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.
New Microsoft Ad Campaign Targets Mac Prices
- Thread starter donga
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
Now #2, only 1733 more...
It's now the all-time #2, only 1733 more posts needed.
Microsoft's hit a home run with this ad - I can't wait to see more in the series...
Maybe by 16:00 UTC tomorrow this will be the #1...
It's now the all-time #2, only 1733 more posts needed.
Microsoft's hit a home run with this ad - I can't wait to see more in the series...
Maybe by 16:00 UTC tomorrow this will be the #1...
Yes I agree 'each to his own', and i also think this ad is much better than the "I'm A PC" ad that was out a while ago (which was a load of crap), BUT i think the reason we campaign against this is because the world mainly revolves around windows, we are trying to win back what was stolen from us right at the beginning when the Mackintosh was being created, and microsoft stole from Mac.
An Apple computer may be expensive, but you are paying for computer, os, and software. There isn't an alternative in the windows orientated PC world, and as a result it is very difficult to find direct competition.
If you want to look at OS, Microsoft charges huge amounts for their OS for reasons that i think are difficult to justify. Why are there 7 versions of windows vista, I know it could be argued it gives customers a choice, but it doesn't really it is more of trap as, if the customer wants more, they have to pay up to £180 for Vista Ultimate, where you get everything you are promised in the £80 mac os x leopard. And even when you include iLife it is still less than Vista Ultimate at ~£140.
With Hardware.... i do think there are prices that are highly questionable in Mac's hardware range..... but, i believe it is justified by the usability of the Mac.... even with my networked HP printer which Microsoft needs a driver for, my mac could go without a driver and it would work perfectly. And where updates are questioned, if you compare OSX 10.5.1 to Vista (with no service pack) i believe Leopard would win.
Yup and the front side bus or if it has one the integrated memory controller makes more difference anyways. DDR3 is wasted if its on a crappy bus speed, even ddr2 surpasses it if its running on a memory controller like the AMD chips do. I bet ddr2 on a high front side bus like 1600mhz is probably faster than the 1066 fsb with ddr3 as well. This benchmark is a few years old but the front side bus on the core 2 is the same as then what the macbooks use, 1066. It shows that increasing the memory's speed without increasing the frontside bus doesn't really make a difference in memory performance. If anything the ddr3 chips will perform less well at 1066 because they have higher latency. The memory controllers on nehalem and on more modern amd chips are much more mature and have even better memory performance on the same memory chips as well.
If that's an issue you can always buy a Dell XFR, military-grade laptop with ballistic armor enclosure. Ingress Protection rating 65 basically renders it waterproof, and you can run over it with a truck. Works in -60°F to 205°F (-51°C to 96°C).
Even their regular laptops are available with shock mounted hard drive.
Try dropping a unibody Mac from 6 feet on a stone floor and see if there's anything left of the trackpad, the screen glass or the hard drive... oh that's right, it gets scratched if you as much as look at it funny. Like iPods and iPhones and everything else they make.
Thank you. Well put. I have the same problem with peoples opinions about cars. My wife and I have owned 5 VWs over the years. They have all lasted many trouble free years with very high miles, over 200,000. On the car boards, VWs are trashed as unreliable, but my personal experience is opposite of that. What does that mean? Not much.
The ad works well and must have been done in concert between HP and Microsoft. I would not buy a PC, but I can waste my money any way I see fit
Most people have no idea what's inside a computer and could care less. I don't blame them. There are many more important things in the world to worry about, unless you really need the power of a high quality machine, then more power to you.Surviving the glass of wine just happened to happen, i doubt you just happened to drop your laptop a pool, or drive over it, that is incredibly unlikely to happen.... bumping a glass of wine is believable
People are not brainwashed for buying what they want. As with anything in the world if you want to buy something expensive then either earn the money or don't get it.
You prioritize what you want in your own life. Just because you make one decision it doesn't mean other peoples decision was wrong.
I am happy to pay the extra for the machine i want and i know others who are happy to save money by buying a cheap pc.
+1
The fact that so many people are talking about it, and so many fanboys as scared to death of MS fighting back, just proved how effective this ad really was.
I still believe Ballmer is behind most of this. Iirc, Bill wasnt around much for windows 7 planning, most of it was done by Ballmer, and it looks like we are getting a sweet OS from MS. Bill's ads sucked, but now that he is gone they are making ads that at least get people talking. If Ballmer takes over MS we could see some great thing come out of them.
It's funny how people are brainwashed by advertising and don't realise, the physical dimensions of the screen doesn't matter.
The 699$ HP has a lower resolution and thus less screen realestate. Also, you'll have less PPI and thus the screen will appear less sharp, more pixelated.
Basically, 17" doesn't tell the whole story and people need to stop focusing on that spec as if it means anything.
Yes.
My point was that Macs aren't exactly rugged, though. The unibody construction is good because it's rigid and has fewer openings where moist and dust can find its way in, and that's great...
But... Apple has this amazing way of making things that will look banged up after very gentle treatment, forcing people to buy weird rubber skins and other protective gear. Lord knows how many Nokia and Sony Ericsson cellphones I've owned over the years, and they never got scratched up or worn. Then I bought a 1st gen iPod Nano, and after 2 days it looked like it had been used as a skating rink for the NHL playoffs, and all I did with it was put it in my pocket (free from coins and keys). It got more scratches even from wiping it with a soft cloth!
I don't have any portable Mac, but my friend has an MBA and it looks terrible. Again, it hasn't been through much and rarely leaves his home, but the bottom of it looks like a Samurai used it to sharpen his sword. This is just from things like moving it on the table without picking it up...
Microsoft tax
Having to put up with a clearly inferior,less stable/intuitive (for non-commercial/heavy gamer usage) operating system, generally ugly hardware (especially at the lower end), and the reality of a world strewn with viruses and spyware that can't wait to begin to take over your machine. That is a very high tax,indeed.
Having to put up with a clearly inferior,less stable/intuitive (for non-commercial/heavy gamer usage) operating system, generally ugly hardware (especially at the lower end), and the reality of a world strewn with viruses and spyware that can't wait to begin to take over your machine. That is a very high tax,indeed.
Yes and no. The chick had glasses, maybe she wanted huge pixels rather than high resolution. I know a guy who uses 800x600 on a 20" screen because his vision is really poor. Myself I have a PC notebook with 1680x1050 on a 15" widescreen, this used to be the native resolution of the MBP 17" before they went with 1920x1200, and the MBP 15" only goes to 1440x900. I don't understand why since most of the OS X screen elements are scaled up compared to Windows, dock icons are huge, menu texts are huge, they could easily go 1680x1050 or even 1920x1050 on the 15" models, and 1440x900 on the 13" models.
I've made a few statements I won't reiterate. I will state that BlueVelvet is absolutely on the money. Most computer users on MacRumors have had the luxury and experience in both Windows and OS X environments, however these ads are targeted for a very different demographic. In today's economy, for a consumer whose needs are simple, money talks. As ad campaigns tend to operate, the big picture isn't the point, the point is grabbing their attention with simple facts that meet their target audiences needs. While most agree, long term costs of operation, software and end user experience in Mac OS X based systems generally costs less financial investment in addition to operating Windows OS. Again, the issue almost amounts to disposability. These ads suggest less a sense of long term investment and more a sense of affordable convenience. This may relate to college students and first time buyers, which as many know is a large market. These machines aren't being marketed for their long term usability but for the initial affordability.
I also agree with BlueVelvets comment about Apple producing an entry level portable in the same vein as the entry level Mac Mini desktop system. While desktops systems such as the iMac utilize mobile processors, the systems still run the hardware at almost the same speeds as desktop PC systems. However, that does not infer that Apple should not invest in mid-tower/range systems that offer expandability/flexibility. Apple does have a lot of money, billions in fact, that could be used to introduce affordable systems to counteract these expensive ads Microsoft is producing. Producing an entry level portable and mid-range desktop systems for roughly the same if not a little more than a Windows system would negate all these Microsoft ads while bringing in a very lucrative market base. Grab the market while they are young with entry level, affordable yet quality systems, give them a taste of the Mac OS X experience, as young adults generally mature into professionals who are willing to pay a premium price for future investments. This is the best approach in grabbing a larger Apple market share. However, I often wonder if Apple is more concerned with slow, steady market growth by balancing quality and quantity.
I also agree with BlueVelvets comment about Apple producing an entry level portable in the same vein as the entry level Mac Mini desktop system. While desktops systems such as the iMac utilize mobile processors, the systems still run the hardware at almost the same speeds as desktop PC systems. However, that does not infer that Apple should not invest in mid-tower/range systems that offer expandability/flexibility. Apple does have a lot of money, billions in fact, that could be used to introduce affordable systems to counteract these expensive ads Microsoft is producing. Producing an entry level portable and mid-range desktop systems for roughly the same if not a little more than a Windows system would negate all these Microsoft ads while bringing in a very lucrative market base. Grab the market while they are young with entry level, affordable yet quality systems, give them a taste of the Mac OS X experience, as young adults generally mature into professionals who are willing to pay a premium price for future investments. This is the best approach in grabbing a larger Apple market share. However, I often wonder if Apple is more concerned with slow, steady market growth by balancing quality and quantity.
I disagree.
The "real-world" ramifications of carrying a 15" and 17" MacBook Pro are actually fairly inconsequential.
An extra pound and an extra inch and a half.
They both fit into my laptop backpack, and the extra weight is hardly noticeable.
You'd have to be super-sensitive like the "Princess and the Pea" to not be able to get used to the 17" after 2 days. And the payoff for lugging the extra pound is great. 1920x1200 aand the ability to sit across the room and still watch flicks.
I'll never got back to a 15".
Lauren might not be "cool" enough for a Mac, but apparently she's "cool" enough to afford the $6000. difference between a hardtop and convertible VW. But more people will see her driving than typing on her computer. Maybe she doesn't drink coffee.
The deal was to find a 17" for under $1000. and they buy it for her? She should have shopped a bit more for one closer to the limit. Way to go Lauren.
The deal was to find a 17" for under $1000. and they buy it for her? She should have shopped a bit more for one closer to the limit. Way to go Lauren.
If all costs during the lifespan of hardware and software are counted, Macs cost roughly the same as PCs. It depends on what user experience (industrial design, operating system) you want.
The problem is that Apple doesn't have a Recession Compatible model ($500 - $800) for the mythical average user.
The problem is that Apple doesn't have a Recession Compatible model ($500 - $800) for the mythical average user.
Agreed.
This is pushing it, though:
20" screen and detachable keyboard. Suitcase handle.
... also, it's not "cool" to be "cool"
I think that the "not cool enough to be a Mac person" line is precious.
It seems to be a dig against some of the arrogant, elitist attitudes that some Apple users have.
You've seen them, the posers in Starbucks with their Apple logos on display, willy-waving their MBPs while surfing.
You go, Lauren. Start the backlash!
Many of the larger laptops are used like desktops - portability isn't a big factor. People in dorms and small apartments often want something small that can be folded and put on a shelf when not in use.
I think that the "not cool enough to be a Mac person" line is precious.
It seems to be a dig against some of the arrogant, elitist attitudes that some Apple users have.
You've seen them, the posers in Starbucks with their Apple logos on display, willy-waving their MBPs while surfing.
You go, Lauren. Start the backlash!
Many of the larger laptops are used like desktops - portability isn't a big factor. People in dorms and small apartments often want something small that can be folded and put on a shelf when not in use.
- Status