Apple responds to "I'm a PC"(movies.apple.com)
movies.apple.com
Apple responds to "I'm a PC"
http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple_getamac_beancounter_20081019_480x272.mov
19 comments
"If Apple can't market it's products on their own features"
I might be able to accept this technique if I could see any evidence of Microsoft actually advertising their features.
What the heck is "I'm a PC" advertising? Can you point out the features highlighted in those commercials? What about the "Wow." commercials before that? I'm trying to remember the last Microsoft commercial I saw that actually advertised a feature of its products.
The iPhone ads are almost entirely about features, and brilliantly done. As others have pointed out, many of the "I'm a Mac/PC" ads have highlighted differences between Macs and PCs. I don't see how Microsoft has any standing when it comes to complaining about advertising based on actual product features.
I might be able to accept this technique if I could see any evidence of Microsoft actually advertising their features.
What the heck is "I'm a PC" advertising? Can you point out the features highlighted in those commercials? What about the "Wow." commercials before that? I'm trying to remember the last Microsoft commercial I saw that actually advertised a feature of its products.
The iPhone ads are almost entirely about features, and brilliantly done. As others have pointed out, many of the "I'm a Mac/PC" ads have highlighted differences between Macs and PCs. I don't see how Microsoft has any standing when it comes to complaining about advertising based on actual product features.
They're getting aggressive because they want big results.
OS X is on the rise: it's getting big pretty quickly. Apple wants to take advantage of that and force every last Apple product they can into the consumer marketplace.
OS X is on the rise: it's getting big pretty quickly. Apple wants to take advantage of that and force every last Apple product they can into the consumer marketplace.
You know, I'm starting to agree with you.
I've had Vista since it came out and am completely happy with it. I thought the Apple commercials were cute, but off-base. They were funny, and they emphasized Mac good points, so I liked them.
But now it just seems mean. Hell, computer commercials are getting like political commercials, and we've all had enough of that lately.
I've had Vista since it came out and am completely happy with it. I thought the Apple commercials were cute, but off-base. They were funny, and they emphasized Mac good points, so I liked them.
But now it just seems mean. Hell, computer commercials are getting like political commercials, and we've all had enough of that lately.
I am sure not a full-time Mac evangelist (I use Linux myself), but have you tried to use a Mac for a month or so?
I was perfectly happy with Windows (XP then) when I decided to check the greener grass on the other side of the fence (Red Hat, first, then Debian, then Ubuntu) and I never thought about going back. Linux is so much more refined under the hood that more than compensates for the lack of software in several niches. I recommended my then girlfriend (now wife) to buy a Mac when she wanted to upgrade her PC and she loves it. I wouldn't recommend Linux for her because the added elegance under the hood would not compensate the limitations in dealing with complex (read quirky) Office documents.
Now, we both cringe our teeth because our employers issued Windows running Dell laptops for us. Argh.
I was perfectly happy with Windows (XP then) when I decided to check the greener grass on the other side of the fence (Red Hat, first, then Debian, then Ubuntu) and I never thought about going back. Linux is so much more refined under the hood that more than compensates for the lack of software in several niches. I recommended my then girlfriend (now wife) to buy a Mac when she wanted to upgrade her PC and she loves it. I wouldn't recommend Linux for her because the added elegance under the hood would not compensate the limitations in dealing with complex (read quirky) Office documents.
Now, we both cringe our teeth because our employers issued Windows running Dell laptops for us. Argh.
...and I had to use a Mac at work for 12 months and hated every minute of it.
For every person with a convert story to the Mac, there's another person who is quite happy to stick with Windows. I'm not sure why so many people consider the prospect so crazy.
For every person with a convert story to the Mac, there's another person who is quite happy to stick with Windows. I'm not sure why so many people consider the prospect so crazy.
With respect to your story, I'm fairly certain there are more convert stories among people who have used the Mac than there are stories of people disliking them.
Really? You're certain? How certain are you?
Both me and my wife have had the displeasure of using Macs in the past. I even owned one for about 6 months, a mac mini. I replaced it with Vista and Vista's Media Center pretty much owns Front Row (pfft, don't even get me started). The dock sucks compared to the task bar, you can't even see what's running on the dock. Oh and it's slow.
Both me and my wife have had the displeasure of using Macs in the past. I even owned one for about 6 months, a mac mini. I replaced it with Vista and Vista's Media Center pretty much owns Front Row (pfft, don't even get me started). The dock sucks compared to the task bar, you can't even see what's running on the dock. Oh and it's slow.
I've never used a Mac Mini, so I don't know how slow it is, though I'd guess that it's not in the same league as Apple's higher-end products.
Out of curiosity, what makes Front Row worse than the Media Center? I rarely use Front Row, but I'd like to know what Vista Media Center does better.
The dock absolutely is better than the task bar. The TB is cluttered - why do I need a box for every open window when I can just see the windows (hence Expose)? The Dock shows you running applications (though not background processes, though that's okay since neither does the task bar), it shows you minimized windows, and it shows you your set launch applications. I've argued before and I still believe that the presence of the dock is what makes OS X the superior system. It focuses on efficiency. The fact that it houses the Trash and the new Stacks system makes it even better: it removes a hell of a lot of clutter.
I've never had a speed problem with my computer, though to be fair I use a MBP with 2 gigs of ram. That said, I can run multiple intensive processes at once and still do casual tasks like browsing without a speed hit.
And despite what you've said, I'm still fairly certain. Meaning no disrespect to you, I've had such a wonderful experience with my computer that I can't possibly imagine people liking Windows more once they get into OS X. Again: your existence shows that I'm not entirely correct, but I'd still believe that of the people who've used both OSes noncasually, more people like the Mac over the PC.
Out of curiosity, what makes Front Row worse than the Media Center? I rarely use Front Row, but I'd like to know what Vista Media Center does better.
The dock absolutely is better than the task bar. The TB is cluttered - why do I need a box for every open window when I can just see the windows (hence Expose)? The Dock shows you running applications (though not background processes, though that's okay since neither does the task bar), it shows you minimized windows, and it shows you your set launch applications. I've argued before and I still believe that the presence of the dock is what makes OS X the superior system. It focuses on efficiency. The fact that it houses the Trash and the new Stacks system makes it even better: it removes a hell of a lot of clutter.
I've never had a speed problem with my computer, though to be fair I use a MBP with 2 gigs of ram. That said, I can run multiple intensive processes at once and still do casual tasks like browsing without a speed hit.
And despite what you've said, I'm still fairly certain. Meaning no disrespect to you, I've had such a wonderful experience with my computer that I can't possibly imagine people liking Windows more once they get into OS X. Again: your existence shows that I'm not entirely correct, but I'd still believe that of the people who've used both OSes noncasually, more people like the Mac over the PC.
I'm not going to get in a back-and-forth with you about what I hate about Macs.
The point is that there are a LOT of people out there that absolutely can't stand Macs. As a matter of fact, besides me and my wife EVERY single person in my office hates them (most of us are programmers and YES, we've actually used them before).
The point is that there are a LOT of people out there that absolutely can't stand Macs. As a matter of fact, besides me and my wife EVERY single person in my office hates them (most of us are programmers and YES, we've actually used them before).
Back-and-forth? I asked you a few questions about what you said, and made a few statements of my own. You act like this is a hostile conversation.
I don't understand the sort of mindset that doesn't like the Mac, but I acknowledge that it exists. I would still guess that that mindset is in the minority, however: as a casual OS it is vastly better than Windows. Your office experience is not indicative of the majority of computer users.
I don't understand the sort of mindset that doesn't like the Mac, but I acknowledge that it exists. I would still guess that that mindset is in the minority, however: as a casual OS it is vastly better than Windows. Your office experience is not indicative of the majority of computer users.
Oh and I find it amazing that you think you know what the majority of people are thinking.
I'm going off of actual experience talking to actual people that don't live in a bubble. What are you going off of? Your imagination?
I'm going off of actual experience talking to actual people that don't live in a bubble. What are you going off of? Your imagination?
Most of the products I use are built by people who use the Mac. That's why I looked into getting a Mac in the first place.
37signals. The Big Noob. The Tumblr team. Paul Graham once wrote an article on using the Mac. The Omni Group and Panic and Delicious Monster. Coudal. Rososo and Vimeo and NowDoThis. Facebook. Everywhere I looked, people told me that the Mac was wonderful and they were fanatic about it. So I gave it a try and found that I was equally fanatic.
I'm going off of every designer whose opinion I like and respect. You're going off of people who work in a single environment. If we wanted to be logical, we'd work off of user statistics, where Apple's rated as one of the most satisfactory companies in the nation. They blow competition away. Hence my confidence in my statement. Now, can we drop it, or are you going to continue to make arguments in a debate that's convincing nobody on either side?
37signals. The Big Noob. The Tumblr team. Paul Graham once wrote an article on using the Mac. The Omni Group and Panic and Delicious Monster. Coudal. Rososo and Vimeo and NowDoThis. Facebook. Everywhere I looked, people told me that the Mac was wonderful and they were fanatic about it. So I gave it a try and found that I was equally fanatic.
I'm going off of every designer whose opinion I like and respect. You're going off of people who work in a single environment. If we wanted to be logical, we'd work off of user statistics, where Apple's rated as one of the most satisfactory companies in the nation. They blow competition away. Hence my confidence in my statement. Now, can we drop it, or are you going to continue to make arguments in a debate that's convincing nobody on either side?
"I'm going off of every designer whose opinion I like and respect."
For the record, I'm not JUST going off of my peers at work, I happen to belong to a number of user groups and I also happen to visit many, many real working people in corporate workplaces around the world and I'm quite confident that it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a list of awesome web 2.0 developers that absolutely adore ASP.Net...
Anyway, sure, I can drop it as soon as you can drop it :)
For the record, I'm not JUST going off of my peers at work, I happen to belong to a number of user groups and I also happen to visit many, many real working people in corporate workplaces around the world and I'm quite confident that it wouldn't be that hard to come up with a list of awesome web 2.0 developers that absolutely adore ASP.Net...
Anyway, sure, I can drop it as soon as you can drop it :)
I use a lot of computers but I don't have that strong feelings about them. What's your point? That you know people who hate Macs? Good for you. I do prefer Linux for work, but I know many people who love Macs and even the ones who don't use them respect Macs as well finished computers with a polished OS. Remember: OSX is kind of Nextstep 5.0 and I can respect that as much as I do respect, say, Solaris, AIX and HP-UX.
You may think there is a huge number of people who can't stand Macs, but I assure you it's a very localized phenomena you are observing. Most certainly you are keeping the wrong company. Do they also install neon lights under their cars?
Classy...
You may think there is a huge number of people who can't stand Macs, but I assure you it's a very localized phenomena you are observing. Most certainly you are keeping the wrong company. Do they also install neon lights under their cars?
Classy...
I use a PC and I don't really have any pain that I can think of-- but maybe I'm just used to it. Ya know, one of these days I'd love to compare RescueTime data for the aggregate Windows population and the aggregate Mac population (to see if one works harder, futzes with their OS more, etc.).
Can you be more specific on why you hated every minute of it?
Well, it's been a while, but let's see what I can remember! I think, the fact that:
* I had to re-map certain keys on my keyboard just to get a usable # key/'real' British keyboard layout - it ultimately meant I had keys labelled as one thing that did another (thankfully I touch type)
* Pressing Apple + C or Apple + Z meant forcing my hand in to uncomfortable, unnatural positions - I prefer the spacing on a standard PC keyboard between Ctrl + C/etc
* Single button mouse - ew! First thing I did was buy another mouse.
* Navigating with the keyboard was all but impossible in many apps because the tab did nothing, or didn't behave in a logical way. Same with backspace.
* I had constant problems with crashing. It was an old G5 IIRC but my older VAIO laptop performed better.
These were just some of the things that annoyed me and reduced my productivity daily. Asking me for reasons why I wouldn't buy a Mac of my own would be another list on top of that, hehe. Anyway, I knew I was doing the right thing getting a PC in when my boss complemented my increased speed at my next annual review.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong believer in picking something that suits your own needs/requirements. If someone thinks that a Mac is the better option, more power to them... I just don't like the stereotype that standard PC users are awaiting some sort of holy intervention from the God of Macs.
* I had to re-map certain keys on my keyboard just to get a usable # key/'real' British keyboard layout - it ultimately meant I had keys labelled as one thing that did another (thankfully I touch type)
* Pressing Apple + C or Apple + Z meant forcing my hand in to uncomfortable, unnatural positions - I prefer the spacing on a standard PC keyboard between Ctrl + C/etc
* Single button mouse - ew! First thing I did was buy another mouse.
* Navigating with the keyboard was all but impossible in many apps because the tab did nothing, or didn't behave in a logical way. Same with backspace.
* I had constant problems with crashing. It was an old G5 IIRC but my older VAIO laptop performed better.
These were just some of the things that annoyed me and reduced my productivity daily. Asking me for reasons why I wouldn't buy a Mac of my own would be another list on top of that, hehe. Anyway, I knew I was doing the right thing getting a PC in when my boss complemented my increased speed at my next annual review.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong believer in picking something that suits your own needs/requirements. If someone thinks that a Mac is the better option, more power to them... I just don't like the stereotype that standard PC users are awaiting some sort of holy intervention from the God of Macs.
* Pressing Apple + C or Apple + Z meant forcing my hand in to uncomfortable, unnatural positions - I prefer the spacing on a standard PC keyboard between Ctrl + C/etc*
Huh? I'm pretty platform agnostic, but I've always liked this about the Mac. The Command key can be held down my shifting my thumb to the left of the spacebar and I can copy+paste without ever pulling my hands off the home row. Trying to hold control with my pinky and twist around to hit various key combos always felt more like a contortionist act to me.
Huh? I'm pretty platform agnostic, but I've always liked this about the Mac. The Command key can be held down my shifting my thumb to the left of the spacebar and I can copy+paste without ever pulling my hands off the home row. Trying to hold control with my pinky and twist around to hit various key combos always felt more like a contortionist act to me.
And this is why I said 'These were just some of the things that annoyed me' - emphasis on the me, if you will. What I find annoying, another may find bliss, and vice versa. Such is life.
When tab doesn't work, Control + Tab usually does. I think Mac programs make up for less tabbing by having far more keyboard shortcuts.
I installed Ubuntu onto a friend's Vista box using Wubi (http://wubi-installer.org/), and it works perfectly. Apart from altering the boot manager, Wubi doesn't alter your existing setup, and it can be removed like any other Windows app. Please do check it out--but if you decide to try it, defrag your disk first.
"But now it just seems mean."
This is Microsoft you are talking about.
One thing Microsoft can never, ever earn is the right to sympathy. You may say that business is cut throat, and thus Microsoft's pitiless, air supply choking history is entirely justified. But feeling sorry for Microsoft because someone is mocking them is just absurd. They have richly earned several lifetimes of ridicule.
This is Microsoft you are talking about.
One thing Microsoft can never, ever earn is the right to sympathy. You may say that business is cut throat, and thus Microsoft's pitiless, air supply choking history is entirely justified. But feeling sorry for Microsoft because someone is mocking them is just absurd. They have richly earned several lifetimes of ridicule.
And Apple's full of angels right?
The only difference between the two is that Microsoft was far more successful. Apple would have done everything people complain about Microsoft doing and more. They basically have in the couple product areas where they've had similar success.
I think you may be too young to remember what Microsoft was like in the 1980s, but this isn't true. The companies had very different personalities. Apple was always about making great things, whereas Microsoft's path was to ruthlessly exploit the monopoly that IBM dropped in their lap.
That path made Microsoft more successful in the short term (particularly after Jobs was exiled) but in the long term making good things seems to be the winning strategy.
That path made Microsoft more successful in the short term (particularly after Jobs was exiled) but in the long term making good things seems to be the winning strategy.
Do you really think that Apple wouldn't have ruthlessly exploited the monopoly if they had come about it? Their actions with iPod/iPhone make me think they would have. Jobs is just as much the ruthless dictator as Gates. In fact from what I've read/heard from people that know them, they seem to share a lot of the same personality traits.
Not as ruthlessly, I don't think. Not because Jobs is a nicer guy than Gates, but because he has taste. He could not bring himself to ship a crappy product. And so wherever shipping something great didn't coincide with exploiting the monopoly, he would not have been able to go so far down the latter vector.
Also, shipping great stuff requires you to have great hackers to build it, and great hackers have principles. They limit how evil a company can be. You can see this most clearly at Google. If they tried to do anything too evil, they'd face an internal rebellion. Apple employees seem a bit more intimidated by Jobs, but they are pretty idealistic too. A lot would quit if Apple went too far, and Jobs is smart enough about people to know that.
Also, shipping great stuff requires you to have great hackers to build it, and great hackers have principles. They limit how evil a company can be. You can see this most clearly at Google. If they tried to do anything too evil, they'd face an internal rebellion. Apple employees seem a bit more intimidated by Jobs, but they are pretty idealistic too. A lot would quit if Apple went too far, and Jobs is smart enough about people to know that.
"He could not bring himself to ship a crappy product."
Interesting to see this quote from Jobs during today's Apple earnings call:
"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk, and our DNA will not let us ship that. But we can continue to deliver greater and greater value to those customers that we choose to serve. And there's a lot of them."
Almost like he knew we were having this conversation. :)
Interesting to see this quote from Jobs during today's Apple earnings call:
"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk, and our DNA will not let us ship that. But we can continue to deliver greater and greater value to those customers that we choose to serve. And there's a lot of them."
Almost like he knew we were having this conversation. :)
I'm not particularly convinced of Apple's good will.
Speaking of the 80ies, Apple is the one that wanted to control both the OS and the hardware (still true today, from phones to computers), and Apple is the one that sued MS over 'look & feel' issues.
Speaking of the 80ies, Apple is the one that wanted to control both the OS and the hardware (still true today, from phones to computers), and Apple is the one that sued MS over 'look & feel' issues.
Back in the 80s it would have seemed bizarre to do otherwise. You used whatever OS the manufacturer supplied. It was part of the computer. That was as true with Microsoft OSes.
Apple choosing to make their own OSes instead of buy them from an outsider supplier was in those days no different from e.g. building displays or keyboards rather than buying them from suppliers.
Apple choosing to make their own OSes instead of buy them from an outsider supplier was in those days no different from e.g. building displays or keyboards rather than buying them from suppliers.
You mean "great" from a design/usability perspective. Gates shipped products that were great in terms of fitting market need and expanding the utility of Windows. IE may have sucked to use, but it sure beat the hell out of paying for Netscape.
I actually made this point once while working for Apple, saying it was like thinking about whether the other side had won World War II.
But I think the point still stands that Microsoft has managed to cause far more harm during their reign than Apple, precisely because they have been more successful. I also think that Apple is somewhat constrained in the damage they can do, because Steve Jobs wants to be a Tyrant of Taste, more so than Ruler of All He Surveys. He has little interest, for example, in the mass business market or the clunky boxes at the bottom of the market. To have Apple branded boxes at that price range, with all the compromises that entails, seems to horrify Jobs.
As for other product areas, probably the most tyrannical is iTunes. But even there, the damage is constrained by the fact that the majority of people still just pirate their music, anyway.
But I think the point still stands that Microsoft has managed to cause far more harm during their reign than Apple, precisely because they have been more successful. I also think that Apple is somewhat constrained in the damage they can do, because Steve Jobs wants to be a Tyrant of Taste, more so than Ruler of All He Surveys. He has little interest, for example, in the mass business market or the clunky boxes at the bottom of the market. To have Apple branded boxes at that price range, with all the compromises that entails, seems to horrify Jobs.
As for other product areas, probably the most tyrannical is iTunes. But even there, the damage is constrained by the fact that the majority of people still just pirate their music, anyway.
iTunes/iPod are the most tyrannical because they're the only place Apple is in charge. It's not right to excuse their DRM practices just because most music isn't purchased from it. It's still the number 1 music retailer. They've sold over 5 billion songs, most with DRM. They use a proprietary system to create vendor lock in.
Their NDA for the iPhone, and the tyranny over the application store, are worse than anything Microsoft has done to the consumer. They're just limited in scope by the fact that they own such a small % of the overall phone market, but if they ever get the kind of market share there that Windows has, everyone will hate them far more.
Their NDA for the iPhone, and the tyranny over the application store, are worse than anything Microsoft has done to the consumer. They're just limited in scope by the fact that they own such a small % of the overall phone market, but if they ever get the kind of market share there that Windows has, everyone will hate them far more.
But with iTunes, Jobs moved quickly to make iTunes Plus a possibility. And it's got more DRM-free music than its next-largest competitor, Amazon, does.
Moved quickly? It took over 6 years.
The iTunes Store hasn't existed six years.
You're right, I'm sorry, I was looking at the date for the program, not the store. It was 4 years.
The record companies are ceding ground very slowly. But Apple's been pushing for a long time. I mean, honestly, what do they have to GAIN from DRM? It's all a matter of the people they deal with.
They gain vendor lock-in. Everyone who buys songs from iTunes with DRM is forced to either buy iPods forever, or lose the ability to play them on their player of choice.
Without the DRM, we'd see a much more fragmented player market. iPods might still be the leaders, but they'd almost certainly have a lower market share.
Without the DRM, we'd see a much more fragmented player market. iPods might still be the leaders, but they'd almost certainly have a lower market share.
I agree that that would have lost Apple some ground, but I think they'd still be vastly ahead of other people. The DRM doesn't stick people. The incredible branding does.
People think iPod sounds reliable, and MP3 player sounds unstable. They go for the iPod because they think it's the only one there is.
People think iPod sounds reliable, and MP3 player sounds unstable. They go for the iPod because they think it's the only one there is.
Just to reiterate, what you say is true, and I pointed out I conceded pretty much your major points to coworkers at Apple when I worked there (it was just a couple coworkers, and just a one time comment, but it did get a laugh of agreement).
My only argument is that Apple has caused much less damage than Microsoft because they have been less successful, and in that sense Microsoft maintains the greater negative karma balance. Difference between attempted murder and committed murder, I suppose.
My only argument is that Apple has caused much less damage than Microsoft because they have been less successful, and in that sense Microsoft maintains the greater negative karma balance. Difference between attempted murder and committed murder, I suppose.
To be honest, I have no negative feelings about either. They're both just doing what they feel is in their own best interests. That's the responsibility of a corporation.
I find the grudge most people in the community have against MS a little juvenile and not very well-reasoned.
I find the grudge most people in the community have against MS a little juvenile and not very well-reasoned.
I suspect age difference has an effect, here.
Since Netscape was taken down, we've seen a world where hackers can execute an idea and become successful based on their execution, sometimes abundantly so. I do not think it's accidental that this period largely coincides with Microsoft losing their anti-trust case.
Before then, Microsoft would just wait until a market formed, then take it over or destroy it by bundling something with one of their monopoly products. People who had a dream of creating a successful software business knew Microsoft's business practices made that extremely unlikely.
So, yes, many developers who were around during Microsoft's heyday likely are carrying a grudge that must seem juvenile to anyone familiar with the much less threatening Microsoft of today. Whether it's juvenile to have bad feelings towards an organization that snuffed out a lot of optimism and ambition, I'll leave to you to decide.
Since Netscape was taken down, we've seen a world where hackers can execute an idea and become successful based on their execution, sometimes abundantly so. I do not think it's accidental that this period largely coincides with Microsoft losing their anti-trust case.
Before then, Microsoft would just wait until a market formed, then take it over or destroy it by bundling something with one of their monopoly products. People who had a dream of creating a successful software business knew Microsoft's business practices made that extremely unlikely.
So, yes, many developers who were around during Microsoft's heyday likely are carrying a grudge that must seem juvenile to anyone familiar with the much less threatening Microsoft of today. Whether it's juvenile to have bad feelings towards an organization that snuffed out a lot of optimism and ambition, I'll leave to you to decide.
These days I'm not concerned about Microsoft -- the companies that concern hackers w/r/t overtaking their product would be Apple and Google.
I concur that this ad is a bit much, but Apple's re-branding of Microsoft has worked so well with these ads that I doubt they'll know when to stop.
I don't know... on the one hand it has gotten nasty, but on the other... some of the problems Windows has are kind of ridiculous, and it's almost a feature to say, "We don't do all that stupid crap!", even if, ideally, it never would have been necessary to mention in the first place....
Then again, I feel Macs do stupid crap too, so it would seem to be a two way street.
Then again, I feel Macs do stupid crap too, so it would seem to be a two way street.
It's very much like political advertising, actually.
I liked it. It isn't mean at all. It's lighthearted and funny but it does address something I've thought about before. Perhaps Vista isn't as bad as most people think but it certainly does have problems. Instead earnestly promising to address any real issues Microsoft announced a $300m ad campaign to deal with it. MS could have earned a lot more credibility and respect by admitting to perhaps even a small sampling of complaints and issuing updates to deal with them - but they didn't. By trying to address these problems with a very expensive ad campaign MS effectively blames Vista users. This Apple ad captures that in a lighthearted and funny way. This ad makes me like Apple.
What parts of Vista need to be fixed?
I'll try not to get mean - I'm a Mac user, and I know how much I hate it when Windows users get douchey - but I think that the biggest problem they'd need to fix is the ration of aesthetic to functionality. It's what pissed me off every day with Vista. Microsoft added features that look "Mac-like" but without the inherent usability.
For instance, that window display where they're all sideways and you can scroll through them. I'm certain that's a rip off of Expose on the Mac. The difference is that Expose provides a very quick-n-easy way to access your windows, whereas that display seemed like it didn't make things particularly easy. And I forget if I tested it, but I very much doubt that it was a spring-loaded view, either.
The Aero theme is another instance. Compare that to Leopard's Aqua. They're both attempts to look modern and beautiful, but Leopard goes about it my making all of its chrome minimal. The buttons are small, the borders on every last window are 1px. With Vista, you get bulk hanging off of every window and the buttons look cartoony.
I won't go into the OS operations, because - again - I think that anything that I say will only invite flaming on the other side, and frankly I'm sick and tired of Hacker News having the same fucking OS wars that every other social news site does, and I don't want to flame things. But OS X feels like a complete solution in a way. Every part of it has been lovingly slavered over to perfection. From the feel of the computers to small things like the message windows (there was an article here talking about on OS X message windows are more direct than their Win/Lin equivalents) things are polished to a fault. And that's something that Windows or Linux need to "fix" before they can really seem like a decent competitor in my eyes.
For instance, that window display where they're all sideways and you can scroll through them. I'm certain that's a rip off of Expose on the Mac. The difference is that Expose provides a very quick-n-easy way to access your windows, whereas that display seemed like it didn't make things particularly easy. And I forget if I tested it, but I very much doubt that it was a spring-loaded view, either.
The Aero theme is another instance. Compare that to Leopard's Aqua. They're both attempts to look modern and beautiful, but Leopard goes about it my making all of its chrome minimal. The buttons are small, the borders on every last window are 1px. With Vista, you get bulk hanging off of every window and the buttons look cartoony.
I won't go into the OS operations, because - again - I think that anything that I say will only invite flaming on the other side, and frankly I'm sick and tired of Hacker News having the same fucking OS wars that every other social news site does, and I don't want to flame things. But OS X feels like a complete solution in a way. Every part of it has been lovingly slavered over to perfection. From the feel of the computers to small things like the message windows (there was an article here talking about on OS X message windows are more direct than their Win/Lin equivalents) things are polished to a fault. And that's something that Windows or Linux need to "fix" before they can really seem like a decent competitor in my eyes.
* frankly I'm sick and tired of Hacker News having the same fucking OS wars that every other social news site does*
A-fucking-men. Almost as bad as having the same profane reaction comments that add noise without signal to the discussion.
A-fucking-men. Almost as bad as having the same profane reaction comments that add noise without signal to the discussion.
and yet linux (specially ubuntus 8.04, 8.10) feel pretty polished to me. yes, to a fault.
No. I've played with Ubuntu in each iteration, and its level of polish is on a magnitude below what Apple's doing. Compared to Windows, it's very nice: I'd pick Ubuntu over Vista at this point without hesitation. But OS X has polish to a level that's uncanny: it's the sort where I'm still finding out new things about my computer that make my life slightly easier every day. It's really beyond comparison to other operating systems as the other systems stand right now.
Still, what works for you works. If Ubuntu's doing the job for you, then congrats and have fun. Just don't make the mistake of comparing it to the Mac systems without spending a lot of time in each.
Still, what works for you works. If Ubuntu's doing the job for you, then congrats and have fun. Just don't make the mistake of comparing it to the Mac systems without spending a lot of time in each.
Ubuntu is not more polished than even Windows XP. The main things keeping me from switching my day-to-day work to my Ubuntu partition are (1) text rendering, (2) reliability, (3) battery life, and (4) Lenovo's Thinkvantage tools. Windows XP absolutely kills Ubuntu in these aspects.
1) That has changed recently with the addition of the Liberation fonts, but I agree - a few months back it was a hack
2) What? I don't think many people will agree with you on that aspect. The fact that most Linux crashes you can just reset X and be back at the login screen, where as a Windows crash needs a full reboot means that even if Linux did crash more often - which I don't think it does - you spend less time getting screwed
3) Really? I haven't found much of a difference on my Dell laptop.
and 4) Probably true
2) What? I don't think many people will agree with you on that aspect. The fact that most Linux crashes you can just reset X and be back at the login screen, where as a Windows crash needs a full reboot means that even if Linux did crash more often - which I don't think it does - you spend less time getting screwed
3) Really? I haven't found much of a difference on my Dell laptop.
and 4) Probably true
1) No fonts for Linux compare with Microsoft's ClearType fonts (the C* fonts). And, Ubuntu's anti-aliasing still isn't nearly as good as Windows's or Mac OS X's, as of Ubuntu 8.
2) My Windows XP machine hasn't crashed once since I've had it (over two years). Ubuntu 6, 7, and 8 have all consistently crashed when resuming from hibernate on my laptop (Lenovo T60, one of the most common in the world).
3) Ubuntu 8 usually runs about 45 minutes to an hour less than Windows XP on my laptop's battery.
2) My Windows XP machine hasn't crashed once since I've had it (over two years). Ubuntu 6, 7, and 8 have all consistently crashed when resuming from hibernate on my laptop (Lenovo T60, one of the most common in the world).
3) Ubuntu 8 usually runs about 45 minutes to an hour less than Windows XP on my laptop's battery.
1) What are the Liberation fonts? I'm curious.
2) There are still reliability problems. I'd include driver issues as a reliability problem.
2) There are still reliability problems. I'd include driver issues as a reliability problem.
That's entirely possible. I've never used Ubuntu on a laptop setting.
From my experience with it, it works great if and only if you can find the right drivers. When it runs well, I like it more than Vista and most likely more than XP. But XP is certainly more supported overall, and that's another thing that's definitely worth considering.
From my experience with it, it works great if and only if you can find the right drivers. When it runs well, I like it more than Vista and most likely more than XP. But XP is certainly more supported overall, and that's another thing that's definitely worth considering.
You make some good points. However, I haven't noticed a lot of what you've said.
The keyboard on the newer computers is beautiful. I didn't like the old big keyboard: the new ones feel wonderfully responsive to me. The heat is a problem, but I guess I'm biased, because I rarely have my computer on my lap. I keep it on my desk or in my bed. And I use a fan program to speed up my fans when I need to, and it usually works.
The proprietary formats are a pain, yes, but that doesn't affect me very often. With iTunes, I get most of my music from other sources. I have perhaps 10 CDs that I got from iTunes, and that's mostly from Plus, so it's open enough to send to other people. Everything else is MP3 and MP4, which means - among other things - I can click and drag songs to iChat and it works.
The mail import took me a long time, for Gmail. But it imported my other emails first, and with Gmail it imported mostly the archived email, so I could use it right out of the box. I don't use Maildir, so mail works pretty much beautifully for me.
What does that optimization do for the fonts? Do you have an example? And either way, I'd take the Apple default fonts over anything else I've seen to date. I'd kill to keep Zapfino.
The keyboard on the newer computers is beautiful. I didn't like the old big keyboard: the new ones feel wonderfully responsive to me. The heat is a problem, but I guess I'm biased, because I rarely have my computer on my lap. I keep it on my desk or in my bed. And I use a fan program to speed up my fans when I need to, and it usually works.
The proprietary formats are a pain, yes, but that doesn't affect me very often. With iTunes, I get most of my music from other sources. I have perhaps 10 CDs that I got from iTunes, and that's mostly from Plus, so it's open enough to send to other people. Everything else is MP3 and MP4, which means - among other things - I can click and drag songs to iChat and it works.
The mail import took me a long time, for Gmail. But it imported my other emails first, and with Gmail it imported mostly the archived email, so I could use it right out of the box. I don't use Maildir, so mail works pretty much beautifully for me.
What does that optimization do for the fonts? Do you have an example? And either way, I'd take the Apple default fonts over anything else I've seen to date. I'd kill to keep Zapfino.
i find apple fonts too fuzzy. i kept my powerbook for almost a year before i gave up. see this: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html (it's a 5 min read)
the optimization just gives you really nice smoothing (i wish i could upload pictures here). i currently use the android font on emacs 23 on a thinkpad (black on light blue) and i find it to be much easier on the eyes (the powerbook fuzziness gave me headaches)
anyhoo, enjoy. the hardware is indeed beautiful. and the new aluminum ones sure are tempting (but i'll wait until someone gets ubuntu working properly on them)
and not to beat a dead horse, i really tried _hard_ to get the powerbook to work for me. i was really determined to like it. but no dice: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=131930
the optimization just gives you really nice smoothing (i wish i could upload pictures here). i currently use the android font on emacs 23 on a thinkpad (black on light blue) and i find it to be much easier on the eyes (the powerbook fuzziness gave me headaches)
anyhoo, enjoy. the hardware is indeed beautiful. and the new aluminum ones sure are tempting (but i'll wait until someone gets ubuntu working properly on them)
and not to beat a dead horse, i really tried _hard_ to get the powerbook to work for me. i was really determined to like it. but no dice: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=131930
Yeah, i've been using kubuntu since 7.04. Unfortunately kubuntu is less polished than the gnome version, but for the last year and a half it got better and better with every next release. Hopefully the next release will not be a disappointment because the still raw kde 4.
How about that it's much slower than it's predecessor, requires tons more hardware, and generally all around just kinda sucks. I've reverted to XP pro myself at the office, Vista's a piece of crap.
Compatibility. Nothing draws me to Windows other than the programs I NEED to run on it for work. For me, Solidworks 2007 is needed. It doesn't run on Vista/Linux/Mac, but it does run on XP. So I will never upgrade until we upgrade Solidworks versions (unlikely), or Microsoft or the vendor fixes compatibility issues (unlikely). If you want to talk about day to day use, Windows is far inferior.
You mean besides the fact that it's slow, clumsily designed, and ugly?
This is pretty ironic considering how Mac ads far outnumber Windows ads. Maybe next time around Apple can pull a few of the spots and get Java up to date sooner than a year after an OS release.
But do the Apple ads cost as much as this Microsoft campaign? (Disclaimer: I don't know if they do or not. I'm curious myself about this.) Because with Microsoft the cost of the ads kept popping up, especially in regards with Seinfeld. I'm guessing their current campaign is pretty vastly expensive, and I don't know if Apple's campaign is or not.
It's just that, regardless of cost-effectiveness, an advertisement that criticizes another company for spending money on advertising is pretty hypocritical.
[deleted]
To be honest, Leopard is a lot better than Vista.
...and leaving Java 1.6 to sit on the shelf for a few years is far from 'bleeding edge'.
Mac is very slick, but Apple isn't particularly kind to third-party developers who build software for their platform.
Mac is very slick, but Apple isn't particularly kind to third-party developers who build software for their platform.
To be honest...any version of Windows is better than Leopard. Especially if you value choice and flexibility.
Leopard's plenty flexible. By choice, do you mean being forced to pay extra money just to get an operating system that hasn't had features removed? Because I know Leopard only costs $80, but it's full-featured and that's what I care about.
Or do you mean the choice to tinker with every little aspect of your computer? Because the system's entirely moddable. I mean, I would never voluntarily hack my computer, because I cherish it the way it is, but I remember there being a lot of buzz about the Gaia Suite, which is a complete redesign of the OS.
Do you mean the lack of programs available? Because you can get MS Office if you really don't like iWork (though iWork is wonderful, in this user's opinion), and you can get replacements for every single iLife program. It's just that most people don't, because iPhoto and iTunes and Mail and GarageBand are really all excellent programs. (The one program on my entire system that I dislike is iDVD, and I feel like one bad program is a small concession to make.)
If by "flexibility" you mean a non-unified system, then you might have a point, but I like knowing that the same keyboard shortcuts work for every single application I have. I like knowing the menus work the same. Hell, I like having a system-wide spellcheck. You've still got choice - I'm sure you could make a new spellchecker - but really, what's the point if it works?
If you're going to diss an operating system in a community of people who really are enthusiastic about the computers that they use, at least make a good point, like the guy who mentioned Apple's Java fark-up. You can't come in blindly making insults and expect anything good to come of it. So how about you come up with some good criticisms, and in return I will try to be fairly critical of your operating system in return.
Or do you mean the choice to tinker with every little aspect of your computer? Because the system's entirely moddable. I mean, I would never voluntarily hack my computer, because I cherish it the way it is, but I remember there being a lot of buzz about the Gaia Suite, which is a complete redesign of the OS.
Do you mean the lack of programs available? Because you can get MS Office if you really don't like iWork (though iWork is wonderful, in this user's opinion), and you can get replacements for every single iLife program. It's just that most people don't, because iPhoto and iTunes and Mail and GarageBand are really all excellent programs. (The one program on my entire system that I dislike is iDVD, and I feel like one bad program is a small concession to make.)
If by "flexibility" you mean a non-unified system, then you might have a point, but I like knowing that the same keyboard shortcuts work for every single application I have. I like knowing the menus work the same. Hell, I like having a system-wide spellcheck. You've still got choice - I'm sure you could make a new spellchecker - but really, what's the point if it works?
If you're going to diss an operating system in a community of people who really are enthusiastic about the computers that they use, at least make a good point, like the guy who mentioned Apple's Java fark-up. You can't come in blindly making insults and expect anything good to come of it. So how about you come up with some good criticisms, and in return I will try to be fairly critical of your operating system in return.
Really? Kind of like the point that I was responding to? The one that made all those good points about how great Leper'd is?
Oh, but since you mentioned it...no I didn't mean any of the things you mentioned. I value the flexibility of being able to do what I want to do, the way I want to do it.
For instance, Apple is always trying to lock you into: their hardware, their iTunes store, their AppStore, their ONE way of doing things (see the pattern here?)
I can buy a Windows laptop that becomes a tablet. I can buy a Gyration (wii style) remote for my Media Center. I can get a CableCARD tuner. I can buy any graphics card under the Sun. Can you do that with Apple? No, instead Apple locks you into two choices: "somewhat expensive" and "really expensive".
Besides hardware, I also have flexibility in how I can build programs. You got xCode and Objective-C and that's all Apple will really help you with. Sure, they let you build programs in other languages like Python but since it's not part of "the ONE true way", they won't really help you much.
Microsoft OTOH supports C, C++, C#, F#, VB.Net and VB classic and they'll actually help you out with any of those (yes, even VB classic if you ask them nicely). Besides all of the officially supported languages, you still have every single language that's popular on *nix right now (Python, Perl, Ruby, etc.). Oh and the environment libraries are simply the best (.Net, WPF, DirectX, etc.) but if they aren't good enough for you there's a billion dollar market for third-party components that you can use. On the Mac? Not so much.
Then we come to user experience. I'm a power user and I could go on for days about how bad I think the Mac user interface is. I simply don't want to get into that with you, it's a very, very long discussion.
Suffice it to say that Apple is very opinionated about the way they think YOU should work and if you can't see that, you're blind. I'll take Windows over OSuX any day thx.
Oh, but since you mentioned it...no I didn't mean any of the things you mentioned. I value the flexibility of being able to do what I want to do, the way I want to do it.
For instance, Apple is always trying to lock you into: their hardware, their iTunes store, their AppStore, their ONE way of doing things (see the pattern here?)
I can buy a Windows laptop that becomes a tablet. I can buy a Gyration (wii style) remote for my Media Center. I can get a CableCARD tuner. I can buy any graphics card under the Sun. Can you do that with Apple? No, instead Apple locks you into two choices: "somewhat expensive" and "really expensive".
Besides hardware, I also have flexibility in how I can build programs. You got xCode and Objective-C and that's all Apple will really help you with. Sure, they let you build programs in other languages like Python but since it's not part of "the ONE true way", they won't really help you much.
Microsoft OTOH supports C, C++, C#, F#, VB.Net and VB classic and they'll actually help you out with any of those (yes, even VB classic if you ask them nicely). Besides all of the officially supported languages, you still have every single language that's popular on *nix right now (Python, Perl, Ruby, etc.). Oh and the environment libraries are simply the best (.Net, WPF, DirectX, etc.) but if they aren't good enough for you there's a billion dollar market for third-party components that you can use. On the Mac? Not so much.
Then we come to user experience. I'm a power user and I could go on for days about how bad I think the Mac user interface is. I simply don't want to get into that with you, it's a very, very long discussion.
Suffice it to say that Apple is very opinionated about the way they think YOU should work and if you can't see that, you're blind. I'll take Windows over OSuX any day thx.
From my point of view, Vista could be very secure and usable, but at the end of the day I need to be on a Unix box, and Cygwin doesn't quite cut it.
This isn't in response to any particular comment, but it's based on a personal preference so I'm burying it here.
This isn't in response to any particular comment, but it's based on a personal preference so I'm burying it here.
I don't mind running Linux in a virtual machine or PuTTYing into another host. If you have gigabit access to it, does it really matter if you must use two OSes to get the job done?
Good point. I'm actually considering the opposite: Linux running XP or Vista virtualized (mostly for browser testing, but also for Photoshop). Right now, I run Leopard with XP virtualized.
Really? Kind of like the point that I was responding to? The one that made all those good points about how great Leper'd is?
Yes, exactly like it. That post was also pointless.
For instance, Apple is always trying to lock you into: their hardware, their iTunes store, their AppStore, their ONE way of doing things (see the pattern here?)
Apple has complete control over their product. I think that is a good thing. I would shudder to think of OS X running on a Dell or an HP: it would be incomplete. As for iTunes, you can add music from outside of it and it still works. The App Store I'm hoping becomes more open - you've got a point there - but it lies entirely outside of Leopard.
Can you do that with Apple? No, instead Apple locks you into two choices: "somewhat expensive" and "really expensive".
Apple has had a choice for a long time: the choice between compromise and excellence. I am glad that they have never dumbed down their products for the sake of cheapening their product line: it has kept the brand as pure and as good as it ought to be.
but if they aren't good enough for you there's a billion dollar market for third-party components that you can use. On the Mac? Not so much.
I'm not a programmer, so I can't argue with you here. You might have a point here: I'm not entirely certain.
Then we come to user experience. I'm a power user and I could go on for days about how bad I think the Mac user interface is. I simply don't want to get into that with you, it's a very, very long discussion.
I'm not a power user. I like getting things done quickly, absolutely, and Apple makes it possible to operate entirely out of the command line if you want. I don't go that far. And as far as "power casual" - intuitive AND quick - Apple is bar none. Its ease of use is staggering compared to Windows or Linux.
Suffice it to say that Apple is very opinionated about the way they think YOU should work and if you can't see that, you're blind.
Of course I see that. I see it and like it. Nothing good has ever come out of being mild. Apple is certain that its way is the right way, and I almost always agree with it, and because of that, they've created the far superior product.
I'll take Windows over OSuX any day thx.
See, people call Apple users smug, and then say dickish things like this. I've never understood that. Of course I love Apple, but I try to at least be mature about it. Windows users get so childish and then turn around and call us smug.
If you don't want to debate, then don't debate. But don't jump in, insult something, and then get prim when the conversation doesn't end there.
Yes, exactly like it. That post was also pointless.
For instance, Apple is always trying to lock you into: their hardware, their iTunes store, their AppStore, their ONE way of doing things (see the pattern here?)
Apple has complete control over their product. I think that is a good thing. I would shudder to think of OS X running on a Dell or an HP: it would be incomplete. As for iTunes, you can add music from outside of it and it still works. The App Store I'm hoping becomes more open - you've got a point there - but it lies entirely outside of Leopard.
Can you do that with Apple? No, instead Apple locks you into two choices: "somewhat expensive" and "really expensive".
Apple has had a choice for a long time: the choice between compromise and excellence. I am glad that they have never dumbed down their products for the sake of cheapening their product line: it has kept the brand as pure and as good as it ought to be.
but if they aren't good enough for you there's a billion dollar market for third-party components that you can use. On the Mac? Not so much.
I'm not a programmer, so I can't argue with you here. You might have a point here: I'm not entirely certain.
Then we come to user experience. I'm a power user and I could go on for days about how bad I think the Mac user interface is. I simply don't want to get into that with you, it's a very, very long discussion.
I'm not a power user. I like getting things done quickly, absolutely, and Apple makes it possible to operate entirely out of the command line if you want. I don't go that far. And as far as "power casual" - intuitive AND quick - Apple is bar none. Its ease of use is staggering compared to Windows or Linux.
Suffice it to say that Apple is very opinionated about the way they think YOU should work and if you can't see that, you're blind.
Of course I see that. I see it and like it. Nothing good has ever come out of being mild. Apple is certain that its way is the right way, and I almost always agree with it, and because of that, they've created the far superior product.
I'll take Windows over OSuX any day thx.
See, people call Apple users smug, and then say dickish things like this. I've never understood that. Of course I love Apple, but I try to at least be mature about it. Windows users get so childish and then turn around and call us smug.
If you don't want to debate, then don't debate. But don't jump in, insult something, and then get prim when the conversation doesn't end there.
That's because you're passive/aggressive and I'm aggressive/aggressive. Not a big deal.
You say dickish things in a passive aggressive way like "Every part of it has been lovingly slavered over to perfection" or "I'm fairly certain there are more convert stories among people who have used the Mac than there are stories of people disliking them." or "I can't possibly imagine people liking Windows more once they get into OS X."
or
"Microsoft added features that look "Mac-like" but without the inherent usability."
or
"OS X feels like a complete solution in a way"
And then you hide behind comments like "No offense meant..." or "I don't want to start a flame war" ...BUT.
You say dickish things in a passive aggressive way like "Every part of it has been lovingly slavered over to perfection" or "I'm fairly certain there are more convert stories among people who have used the Mac than there are stories of people disliking them." or "I can't possibly imagine people liking Windows more once they get into OS X."
or
"Microsoft added features that look "Mac-like" but without the inherent usability."
or
"OS X feels like a complete solution in a way"
And then you hide behind comments like "No offense meant..." or "I don't want to start a flame war" ...BUT.
I'm aggressive/aggressive, too. I just have tact, which you seem to lack.
You say dickish things in a passive aggressive way like "Every part of it has been lovingly slavered over to perfection"
It's not dickish if it's true.
or "I'm fairly certain there are more convert stories among people who have used the Mac than there are stories of people disliking them." or "I can't possibly imagine people liking Windows more once they get into OS X."
This isn't passive aggressive. This is genuinely what I believe.
"Microsoft added features that look "Mac-like" but without the inherent usability."
It's not dickish if it's true.
"OS X feels like a complete solution in a way"
It's not dickish if it's true.
And then you hide behind comments like "No offense meant..." or "I don't want to start a flame war" ...BUT.
I've had arguments with Windows users that actually were productive and led to interesting arguments being made. That's why when I write, I deliberately avoid, y'know, calling people dickish. It's why I've avoided insulting you directly during this debate. I mean, you've got an opinion, and my opinion's that your opinion's wrong, but I genuinely think it's possible for people who disagree with one another to learn from each other, and I think it's only possible if you leave the discussion open enough to let the other person talk.
This isn't a matter of conflicting personalities. You're attempting to get some sort of emotional response, and I'm treating this like a debate. I'd rather not have things get ugly on HN: I made that mistake before and it led to a really stupid pissing war. I'd like to believe that you've genuinely got something interesting to say, and you come close to making interesting points, but then you piss that away and start the personal attacks.
Stop it.
You say dickish things in a passive aggressive way like "Every part of it has been lovingly slavered over to perfection"
It's not dickish if it's true.
or "I'm fairly certain there are more convert stories among people who have used the Mac than there are stories of people disliking them." or "I can't possibly imagine people liking Windows more once they get into OS X."
This isn't passive aggressive. This is genuinely what I believe.
"Microsoft added features that look "Mac-like" but without the inherent usability."
It's not dickish if it's true.
"OS X feels like a complete solution in a way"
It's not dickish if it's true.
And then you hide behind comments like "No offense meant..." or "I don't want to start a flame war" ...BUT.
I've had arguments with Windows users that actually were productive and led to interesting arguments being made. That's why when I write, I deliberately avoid, y'know, calling people dickish. It's why I've avoided insulting you directly during this debate. I mean, you've got an opinion, and my opinion's that your opinion's wrong, but I genuinely think it's possible for people who disagree with one another to learn from each other, and I think it's only possible if you leave the discussion open enough to let the other person talk.
This isn't a matter of conflicting personalities. You're attempting to get some sort of emotional response, and I'm treating this like a debate. I'd rather not have things get ugly on HN: I made that mistake before and it led to a really stupid pissing war. I'd like to believe that you've genuinely got something interesting to say, and you come close to making interesting points, but then you piss that away and start the personal attacks.
Stop it.
Please point out one personal attack that I made BEFORE you called me a dick.
That's what I thought. kthxbye.
That's what I thought. kthxbye.
Your entire attitude is wholly immature. The original comment of yours that I pointed out was the most obvious example.
When you enter a debate with a condescending attitude, that's an insult right from the get-go.
When you enter a debate with a condescending attitude, that's an insult right from the get-go.
I just went back and read every one of my comments and not a single one of them got personal with you. Maybe you're mistaking rhetoric for ad hominem attacks.
Sorry, not my problem.
Sorry, not my problem.
It's a personal insult when you enter a conversation with the attitude that the person you're talking to is an ignorant know-nothing. It's offensive.
While 3 years old, this article says Apple spend $287 million in advertising in 2005, and that was part of an upward trend. http://news.cnet.com/iPod-ads-cost-Apple-a-bundle/2100-1047_...
In comparison, the Vista campaign is reported at $300 million today.
I think we can say that Apple spends comparable money on advertising as Microsoft.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does make this particular commercial annoying and misleading; a big disappointment from the clever ones that began this ad campaign.
In comparison, the Vista campaign is reported at $300 million today.
I think we can say that Apple spends comparable money on advertising as Microsoft.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does make this particular commercial annoying and misleading; a big disappointment from the clever ones that began this ad campaign.
Now if apple would only realise that quicktime on the net has lost out to flash I would be able to wacth this. Quicktime reminds me of realplayer: buggy on PC's, runs lots of processes in the background I didn't ask for and requires me to install itunes which I don't want.
"Slimming down the bloated iTunes 8 installer": http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=554
Thanks for the link, but my point was more that Apple should really watch their step here. They're creating a crappy product that pushes stuff you didn't ask for to potential buyers. And it inflicts heavy damage on their otherwise good reputation.
Is it possible that Apple's blind to the Quicktime problem because it's working on the Mac so well? I remember loathing Quicktime on the PC, but since I've moved over to OS X it's moved very quickly at all times. It's possible that its reliability on OS X makes Apple less quick to move and fix things, which is a tad disappointing.
VLC media player: http://www.videolan.org/vlc/
Irony: I can't view this link on an iPhone
I think it's actually pretty hilarious. Ever since the Microsoft "I'm a PC" ads came out I've wondered what it meant for the Apple ads, I guess now we know. Apple has them coming and going, there really isn't much they can do.
Gizmodo had a similar reaction to many of you, that it's a pissing match and normal people don't care, but actually I think it's the opposite. People LOVE the Mac ads, even people who don't use a Mac think they are funny. This is another instance of the Techie echo-camber getting in the way, so what if some hardcore techies don't like them because Linux is superior, btw it's not, the market at large loves the ads and it's getting them to take a better look at Apple computers, end of story.
Gizmodo had a similar reaction to many of you, that it's a pissing match and normal people don't care, but actually I think it's the opposite. People LOVE the Mac ads, even people who don't use a Mac think they are funny. This is another instance of the Techie echo-camber getting in the way, so what if some hardcore techies don't like them because Linux is superior, btw it's not, the market at large loves the ads and it's getting them to take a better look at Apple computers, end of story.
These ads lack class, which is what Apple has always tried to stand for, in design of their products and their company image - anyone remember the Think Different campaign?
I'd rather they work on reducing the difference in price between the pc world and the mac in laptops. It used to be a couple hundred dollars difference, which I'm ok with because that, to me, is the price of OSX, but its getting increasingly harder to justify the expanding price difference.
If/when the OSX86 project gets to the point where their ISO is a no-brainer install of OSX on cheap dell/acer (etc.) laptops then Apple will have to reconsider its pricing.
The irony here (like rain on your wedding day!) is that it's actually Apple with that big pile of cash spending it on advertising, while MSFT goes back to the drawing board to come up with an O/S that more people like...
I'd rather they work on reducing the difference in price between the pc world and the mac in laptops. It used to be a couple hundred dollars difference, which I'm ok with because that, to me, is the price of OSX, but its getting increasingly harder to justify the expanding price difference.
If/when the OSX86 project gets to the point where their ISO is a no-brainer install of OSX on cheap dell/acer (etc.) laptops then Apple will have to reconsider its pricing.
The irony here (like rain on your wedding day!) is that it's actually Apple with that big pile of cash spending it on advertising, while MSFT goes back to the drawing board to come up with an O/S that more people like...
These ads are getting more and more lame. As a fulltime programmer and xp and vista user - I never felt the need to use macs but for their unix base and cool design. Considered buying one recently but settled for a vista pc with much better configuration at half the price. It has been running great for me with not a single issue in past 6 months. For any need of unix system, I run ubuntu or freebsd vmware appliances on my vista.
If apple cannot convince a frugal programmer like me who would love to own a mac - I do not know how even these ads can help them much in the general pc market. I think they will remain limited only to folks who really appreciate their commitment to design and would pay so much extra just for that.
If apple cannot convince a frugal programmer like me who would love to own a mac - I do not know how even these ads can help them much in the general pc market. I think they will remain limited only to folks who really appreciate their commitment to design and would pay so much extra just for that.
And a crazy apple fanboy wants to vote my opinion down - why dont people like me just get it already.
I guess these ads have an audience after all. But then it is a waste of the apple advertising dollar to preach to the choir.
I guess these ads have an audience after all. But then it is a waste of the apple advertising dollar to preach to the choir.
One very cynical view is that Apple is mostly in the business of selling 'Taste'. As such, confirming to customers who purchase many, many Apple products over the years that they are somehow better than those who lack their refined sensibilities is not wasted money.
Reminds me of the escalating bumper sticker wars between the Jesus fish stickers and the Darwin fish (with legs) stickers... recently I've started seeing "Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish" stickers. I'm still waiting for "Darwin fish eating a Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish".
I can't wait to see Microsoft's meta-meta-response.
I can't wait to see Microsoft's meta-meta-response.
[deleted]
Apple couldnt go any lower these days with thier ads.
The desperation is starting to seep through.
The desperation is starting to seep through.
[deleted]
"Advertising is the price you pay for being unoriginal."
As dirty as it is, Microsoft was asking for this.
It's not polite to tease, but when the head of the pack shows they're susceptible to it, it's going to happen.
It's not polite to tease, but when the head of the pack shows they're susceptible to it, it's going to happen.
Hilarious!
Ad reflects what differentiates Apple from MS. Original, highly creative and perfect.
Ad reflects what differentiates Apple from MS. Original, highly creative and perfect.
This confuses me-- what does Apple spend on advertising? It's surely enormous.
Apple invests in advertising. There is a difference.
Apparently I should have spelled out the difference. Apple sees more than a dollar back from every dollar it invests into advertising. Microsoft will have a very tough time tracing back more than $200 million in revenue to this ad campaign.
I wonder what proportion of Vista users think it needs fixing?
I don't understand the new Microsoft PC adverts either. What does having glasses have to do with anything?
I don't understand the new Microsoft PC adverts either. What does having glasses have to do with anything?
I don't think Apple is trying to target users of Vista, just people that are considering moving off XP.
Why can't it be they're targeting both?
Anyone that has already decided to use Vista is unlikely to change their mind because of the Mac ads. IMHO someone considering an upgrade to Vista is much more likely to be influenced.
What does having glasses have to do with anything?
That is exactly the point Microsoft is trying to make. The Apple ads personify Windows as a glasses-wearing dork, while the Microsoft ads try to dispel that association.
That is exactly the point Microsoft is trying to make. The Apple ads personify Windows as a glasses-wearing dork, while the Microsoft ads try to dispel that association.
low&lame
I'm reminded of what Charlton Heston said to Bill Maher. Charlton had taken out full page personal attack ads blasting Barbara Streisand for her anti-gun activism, and Bill Maher asked him if this was really appropriate.
Charlton considered for a moment, and then responded. I was unkind, he admitted, Not unfair, but unkind.
Now as to lame, is it there some factual error? Is Microsoft actually spending more on fixing Vista than advertising it? My feeling is that if the ad is correctly representing Microsoft's strategy, there is nothing lame about depicting it. The un-lame thing about the ad is that it never says Microsoft is wrong, it shows you the facts through a skit and lets you decide what to do.
I wonder if people would react differently if these ads were SNL skits. I have a feeling that some people are so emotional about one company or the other--which is odd, these are companies, after all, not religious edifices--that they simply cannot sit back and enjoy a good laugh.
Charlton considered for a moment, and then responded. I was unkind, he admitted, Not unfair, but unkind.
Now as to lame, is it there some factual error? Is Microsoft actually spending more on fixing Vista than advertising it? My feeling is that if the ad is correctly representing Microsoft's strategy, there is nothing lame about depicting it. The un-lame thing about the ad is that it never says Microsoft is wrong, it shows you the facts through a skit and lets you decide what to do.
I wonder if people would react differently if these ads were SNL skits. I have a feeling that some people are so emotional about one company or the other--which is odd, these are companies, after all, not religious edifices--that they simply cannot sit back and enjoy a good laugh.
If you look at Win7 as "Fixing Vista" --> which in some/lots of ways it is - then I'd guess that MS are spending more on "fixing" than on advertising.. Certainly nothing near that ratio though..
The reasonably insightful comment on reddit was that this isn't just a pissing contest between MS and Apple - it's a pissing contest between Crispin Porter and TBWA (the ad agencies)...
The reasonably insightful comment on reddit was that this isn't just a pissing contest between MS and Apple - it's a pissing contest between Crispin Porter and TBWA (the ad agencies)...
The reasonably insightful comment on reddit was that this isn't just a pissing contest between MS and Apple - it's a pissing contest between Crispin Porter and TBWA (the ad agencies)...
I think one has the more appealing product to market, the other has the bigger budget and the defensive position. It's a fairly textbook marketing battle between the entrenched number one and the upstart niche player.
I think one has the more appealing product to market, the other has the bigger budget and the defensive position. It's a fairly textbook marketing battle between the entrenched number one and the upstart niche player.
And Crispin is a company that's known for taking pretty daring risks. There was an article that said it was ironic that they're running Microsoft's campaign, because they're a very "Apple-like" company.
If you look at Win7 as "Fixing Vista" --> which in some/lots of ways it is - then I'd guess that MS are spending more on "fixing" than on advertising
I considered that argument, but note that they are still pushing Vista to consumers and businesses, hard. So I think the ad is fair in that it discusses what MSFT is doing to Vista itself.
If MSFT's $300 million was spent telling consumers to hang onto XP and wait for Windows 7, that argument would be a little more persuasive.
I considered that argument, but note that they are still pushing Vista to consumers and businesses, hard. So I think the ad is fair in that it discusses what MSFT is doing to Vista itself.
If MSFT's $300 million was spent telling consumers to hang onto XP and wait for Windows 7, that argument would be a little more persuasive.
What exactly is wrong with Windows Vista? I actually want to get Vista so I can get UAC.
Well, if you feel that Vista is wonderful, then it is reasonable for you to argue that Apple's ad is not factually correct. Such a view mirrors what MSFT's PR people are saying, namely that Vista is fine but for some reason the marketplace hasn't grasped why they should prefer it to XP or OS X.
So... if you believe that the problem with Vista is its perception, then of course the solution is communication, not code. Entirely reasonable if you start with the premise that it's a fine piece of engineering and a good product.
So... if you believe that the problem with Vista is its perception, then of course the solution is communication, not code. Entirely reasonable if you start with the premise that it's a fine piece of engineering and a good product.
I don't know if Vista is wonderful or not. I just know that UAC is more convenient and more secure then the workarounds that I have to use now. I have heard the performance complaints but I've also heard that you just need to disable the visual effects and they mostly go away.
I think the main issue with Vista is that there is no obvious huge improvement that would motivate people to pay the retail price to upgrade. For example, I am interested in UAC and some of the other security features but I am reluctant to buy Vista just to get them, especially if Windows 7 is just a year or so away.
Plus, upgrading Windows has always been a hassle in the past. Right now, I guess Windows XP mostly works okay for me, so I am sticking in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" crowd.
I think the main issue with Vista is that there is no obvious huge improvement that would motivate people to pay the retail price to upgrade. For example, I am interested in UAC and some of the other security features but I am reluctant to buy Vista just to get them, especially if Windows 7 is just a year or so away.
Plus, upgrading Windows has always been a hassle in the past. Right now, I guess Windows XP mostly works okay for me, so I am sticking in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" crowd.
I had hardware and software problems with it, and the software problems continue today so I'm on Linux/XP dual boot to work around these deficiencies. When Vista works it is great, it just doesn't always work.
I seriously doubt it. They advertising budget is humongous.
> low&lame
high end flame. :)
high end flame. :)
[deleted]
I liked the ad anyways!!!
Brilliant. I love the look on Macs face when he swoops the ad money towards fixing vista and PC swoops it toward advertising.
This is like boxing. Mac ads have had pc's reputation on the ropes in the collective unconscious. All the sudden, after getting beat on barely throwing a punch, PC comes out swinging. Even lands a blow on macs chin, shakes him up a bit. But before PC can land another punch, this uppercut takes out 3 of his teeth and drives the cartilage in his nose into his brain.
Now, everyone who sees both ads will think "Why is microsoft spending $$$ on this without fixing vista?" This ad, and it's partner on censoring vista, just short circuited Microsofts 300 million dollar campaign. This is microsoft being completely outclassed by people who just get it.
This is like boxing. Mac ads have had pc's reputation on the ropes in the collective unconscious. All the sudden, after getting beat on barely throwing a punch, PC comes out swinging. Even lands a blow on macs chin, shakes him up a bit. But before PC can land another punch, this uppercut takes out 3 of his teeth and drives the cartilage in his nose into his brain.
Now, everyone who sees both ads will think "Why is microsoft spending $$$ on this without fixing vista?" This ad, and it's partner on censoring vista, just short circuited Microsofts 300 million dollar campaign. This is microsoft being completely outclassed by people who just get it.
Actually, I'm thinking: wow, I voluntarily watched an advertisement for a geek sports rivalry. Go gray! No, go blue! Let's talk about this at the watercooler and pretend we share something to care about in our vapid, disposable lives!
Yeah, at some point I'd like to see Linus walk through one of those ads and just slap them both on the back of head and call them morons...
"Who's Linus?" (I know who he is, just illustrating the market reaction to such an event.)
I think that would be half the fun...
Sports is the wrong metaphor.
It's more like being in a science class and watching an argument between a creationist and a real scientist.
"Evolution is good. Things should evolve and get better and we shouldn't be afraid of it."
"I did not come from a monkey. God made the Supermall 6,000 years ago, and it's always bad when things change, which means I'm afraid of anything ever getting better. Can I have that banana?"
Motoko: "Yawn. It's like watching sports."
It's more like being in a science class and watching an argument between a creationist and a real scientist.
"Evolution is good. Things should evolve and get better and we shouldn't be afraid of it."
"I did not come from a monkey. God made the Supermall 6,000 years ago, and it's always bad when things change, which means I'm afraid of anything ever getting better. Can I have that banana?"
Motoko: "Yawn. It's like watching sports."
"Mac ads have had pc's reputation on the ropes in the collective unconscious."
Do you mean Microsoft? If so, it sure as hell hasn't scratched the business world. It's only knicked the consumer world a couple percentage points. I'd reconsider your position.
Further, this is kind of old and becoming a nonissue in today's world. With the migration towards non-platform-specific consumer usage of systems (ie. internet) I don't see as heavy of a need for some bloated consumer operating system.
I'm no huge Windows fan. I've used countless operating systems; C64, Cisco IOS, HP-UX, AS/400, Solaris, Mac OS, Windows 3.x-Vista, Server NT-Server 2k8, Linux derivatives galore, BSD. While developing/working on them and I can say I'm not really impressed with what Apple offers.
Apple is just a gimmick in the world of computing systems. You can claim that consumers aren't nerds that love command lines, but what do you think drives the media infrastructure that panders to all the fun-filled music and video that Apple users love to waste time on? It sure as hell isn't Mac OS.
Computers primarily run the world's business. Steve Jobs' goal is not to get Apple tangled up with "boring" business stuff. Hell, look at the stupid hipster getup the "Mac Guy" wears in the comercials. Jobs put the noose around Apple's neck when he set the goal of being consumer-orientated instead of business-orientated if his plan is digital world domination.
Do you mean Microsoft? If so, it sure as hell hasn't scratched the business world. It's only knicked the consumer world a couple percentage points. I'd reconsider your position.
Further, this is kind of old and becoming a nonissue in today's world. With the migration towards non-platform-specific consumer usage of systems (ie. internet) I don't see as heavy of a need for some bloated consumer operating system.
I'm no huge Windows fan. I've used countless operating systems; C64, Cisco IOS, HP-UX, AS/400, Solaris, Mac OS, Windows 3.x-Vista, Server NT-Server 2k8, Linux derivatives galore, BSD. While developing/working on them and I can say I'm not really impressed with what Apple offers.
Apple is just a gimmick in the world of computing systems. You can claim that consumers aren't nerds that love command lines, but what do you think drives the media infrastructure that panders to all the fun-filled music and video that Apple users love to waste time on? It sure as hell isn't Mac OS.
Computers primarily run the world's business. Steve Jobs' goal is not to get Apple tangled up with "boring" business stuff. Hell, look at the stupid hipster getup the "Mac Guy" wears in the comercials. Jobs put the noose around Apple's neck when he set the goal of being consumer-orientated instead of business-orientated if his plan is digital world domination.
Put a noose around its neck, huh? Jobs returned to Apple and changed its direction about 10 years ago.
- Go to: http://finance.google.com/finance?q=AAPL
- Click the 10 yr time frame.
- Click the check box to add MSFT to the same graph.
- Tell me again how bad of a job Steve has been doing, and how it hasn't meant anything to MSFT.
Now some more ycombinator specific points. When you get together with a bunch of web startup owners or attend a conference, do you see more or less macs than the overall market would indicate? Would you say there are more than 1 mac per 10 startups? Would you say that what startups are using, they are quite likely to support as they grow?
Now some more ycombinator specific points. When you get together with a bunch of web startup owners or attend a conference, do you see more or less macs than the overall market would indicate? Would you say there are more than 1 mac per 10 startups? Would you say that what startups are using, they are quite likely to support as they grow?
It hasn't. Microsoft's growth has remained relatively stable since it's growth from '95 to 2000. Apple has almost zero impact from '98 to 2005, which is where we start to see the stock perform well.
Economics FAIL. -0.5% growth over 10 year is a loss of money because you are falling behind inflation. Based on their market cap Microsoft is shrinking at a rate of 2-3% a year in real dollars while Apple is growing off the charts. You can't say that the falling Windows brand is not a direct cause of that, and Apple's contrast with Microsoft helps that. Apple's growth has more to do with the iPod than OS X, but OS X has a lot more to do with Windows falling image than anything else.
MSFT price is essentially unchanged over the last 10 years.
There's a lot more to it than just "Apple is just a gimmick..." OS X is unix and unix is the real rising star here. Apple just had the good sense to catch a ride on the bandwagon of that rising star and the competence to do a very good job of it. Apple's market share is still small but it's been growing steadily for years. Today's rate-of-change is tomorrow's level.
Right now, Apple's pushing for the businessplace. Snow Leopard is supposed to have out-of-the-box Exchange support, which is a step Apple needs to take. Beyond that, Apple's been winning over plenty of small businesses: not the big guys yet, but large corporations can't change on a dime. If Apple stays as consistently reliable for another handful of years, I'd predict us seeing the Mac starting to gain entry to the workplace.
Apple needs to upgrade their support to compete with the Dells in corporate America.
Exchange support? Whip-dee-doo. How about offering some _real_ developer tools?
Oh, that's cute...you think xCode, Python and MySQL can actually be compared to Visual Studio, C# and SQL Server.
Oh, that's cute...you think xCode, Python and MySQL can actually be compared to Visual Studio, C# and SQL Server.
Actually... yes; and, I daresay, comes out on top. Having lost countless hours of my life debugging .NET Framework installation problems (yay, installer ran and finished. Why isn't this damn thing showing up in my list of components?), I have to say that never spend nearly that much debugging silly installation issues with Python and MySQL.
I never had any issue with the .Net framework installation, but I'll take your word for it.
I guess I just feel spoiled by Visual Studio, while every time I start something in Python I feel like I have to spend so much time trying to find quality tools to make it do what I want. It just doesn't feel like a very complete solution to me.
I guess I just feel spoiled by Visual Studio, while every time I start something in Python I feel like I have to spend so much time trying to find quality tools to make it do what I want. It just doesn't feel like a very complete solution to me.
2nd that, the .Net installer was a big problem at my former company. Can't say Python is any better, but to say .Net is perfect shows you haven't seen it used in a lot of places.
While I do like that you're taking the time to reply to each of my comments in turn, could we keep this a little civil? I love flamefests as much as anybody, but this isn't the sort of argument that requires sarcasm and vitriol.
I said Exchange because it's the one thing I've read about. I am not a businessperson, nor am I a programmer: the closest I get to programming is PHP, because it's all that I need. I said that that's what Apple's been up to, because it is: they're obviously pushing to make Macs business-friendly.
I'd guess that most businesses don't have computers for the sake of programming, though. Most people in the workplace don't program. They email, they discuss things with coworkers. With a few tweaks, the Mac ought to be ready for that sort of thing in a secure environment. And that's just as much a part of business as coding is.
I said Exchange because it's the one thing I've read about. I am not a businessperson, nor am I a programmer: the closest I get to programming is PHP, because it's all that I need. I said that that's what Apple's been up to, because it is: they're obviously pushing to make Macs business-friendly.
I'd guess that most businesses don't have computers for the sake of programming, though. Most people in the workplace don't program. They email, they discuss things with coworkers. With a few tweaks, the Mac ought to be ready for that sort of thing in a secure environment. And that's just as much a part of business as coding is.
You've forgotten the third market, technical computing, which Apple does have an interest in.
Go to a college and look at all the kids. They're using macs. That means, in the future, the people who make decisions will lean more towards mac.
I don't at all think that mac's polish is a gimmick. We know that using 2 monitors increases productivity. This is a general case of the fact that how you connect to your computer directly alters how your brain has to work in order to use the computer. It seems to me that a better user interface and a more clean design are important ways to decrease the cognitive friction with the computer. You know those little logos they put on pc laptops palmrests? Each of those, just by being in your visual field, causes a cascade of preconscious neurological activity as your brain triggers all the things it associates with the logos. Thus, just by sitting down to work in that environment, your are decreasing the brain power you can spend working. The superior mac UI generates much less cognitive friction, allowing me to focus more of my cognitive processes to thinking about what I'm working on. You may think this is a gimmick, I think it's essential to being maximally productive.
It's like the band velvet underground. Sure, there were more popular bands, but fans of velvet underground largely created later progress in subsequent waves of musical progress.
I don't at all think that mac's polish is a gimmick. We know that using 2 monitors increases productivity. This is a general case of the fact that how you connect to your computer directly alters how your brain has to work in order to use the computer. It seems to me that a better user interface and a more clean design are important ways to decrease the cognitive friction with the computer. You know those little logos they put on pc laptops palmrests? Each of those, just by being in your visual field, causes a cascade of preconscious neurological activity as your brain triggers all the things it associates with the logos. Thus, just by sitting down to work in that environment, your are decreasing the brain power you can spend working. The superior mac UI generates much less cognitive friction, allowing me to focus more of my cognitive processes to thinking about what I'm working on. You may think this is a gimmick, I think it's essential to being maximally productive.
It's like the band velvet underground. Sure, there were more popular bands, but fans of velvet underground largely created later progress in subsequent waves of musical progress.
Ads are really funny, unless you are on the microsoft side.
if you are on either 'side,' then you either own stock in one of the companies, or their is something wrong with you.
But that's just my opinion.
But that's just my opinion.
I'd call myself on Apple's side, mainly because where they go there's an emphasis on polishing things till they shine and really caring about users. I've had a marvelous experience not only with Apple products but with Apple designers. Not so much on the other side.
If Apple can't market it's products on their own features and has to rely on this kind of negative adverts I'd say it's really hitting a low-point. The ad kind of pisses me off actually.