macbook, without the expensive macpro features. They can still charge the "Apple Tax", but they need offer more than a $1000 small or $2000 large laptop.
It's time to match the Blueray drive option on a Mac. I know they want HD iTunes downloads to displace Blueray, but right now it's not the HD video standard.
I would love a minitower size mac that I could upgrade myself like a PC, but that is not the general market anymore. More laptops are sold than desktops, even if the laptop never leaves a person's house. They have the iMac, while not an ideal desktop for "computer geeks" is good for the layperson.
I didn't like the commercial, but they did bring out good points about the Blueray drive and lack of a $1500 apple with a larger (17"" laptop. The kid was annoying to watch however.
Apple needs to answer these ads in two ways.
1. They need to make more ads to educate the public about the extra features you get with a Mac & OS X instead of the PC. Things such as multitouch trackpads, magsafe, immunity to computer viruses need to be put before the general public. The walk in and get applecare should also be played up, maybe by going in to a store where the just bought a PC from the "Geek Squad" and asking them to fix the computer for free, then show them being pawned of to dell, acer, etc....
2. Ads are not enough on their own. They need to do some more innovating, They need to make the larger screen Macbook, without the expensive macpro features. They can still charge the "Apple Tax", but they need offer more than a $1000 small or $2000 large laptop.
It's time to match the Blueray drive option on a Mac. I know they want HD iTunes downloads to displace Blueray, but right now it's not the HD video standard.
I would love a minitower size mac that I could upgrade myself like a PC, but that is not the general market anymore. More laptops are sold than desktops, even if the laptop never leaves a person's house. They have the iMac, while not an ideal desktop for "computer geeks" is good for the layperson.
You mean to tell me that MS recouped all of the $4.5 Billion they lost up until the 360 started to turn a profit? I think not.
One of the better reasons not to choose Windows. It's an OS that soils itself. You will end up installing sooner or later cos the thing gets slower. When I install Vista I'm already thinking of this. I think at this moment I don't even have the Vista drive connected in my pc...
I just read the PDF from Microsoft regarding the Apple Tax over the life of the computer, and did nothing but laugh the entire way through it.
The only thing I do to my Mac through it's lifespan is:
At a push, over the life of this system, I will spend:
System: £612.47
4GB upgrade: £39.09
OS X Snow Leopard: £89.00
Applecare: £137.00
TOTAL: £877.56 ... which is still £71.44 cheaper than the current entry-level iMac 20" model offered by Apple just now.
You could re-write that PDF from an Apple point of view and make PC's more expensive by assuming, as Microsoft has done, that every PC owner buys Microsoft Office and updates to the recent version at every release, pays for anti-virus software, and buys extended warranties.
A PC, if you look over the lifespan of the computer, WILL come out more expensive due to the fact it's more easily upgradable and users WILL upgrade components. If you upgrade the GPU card, and are serious about gaming, then you're looking at around the £200 mark or more for a top end card.
Most PC owners I know also use free office software like Open Office and use free anti-virus software like AVG, unless their machine comes bundled with the overly intrusive Norton and they install it.
Sorry, but Microsoft spend money getting some bloke to research the long term cost of a computer, but ended up stereotyping and assuming. And, in business, you're always taught to "Never Assume ... because it makes an ass out of you and me".
The only thing I do to my Mac through it's lifespan is:
- Install more memory, depending on cost, as soon as the machine is bought. In the case of my 2.4GHz iMac it cost me £39.09 to upgrade from 1GB to 4GB, which is fantastic value for money.
- Install the latest version of OS X when it comes around. At a cost of £89 in the UK, again it's not breaking the bank.
- My latest iMac, a 2.4GHz C2D 20" Aluminum & Glass, cost me just £612.47 thanks to a corporate offer from the Royal Bank of Scotland. In comparison to ANY PC on the market right now in the UK, I'd take this Mac every single time as for little over £600 there's not a PC out there I would consider in place of this Mac.
- I don't buy the latest copy of iLife and do not use iWork. Whatever versions comes on my Mac is what I stick with. For serious work I use CS3, and given the cost of that software (on BOTH Windows and Mac), I won't be buying CS4 anytime soon.
- I've never bought Applecare before and I've owned 3 Macs previous to this one. I might however buy the Applecare warranty for this iMac, which costs £137 and can be bought before close of business on the 365th day of ownership. So no rush just yet.
- I don't pay for any Office software because I use perfectly good free open source Office software like Neo Office or Open Office.
- I don't pay for anti-virus software because I use iAnti-Virus.
At a push, over the life of this system, I will spend:
System: £612.47
4GB upgrade: £39.09
OS X Snow Leopard: £89.00
Applecare: £137.00
TOTAL: £877.56 ... which is still £71.44 cheaper than the current entry-level iMac 20" model offered by Apple just now.
You could re-write that PDF from an Apple point of view and make PC's more expensive by assuming, as Microsoft has done, that every PC owner buys Microsoft Office and updates to the recent version at every release, pays for anti-virus software, and buys extended warranties.
A PC, if you look over the lifespan of the computer, WILL come out more expensive due to the fact it's more easily upgradable and users WILL upgrade components. If you upgrade the GPU card, and are serious about gaming, then you're looking at around the £200 mark or more for a top end card.
Most PC owners I know also use free office software like Open Office and use free anti-virus software like AVG, unless their machine comes bundled with the overly intrusive Norton and they install it.
Sorry, but Microsoft spend money getting some bloke to research the long term cost of a computer, but ended up stereotyping and assuming. And, in business, you're always taught to "Never Assume ... because it makes an ass out of you and me".
I can't wait to see Apple's commercial against Microsuck I have a feeling it will be good.
Actually apple started it when they attacked Vista openly in their last ads.
I find it funny that Microsoft points out blu-ray as a major feature even though they supported HD-DVD. Also, I don't blame Apple for not incorporating Blu-ray into their computers yet. It is still a very new technology that a lot of people are still uncertain about. A lot of people don't want it and a lot of technology people still think it won't last. Blu-ray support can always be added, but if Blu-ray were to stop being produced tomorrow what good would that new Blu-ray drive in you Dell be?
Also, I support Blu-ray and so does Apple as a member of the Blu-ray Disc Association Board of Directors.
Also, I support Blu-ray and so does Apple as a member of the Blu-ray Disc Association Board of Directors.
These ads are getting tiresome already. They should think of something else. At least the Mac ads introduce a new topic each time.
The monetary argument just doesn't fly. Sure, you can get a windows machine for less money on day one, but you have to keep paying and paying after that for anti-virus software, uninstaller software, defrag software and then you have to pay the geeks to clean the machine when it gets bogged down with viruses anyway. My wife's friends go through this. About every 18 months they pay a few hundred dollars to get their machines cleaned up. Maybe if they were IT pros and ultracareful they wouldn't need this. Unfortunately for them they're just normal people.
The monetary argument just doesn't fly. Sure, you can get a windows machine for less money on day one, but you have to keep paying and paying after that for anti-virus software, uninstaller software, defrag software and then you have to pay the geeks to clean the machine when it gets bogged down with viruses anyway. My wife's friends go through this. About every 18 months they pay a few hundred dollars to get their machines cleaned up. Maybe if they were IT pros and ultracareful they wouldn't need this. Unfortunately for them they're just normal people.
Nice hardware, sure just a pity the windows operating system makes it a complete waste of time and money. Seriously that kid's mum talked about doing things quickly and then getting out the door, my friends laptop at the end of lessons to ages to shut down! I'm not exaggerating it really does! He even has slightly better specs then me too!
The problem with these adverts is that its using a companies hardware to advertise the software, if people are wanting a fast reliable machine but a tight budget go linux!!!
Quite a few of my friends who are gamers have bought the new Macbook, they have no hassle with it and find it great for gaming.
When I was looking to buy my laptop back in the summer, I looked at dells and Sony's but constantly fund that the difference in price for the same specs was about £50 some times more expensive on the pc in the case of a Sony. My dad has had a Sony for several years now and he never wants to have one again, due to all the copyright and protection stuff on there that blocks so much even if its legal!
They never really say what the mac has in these adverts they just quickly show about 5 seconds of someone touching it going oooo and then one quick statement 'its small'. They never tell you the specs like they do for pc.
And the saga of desperation continues, with Ballmer at the helm.
Life without Windows, since he's thrashed the walls
I swear, there must be a group of PC loving users out there that made a game of registering on macrumors simply to trash the mac. You see more and more of those quick jabs these days.
If you don't fall in that category, you have my sincere excuses, but I fail to see how someone who really believes in what you just posted would find the interest to register here in the first place. No offense intended.
The comment about the Xbox 360 being the only true Next Generation platform is the biggest piece of Microsoft propaganda going.
The Xbox 360 was the slowest in catching on to what was needed to be HD, and was behind from launch. At E3 2005 Peter Moore said that the 'blueprint' set aside by Microsoft was that every game should be in 720p HD. 1080p was never mentioned, despite the PS3's looming shadow consisting of true HD 1080p.
The 360 itself shipped with component only, not HDMI ... a major flaw recognised and bemoaned by the industry. It was only capable of 720p and Microsoft themselves said 1080p was "not required" until Sony hit back with their claim that "the Next Generation will start when we enter the market with true High Definition".
Microsoft then updated the 360 with a firmware patch to allow 1080p through VGA and then again through Component. They then denied the need for HDMI only to develop a new chipset (Falcon) with HDMI included and out the box 1080p support.
And then there's the lack of a next generation disc format, something the Microsoft fans have been spouting when comparing Mac's to PC's. The PlayStation 3 was Sony's Blu-Ray trojan horse and it worked. The PlayStation 3 is THE Next Generation platform in that it comes with Blu-Ray, 1080p, HDMI, and connectivity out the box.
I've owned every single system, some more than once (thanks Microsoft), and even though I no longer own any of them due to boredom (Gears of War 2 was nothing but Gears of War 1.5 ... massive let down), I still follow the industry closely.
The Xbox 360 was the slowest in catching on to what was needed to be HD, and was behind from launch. At E3 2005 Peter Moore said that the 'blueprint' set aside by Microsoft was that every game should be in 720p HD. 1080p was never mentioned, despite the PS3's looming shadow consisting of true HD 1080p.
The 360 itself shipped with component only, not HDMI ... a major flaw recognised and bemoaned by the industry. It was only capable of 720p and Microsoft themselves said 1080p was "not required" until Sony hit back with their claim that "the Next Generation will start when we enter the market with true High Definition".
Microsoft then updated the 360 with a firmware patch to allow 1080p through VGA and then again through Component. They then denied the need for HDMI only to develop a new chipset (Falcon) with HDMI included and out the box 1080p support.
And then there's the lack of a next generation disc format, something the Microsoft fans have been spouting when comparing Mac's to PC's. The PlayStation 3 was Sony's Blu-Ray trojan horse and it worked. The PlayStation 3 is THE Next Generation platform in that it comes with Blu-Ray, 1080p, HDMI, and connectivity out the box.
I've owned every single system, some more than once (thanks Microsoft), and even though I no longer own any of them due to boredom (Gears of War 2 was nothing but Gears of War 1.5 ... massive let down), I still follow the industry closely.
While I don't think that Blu-ray should be a standard component, I think that it should be an option available to people who want to purchase it. Right now on Leopard you are out of luck, even if you plugged in a USB drive.
Microsoft's commercials don't have the flare that Apple's do, but the message they are trying to deliver to their customers is 'choice' and this has been very apparent in all three commercials so far, despite the legitimacy of what actually took place in the commercial (referring to Lauren's).
You take Lauren's commercial and it was a stab at Apple not offering anything for $1000 or less besides a basic Macbook with next to nothing. You look at Giamp... oh hell I'm not even going to attempt to spell that name correctly ... ad and while styling was what most people heard in that commercial, he also subtly referenced the fact that he viewed most Macs as being remotely the same in terms of specs, despite all costing different amounts, which is something I'd have to say I agree with. And finally, the last app reminds customers that Apple offers no Blu-Ray support and obviously gaming is not really an option at all.
For a lot of people, especially the Blu-Ray part, that will be pretty huge. If you've started building up a Blu-Ray collection, why not own a laptop that also has the drive? Saying the VAIO is good for gaming, though, is a bit of a stretch, as I'd rate the cards available in the VAIO and Macbook remotely on the same playing field in that they both suck for gaming. You'd be lucky to play most modern games at 1280x800 with low settings on any card that Apple and Sony provide. If you're a casual gamer I suppose that's not really a big deal, but if you play even slightly more than casual you wouldn't be grabbing a VAIO or a Sony.
You'd probably be looking more along the lines of Alienware and even for about $2000 you can get a pretty solid system with a 9800GT or better. Granted, battery life is not going to be anything (2-3 hours max while gaming), but then again, that's not the point of that laptop. You aren't going to be playing games on a battery. You just want to take it with you so when you get to the hotel you can plug in and play and any idiot in here that actually took a shot at battery life in regards to a gaming laptop is not only an idiot, but also shows that he doesn't play games because GAMERS AREN'T LOOKING AT BATTERY LIFE ON A NOTEBOOK BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW THEY INTEND TO USE THE DAMN MACHINE.
Overall, though, don't expect Apple to particularly respond in terms of price (as I saw a few comments) because the Apple tax (much in the same way there is definitely a Sony tax) will always exist because you're mainly paying for the quality. Sony and Apple build their products arguably in the same fashion, with high quality materials and unmatched screens. They don't have the highest specs, but they will run better than their competitors and to take the side of Sony and Apple as I'm sure they'd argue, MOST PEOPLE (I'd say anyone that doesn't do a ton of video editing/encoding/etc.) do not need a Core i7 and having it is simply just to say you have it. Even a Core 2 Duo 2.4 is overkill for most people. Plus, if you actually think you'll notice an improvement 'browsing the web' on a Core i7 you're highly mistaken. You'll only notice the extra performance boost with applications that are specifically designed to take advantage of multiple cores, which right now are only a very small select amount of higher end games and mostly video/image editing software for professionals. For everyday use, a Core i7 is 100% unnecessary.
I just laugh at anyone who browses the web and goofs around in hacked versions of Photoshop and uses that as an excuse to buy a Mac Pro because he wants the better processor because you have no clue how much of a waste of cash that was for you. But go ahead and continue to be oblivious.
On the flipside, if you are one of those users that actually understands what the power behind the higher end machines and more importantly "actually needs it" then yea, sometimes being an Apple fan will suck because you're only choice will be a Mac Pro, which while being highly powerful is still extremely expensive in comparison to a similar spec'd Windows counterpart.
You take Lauren's commercial and it was a stab at Apple not offering anything for $1000 or less besides a basic Macbook with next to nothing. You look at Giamp... oh hell I'm not even going to attempt to spell that name correctly ... ad and while styling was what most people heard in that commercial, he also subtly referenced the fact that he viewed most Macs as being remotely the same in terms of specs, despite all costing different amounts, which is something I'd have to say I agree with. And finally, the last app reminds customers that Apple offers no Blu-Ray support and obviously gaming is not really an option at all.
For a lot of people, especially the Blu-Ray part, that will be pretty huge. If you've started building up a Blu-Ray collection, why not own a laptop that also has the drive? Saying the VAIO is good for gaming, though, is a bit of a stretch, as I'd rate the cards available in the VAIO and Macbook remotely on the same playing field in that they both suck for gaming. You'd be lucky to play most modern games at 1280x800 with low settings on any card that Apple and Sony provide. If you're a casual gamer I suppose that's not really a big deal, but if you play even slightly more than casual you wouldn't be grabbing a VAIO or a Sony.
You'd probably be looking more along the lines of Alienware and even for about $2000 you can get a pretty solid system with a 9800GT or better. Granted, battery life is not going to be anything (2-3 hours max while gaming), but then again, that's not the point of that laptop. You aren't going to be playing games on a battery. You just want to take it with you so when you get to the hotel you can plug in and play and any idiot in here that actually took a shot at battery life in regards to a gaming laptop is not only an idiot, but also shows that he doesn't play games because GAMERS AREN'T LOOKING AT BATTERY LIFE ON A NOTEBOOK BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW THEY INTEND TO USE THE DAMN MACHINE.
Overall, though, don't expect Apple to particularly respond in terms of price (as I saw a few comments) because the Apple tax (much in the same way there is definitely a Sony tax) will always exist because you're mainly paying for the quality. Sony and Apple build their products arguably in the same fashion, with high quality materials and unmatched screens. They don't have the highest specs, but they will run better than their competitors and to take the side of Sony and Apple as I'm sure they'd argue, MOST PEOPLE (I'd say anyone that doesn't do a ton of video editing/encoding/etc.) do not need a Core i7 and having it is simply just to say you have it. Even a Core 2 Duo 2.4 is overkill for most people. Plus, if you actually think you'll notice an improvement 'browsing the web' on a Core i7 you're highly mistaken. You'll only notice the extra performance boost with applications that are specifically designed to take advantage of multiple cores, which right now are only a very small select amount of higher end games and mostly video/image editing software for professionals. For everyday use, a Core i7 is 100% unnecessary.
I just laugh at anyone who browses the web and goofs around in hacked versions of Photoshop and uses that as an excuse to buy a Mac Pro because he wants the better processor because you have no clue how much of a waste of cash that was for you. But go ahead and continue to be oblivious.
On the flipside, if you are one of those users that actually understands what the power behind the higher end machines and more importantly "actually needs it" then yea, sometimes being an Apple fan will suck because you're only choice will be a Mac Pro, which while being highly powerful is still extremely expensive in comparison to a similar spec'd Windows counterpart.
Xbox 360 financially successful?
Don't get me wrong. I'm a 360 fan to the death, but has Microsoft's gaming business unit really recovered from the financial strain of all those Red-Ring-of-Death replacements? i don't think they're completely out of the red yet(no pun intended).
Don't get me wrong. I'm a 360 fan to the death, but has Microsoft's gaming business unit really recovered from the financial strain of all those Red-Ring-of-Death replacements? i don't think they're completely out of the red yet(no pun intended).
Best of the 3 so far, but I still feel Microsoft is missing the mark. They should be focusing more on the "choice" aspect. I love Apple, but choice is where they really fail for many...
Something more the the effect of...
Want Blu-Ray?
Want a Large Screen for easier reading (not necessarily just a higher resolution screen)?
Want a non-glossy screen?
Want a computer with a bulit in card reader?
Want a computer with a built in fingerprint reader?
Want HDMI?
Want eSATA?
Want eight billion USB Ports?
There are many PC's that can give you that choice - Mac's don't.
oh yeah, and you can run Windows on a Mac too...
Something more the the effect of...
Want Blu-Ray?
Want a Large Screen for easier reading (not necessarily just a higher resolution screen)?
Want a non-glossy screen?
Want a computer with a bulit in card reader?
Want a computer with a built in fingerprint reader?
Want HDMI?
Want eSATA?
Want eight billion USB Ports?
There are many PC's that can give you that choice - Mac's don't.
oh yeah, and you can run Windows on a Mac too...
Perhaps the greatest selling point for switchers - a choice PC users do not have.
I'm here to get up to date info on my iphone that I love. I would like to love their macs also but I just can't pay that much for glossy plastic.