Apple Wanted Microsoft Ads Yanked(informationweek.com)
informationweek.com
Apple Wanted Microsoft Ads Yanked
http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218500923
10 comments
I agree with most of your points except one: I recently switched back to PC, and am amazed at the hardware i can get for the price. I can get a superior PC (operating system preference aside) for FAR less than a MAC.
But, that being said, I am so used to OSX that I prefer it over windows XP at the moment. But I have recently enjoyed the simple breadth of things I have been missing out on (gaming and game design, add-ons and free apps, etc).
But, that being said, I am so used to OSX that I prefer it over windows XP at the moment. But I have recently enjoyed the simple breadth of things I have been missing out on (gaming and game design, add-ons and free apps, etc).
Preferring OSX to XP is somewhat of a no-brainer at this point, as XP is about 10 years old. A fairer comparison might be the Win7 RC (perhaps, I don't know about breadth of driver support).
This is a huge sampling space fail, but anecdotally, the other day I sent my macbook into Apple care. They replaced the logic board, heatsink arm, display, and half the case (the latter for a cosmetic issue that was absolutely not under warranty). The machine was out of my hands for exactly 22 hours (fedex priority ftw). I paid $0 for this service (applecare was $300 several years ago).
All of that to say, find me a manufacturer that will replace 70% of your system in 22 hours including courier time almost three years after it was sold. You can only do that if your reliability is way high, because you spent a lot of money on quality components to begin with, instead of poor-boying it with sweatshop chips.
All of that to say, find me a manufacturer that will replace 70% of your system in 22 hours including courier time almost three years after it was sold. You can only do that if your reliability is way high, because you spent a lot of money on quality components to begin with, instead of poor-boying it with sweatshop chips.
So you basically what happened is that you bought insurance from Apple for the price of a cheap PC and they actually covered you according to contract.
AppleCare for a $1700 MacBook Pro costs $350. Does that mean one in every five MacBooks is broken beyond repair within 3 years? Or does it mean that you severely overpaid for your insurance?
I'm aware that AppleCare doesn't just cover the parts but the labor as well, but their margin on hardware is probably somewhere around %40, so that covers the labor easily.
I guess all hardware vendors would absolutely love to sell you a luxury insurance like that and if they're not idiots they treat people paying like kings accordingly (e.g by doing it quickly and not saving on shipping fees).
AppleCare for a $1700 MacBook Pro costs $350. Does that mean one in every five MacBooks is broken beyond repair within 3 years? Or does it mean that you severely overpaid for your insurance?
I'm aware that AppleCare doesn't just cover the parts but the labor as well, but their margin on hardware is probably somewhere around %40, so that covers the labor easily.
I guess all hardware vendors would absolutely love to sell you a luxury insurance like that and if they're not idiots they treat people paying like kings accordingly (e.g by doing it quickly and not saving on shipping fees).
> but their margin on hardware is probably somewhere around %40
Maybe, but remember there's a pretty big invisible hardware R&D cost. Things like unibody, multitouch, internal battery, displayport, etc. aren't free. And Snow Leopard probably cost a bit more than $29/seat to develop.
Maybe, but remember there's a pretty big invisible hardware R&D cost. Things like unibody, multitouch, internal battery, displayport, etc. aren't free. And Snow Leopard probably cost a bit more than $29/seat to develop.
Of course, but reported margins are _after_ all these costs.
I did that with a dell laptop except they did all the work at my home.
Entertaining though this is, it's based entirely on the say-so of Microsoft's COO. It's really spin rather than news.
That said, MS hit the nail on the head by focusing on consumer value* during a recession. But there is more to it than price. Apple has Justin Long as their poster boy...singular. MS has an entire crowd, including freaks (tattoo guy), women, people of color, and so on. This inclusionary strategy, which was laughed off as unfocused last year, is now bearing fruit, whereas Apple have kind of stereotyped themselves as the SWM hipster's computer.
There's an entire sales angle that Apple has barely touched on and which would probably fortify them against erosion of their market share (to do with TCO) but they haven't gone there, I don't know why.
* Actually, I don't think the laptops in the 'PC' ads are such great value either, but I understand they don't want to associate themselves with fire sale prices.
That said, MS hit the nail on the head by focusing on consumer value* during a recession. But there is more to it than price. Apple has Justin Long as their poster boy...singular. MS has an entire crowd, including freaks (tattoo guy), women, people of color, and so on. This inclusionary strategy, which was laughed off as unfocused last year, is now bearing fruit, whereas Apple have kind of stereotyped themselves as the SWM hipster's computer.
There's an entire sales angle that Apple has barely touched on and which would probably fortify them against erosion of their market share (to do with TCO) but they haven't gone there, I don't know why.
* Actually, I don't think the laptops in the 'PC' ads are such great value either, but I understand they don't want to associate themselves with fire sale prices.
"apple is freakin stupid. i bought a mid line HP laptop about 5 months ago for $450 on sale at best buy (with vista and the full office suite). it's faster and has power than the macbook, which is about $1200."
Somehow I doubt that...
Somehow I doubt that...
which part do you doubt? Its certainly true that PC laptops are much less expensive that apple laptops (upon which this comment is being written). And its definitely true that $450 is not an unrealistic price to spend. As for which is 'faster' thats so nebulous that it would require further clarification to establish. PC's are faster for somethings, and Mac's for others. The main reason (for me) to buy a Mac is that I like OSX better than XP or Vista. 7, I haven't tried yet.
Also, I value the build. Those cheap PC laptops don't have a unibody aluminum case or magsafe, and frankly, I don't trust their component choices, or time to research it. I can get full instructions to take apart any Mac at ifixit.com, but for a PC, it's extremely hard to get the service manual.
You just nailed it on the head. The only other PC manufacturer with decent build is Lenovo with the ThinkPads - and those will run you a pretty penny also (well, $1100+ for a decent setup anyway)
Quality stuff costs money, hardly a surprise, but what is surprising is how many people believe there is a free lunch to be had.
You would not believe the number of people I've talked to who insist that BMWs have the same parts as a Toyota, and that it's all just marketing...
Quality stuff costs money, hardly a surprise, but what is surprising is how many people believe there is a free lunch to be had.
You would not believe the number of people I've talked to who insist that BMWs have the same parts as a Toyota, and that it's all just marketing...
It depends on what you value as quality. Many of the things you guys have mentioned is either cosmetic, or used to preserve my computer far past its average lifespan...(with advancements in tech I have to get a new computer at least every 5 yrs. The cheapest PC with non brand hardware will last you that easily...
Cae in point, I bought my cousin an emachines computer for $299 three years ago, and the only problem she's had in all of this time is with trojans (she downloads everything).
I bought my mac in 2005 for 2400 (I loooove my monitor though)and I feel soooooo outdated. So I recently got a MUCH stronger PC for under 600 bucks. I wanted a mac, but the comparable Mac was $1900.
Cae in point, I bought my cousin an emachines computer for $299 three years ago, and the only problem she's had in all of this time is with trojans (she downloads everything).
I bought my mac in 2005 for 2400 (I loooove my monitor though)and I feel soooooo outdated. So I recently got a MUCH stronger PC for under 600 bucks. I wanted a mac, but the comparable Mac was $1900.
Quality is quality - and much of it is non-functional. The car analogy is really apt here.
I can buy a Toyota for $20K that will get me to work at the same time as I could if driving a BMW. It costs a hell of a lot less for the same functionality, and if we believe the reliability numbers, will last me just as long (if not longer) than the BMW - certainly longer than I plan to own the car anyways.
So why would anyone in their right mind buy a BMW? Or really anything more expensive than a Toyota? User experience. Maybe I like the extra frilly features like dual-zone climate control, power seats, in-dash GPS, projected HUD, or whatever. Or maybe I like the fact that the interior has a lot better fit and finish than the Toyota, and is made from far better materials. Maybe I like the fact that it sits low on the ground and doesn't feel like it's going to float off the ground at anything above 70mph.
These are the factors and the features that people easily discount, but add untold amounts of satisfaction to the user experience. Whether it's worth the extra cash is up to you, but the difference is there, and not always easy to notice if you're only ever looking at the spec sheet.
To bring it back to laptop-land, my old PC was thick, clunky, heavy, had tons of flimsy plastic flaps covering the ports, and the screen hinge was loose and floppy. Was it usable? Of course. Could I get work done on it? Naturally. Did it have similar or better specs than the Macs of its day? Yes. But in the end it was a poor user experience.
I can buy a Toyota for $20K that will get me to work at the same time as I could if driving a BMW. It costs a hell of a lot less for the same functionality, and if we believe the reliability numbers, will last me just as long (if not longer) than the BMW - certainly longer than I plan to own the car anyways.
So why would anyone in their right mind buy a BMW? Or really anything more expensive than a Toyota? User experience. Maybe I like the extra frilly features like dual-zone climate control, power seats, in-dash GPS, projected HUD, or whatever. Or maybe I like the fact that the interior has a lot better fit and finish than the Toyota, and is made from far better materials. Maybe I like the fact that it sits low on the ground and doesn't feel like it's going to float off the ground at anything above 70mph.
These are the factors and the features that people easily discount, but add untold amounts of satisfaction to the user experience. Whether it's worth the extra cash is up to you, but the difference is there, and not always easy to notice if you're only ever looking at the spec sheet.
To bring it back to laptop-land, my old PC was thick, clunky, heavy, had tons of flimsy plastic flaps covering the ports, and the screen hinge was loose and floppy. Was it usable? Of course. Could I get work done on it? Naturally. Did it have similar or better specs than the Macs of its day? Yes. But in the end it was a poor user experience.
Thanks for the hysterical laughter that you just provided me. The only apt analogy here is that the Mac is the taurus, with the price of the BMW. The comparison with the laptops is hardware specs, monitor, functionality, everything. The only differentiating yet irrelevant feature is the appearance, in which they differ. The 'frilly extras' of the BMW simply don't exist on the Mac. Very funny though.
Looks like there's now a timeout before replies, new feature pg?
You should probably stop shedding karma for today - your unsubstantiated, inflammatory Apple-hate has already gotten you modded into oblivion today.
But I'll bite:
- MagSafe. You cannot buy this feature anywhere, and it has saved my laptop on numerous occasions. In fact, in university I knew a guy who fixed out-of-warranty laptops for other students, and "power socket ripped off motherboard" was the most common repair he did. The fact that it snaps into place from a distance also adds that little bit of extra ease (as opposed to hunting for the hole).
- Better monitors. Seriously, do you think a $500 HP laptop can stand up to the monitor on a 15" MacBook Pro? Apple isn't the only ones offering 8-bit panels on a LED backlit screen, but if you look at any other laptops offering this you'll realize they're also in the MBP's price range. You do get what you pay for.
- Form factor and size. Your $500 Dell Inspiron is 2-3 times thicker than my MBP, and weighs 50% more. Is the size and weight savings worth it for you? I don't know, that's for you to decide, but there is a difference.
- Metal vs. plastic construction. The best keyboard I've used on a PC laptop ever is the ThinkPad keyboard (I have one right now, in fact), and even that is no match to the stiffness offered by the new aluminum-framed MacBooks. Go down to a $500 laptop and what you get is mushy crap that will twist and bend as you type. Been there done that, sick of it.
- Touchpad. The multi-touch gestures are an incredible productivity booster - two finger scrolling is the way it is meant to be. Shoving your fingers into the corner of your touchpad just to scroll is counter-productive, annoying, and just plain backwards. Being able to access any open window from a single gesture swipe has also improved my productivity.
I could go on, but go ahead and keep trolling and insisting that the "looks" is all that is different.
You should probably stop shedding karma for today - your unsubstantiated, inflammatory Apple-hate has already gotten you modded into oblivion today.
But I'll bite:
- MagSafe. You cannot buy this feature anywhere, and it has saved my laptop on numerous occasions. In fact, in university I knew a guy who fixed out-of-warranty laptops for other students, and "power socket ripped off motherboard" was the most common repair he did. The fact that it snaps into place from a distance also adds that little bit of extra ease (as opposed to hunting for the hole).
- Better monitors. Seriously, do you think a $500 HP laptop can stand up to the monitor on a 15" MacBook Pro? Apple isn't the only ones offering 8-bit panels on a LED backlit screen, but if you look at any other laptops offering this you'll realize they're also in the MBP's price range. You do get what you pay for.
- Form factor and size. Your $500 Dell Inspiron is 2-3 times thicker than my MBP, and weighs 50% more. Is the size and weight savings worth it for you? I don't know, that's for you to decide, but there is a difference.
- Metal vs. plastic construction. The best keyboard I've used on a PC laptop ever is the ThinkPad keyboard (I have one right now, in fact), and even that is no match to the stiffness offered by the new aluminum-framed MacBooks. Go down to a $500 laptop and what you get is mushy crap that will twist and bend as you type. Been there done that, sick of it.
- Touchpad. The multi-touch gestures are an incredible productivity booster - two finger scrolling is the way it is meant to be. Shoving your fingers into the corner of your touchpad just to scroll is counter-productive, annoying, and just plain backwards. Being able to access any open window from a single gesture swipe has also improved my productivity.
I could go on, but go ahead and keep trolling and insisting that the "looks" is all that is different.
Wow, that shot over your head. The comparison is in between laptops with COMPARABLE specs. Good lord. Not a $500 Dell and a $1,000 Macbook. If you'll remember, most commercials weren't too specific, but in most of them at least a thousand dollars was being spent. We're not comparing a low end PC with a high end Mac. I didn't realize I was going to have to hold your hand through that. Man, I guess at least five of you also learned a new word today, 'unsubstantiated'. Congratulations!
I've upgraded about 15 different Dell, HP and IBM laptops in the last 6 months; finding the service manuals is trivial.
I don't disagree about the build quality though; the unibody MacBooks are a sight to behold.
I don't disagree about the build quality though; the unibody MacBooks are a sight to behold.
OK - but how often do you plan on dropping your laptop? I fixed/maintained hardware for many years, so while I think you are overstating the case a bit I can agree with your basic point.
But if I, say, buy a craptop for $750 that does 90% of what I want from a $1500 Macbook, well I have $750 left over that I can use. I take a 10% productivity hit, but if I can get more than a 10% ROI on my cash (perhaps by buying a better software package or whatever) then I am ahead of the game, at least until such time as my craptop gets damaged and needs replacement.
And I have to say that the failure rates for PC laptops are not as bad as you (appear to) think.
But if I, say, buy a craptop for $750 that does 90% of what I want from a $1500 Macbook, well I have $750 left over that I can use. I take a 10% productivity hit, but if I can get more than a 10% ROI on my cash (perhaps by buying a better software package or whatever) then I am ahead of the game, at least until such time as my craptop gets damaged and needs replacement.
And I have to say that the failure rates for PC laptops are not as bad as you (appear to) think.
For my part? I doubt the part that's "so nebulous that it would require further clarification to establish".
To me, I'd question the 'full suite' of Office that was supposedly included. Even when building through Dell, and packing in the OEM version, I'm pretty sure that alone adds $3-400 to the price.
That said, Office doesn't ship with Macs. I'm pretty sure that Macs don't even ship with the 30- or 60-day evaluation version these days.
That said, Office doesn't ship with Macs. I'm pretty sure that Macs don't even ship with the 30- or 60-day evaluation version these days.
The Pro line ships with a trial version of MS Office and Apple iWork. It also includes the Apple iLife suite and several other good "Pro" apps by Omni.
What bothers me about these ads is the rigid set of arbitrary features the consumer "has to have". A laptop is a complicated technical product, so certain features are going to affect the price tag. A $700 laptop is reasonable, but a $700 laptop with a 17" screen is going to be making hefty compromises somewhere else. I have never seen a commercial where battery life, weight, durability, maintenance, or lifespan was a "requirement". Call Apple overpriced if you like, but these commercials are strongly encouraging people to make poor purchases. $1,000 may seem like a lot to these customers, but amortized over 3 to 5 years, its less than $600 every 1 ~ 2 years.
Not to mention that in the ads they either:
1. Say the laptop has everything they need, but never tell you what that "everything" is, or, 2. Say the one thing that they want the laptop for, as if you only do one thing per laptop.
Also, when they mention software, you either don't see the laptop supposedly running it, or you only see the desktop with no apps running.
What isn't being talked about is that no matter how great your hardware specs are, if the software you're running doesn't take advantage of it or use it efficiently, you won't see the benefits as an end user.
Instead of getting the ads pulled, Apple should be using their commercials to show their software being used (like in the iPhone commercials) and explaining the TCO benefits of having a Mac.
1. Say the laptop has everything they need, but never tell you what that "everything" is, or, 2. Say the one thing that they want the laptop for, as if you only do one thing per laptop.
Also, when they mention software, you either don't see the laptop supposedly running it, or you only see the desktop with no apps running.
What isn't being talked about is that no matter how great your hardware specs are, if the software you're running doesn't take advantage of it or use it efficiently, you won't see the benefits as an end user.
Instead of getting the ads pulled, Apple should be using their commercials to show their software being used (like in the iPhone commercials) and explaining the TCO benefits of having a Mac.
These debates come up every now and then when one company makes a factually incorrect assertion about another company's product in an effective advertisement. Last time, it happened when an effective series of ads strongly suggested that cable internet access wasn't scalable, and would (it was suggested) inevitably slow to a crawl as neighbors came on line, leading to humorously presented civic unrest (the ads were amusing and effective in promoting this inaccuracy). Well, sure, this could happen, but won't necessarily happen. Anyway, when the Cable folks complained, the DSL companies behind the ad trotted out the same old line "they're just made because the ad is effective and they look bad." Of course, this is just how marketing and often legal folks talk. It probably rankles an engineer more, because we get angry when rhetoric obscures the truth and leads to misinformation, especially about technical issues. This can be a weakness when engineers try to address the public - Andy Grove sure looked bad when he lectured everyone (entirely accurately) about how unimportant the floating point error was. Truth is, amusingly and engagingly presented lies can absolutely form the public's belief system. Marketers are great at this.
Anyway, I don't know what Mac's cost, so I can't evaluate the accuracy of the claim. But if Apple does have some decent choices in the sub $1K range, then sure, the Microsoft is making inaccurate claims, and Apple isn't peeved "just because the ads are effective."
Anyway, I don't know what Mac's cost, so I can't evaluate the accuracy of the claim. But if Apple does have some decent choices in the sub $1K range, then sure, the Microsoft is making inaccurate claims, and Apple isn't peeved "just because the ads are effective."
I think the issue here is that Apple is pissed that the ads claim the actors are real people. They're paid actors pretending to be consumers -- and that's false advertising. (Or misleading to be lenient)
If the actor is a real person (and not an actor) why is he in Night of The Museum 2 and Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist?
If the actor is a real person (and not an actor) why is he in Night of The Museum 2 and Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist?
"Apple is pissed that the ads claim the actors are real people."
What I read is that Apple lowered the price of some of its models by $100, thus making the ads obsolete. The lawyer's call (if any) was probably suggesting that the ads were misleading if they referred to non-current pricing without a massive asterix and disclaimer.
What I read is that Apple lowered the price of some of its models by $100, thus making the ads obsolete. The lawyer's call (if any) was probably suggesting that the ads were misleading if they referred to non-current pricing without a massive asterix and disclaimer.
I don't see where Apple gets off charging more for their computers. They're garbage. That reminds me of the youtube video of the guy flipping out because his Apple crashed again. If one has the choice between a PC and a Mac with similar hardware features, and pays the extra money for the Mac, they freaking deserve it. And saying you buy the Mac because OS X is better? Are you freakin' kidding me? That's the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard. Windows 95 was better than Mac OS X. The commercials are not only bad for slander, they're completely false. I like the one where Linux comes in and joins the conversation, and then proceeds to beat the shit out of the Mac. Now that commercial seems more fitting. Apple sucks.
Care to give us any data points to back up your broad unsubstantiated claims? They're certainly at odds with my own experience.
This is also a company that once tried to get a patent on GUIs, windowing systems. They thought they should be the only ones around to produce a machine with a graphical desktop. Thank God that didn't happen, the computing world would be a horrible place. Why don't you tell me why paying more for the same hardware specs for the Mac should be justified? Because it 'looks' better? Are you all that superficial? I could understand if the Mac outperformed the PC, but it clearly doesn't. Linux is good for servers, Windows is good for a desktop, and I guess a Mac is good for 'looking good'. It's not like I'm the only one with this opinion, read the facts. Windows has what, like 86% of the desktop market? Even Vista sold more units than OS X. Don't give me the crap about Windows is so popular because it comes pre-installed, OS X runs on Apple computers, if these people wanted OS X they'd have bought an Apple. Also, with that market share, there is obviously a crapload of repeat customers. If PCs were so bad, why do people continue to buy them? There's just this little inner circle of die-hard Apple fans, who throw a fit about any harsh word said about the products. And boy, do they love their Macs. But answer me this: Why is this group so small compared to the PC market?
Why don't you tell me why paying more for the same hardware specs for the Mac should be justified?
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The burden of proof lies with you.
Read the facts. Windows has what, like 86% of the desktop market?
I think you might be confusing facts with statistics? In any market you choose to look at, you can find a high-quality alternative to the commodity product offering that has a minority of the market share. BMW is the oft-quoted example in the automobile industry. It would be a mistake to claim "A BMW clearly doesn't outperform a Ford Taurus because there are so many more Fords on the road." Their relative market share clearly has no bearing on their respective performance.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The burden of proof lies with you.
Read the facts. Windows has what, like 86% of the desktop market?
I think you might be confusing facts with statistics? In any market you choose to look at, you can find a high-quality alternative to the commodity product offering that has a minority of the market share. BMW is the oft-quoted example in the automobile industry. It would be a mistake to claim "A BMW clearly doesn't outperform a Ford Taurus because there are so many more Fords on the road." Their relative market share clearly has no bearing on their respective performance.
Wow, comparing a Taurus with a BMW? First, there's a huge price difference. Hell, these two are in two different classes of cars. BMW obviously has a nicer interior, better motor, suspension, everything. It has better performance in every area, and is a far nicer/superior vehicle. We're comparing a macbook and a PC, with relative hardware specs, if you'll read the topic. I don't have to prove anything, I only asked because you did. My remarks are unsubstantiated ? The purchase of a laptop is purely personal preference, as I stated earlier. It's my opinion. I can base my opinion on anything I want, and you cannot claim that an opinion is 'unsubstantiated'. You cannot tell me that my personal opinion is wrong. Well I guess you could, but that would be stupid. I'm not flaming anyone, and I'm not personally attacking you or anyone else for owning/liking a mac. That's your preference, your opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own, and unlike you, I'm not explicitly stating that your opinion is wrong, or 'unsubstantiated', as the popular word of choice seems to be here. I shot the facts out in the next post because you requested them. Yes, they are facts, it is widely known that PCs and operating systems such as Windows and Unix-clones are more popular than Macs and MacOS X. I used this statement to show that I'm clearly not alone in this opinion, and because you and others demanded me to 'substantiate' my opinion, which I shouldn't even be wasting my time with.
Hehe, I knew I'd lose some points for that one. All the die-hard apple users constantly bash what I use, so I decided to give 'em some back. If its so great, why is its market share at such a low percentage? I realize its all personal preference, while you like your Mac, I can't stand the sight of one, but I've obviously used both and a PC is far superior. Its really more about how I despise Apple as a whole, more than anything. They're closed-mindedness will eventually lead to their downfall. Developers have poured blood, sweat and tears into creating apps for the iPhone, that make the device do more than Apple ever dreamed of, only to have them rejected from the app store because Apple is threatened by them. They get the 'usage of undocumented APIs' excuse. The only thing I've ever heard spoken positively about a Mac is that they're 'good for media', and I don't even believe that. Also, its all fun and games when they air their commercial, publicly bashing PC's, but they whine like a bitch when someone else does it? I just can't bring myself to purchase anything from a company like that, not even if the product was decent, which it isn't.
You didn't lose points for saying anything controversial, you lost points for writing flamey, unfocused posts filled with unsubstantiated claims about Macs.
I've obviously used both
I think it's far from obvious when you've been unable to point to one concrete (even biased and opinionated!) example of why you think a Macintosh computer is inferior to the technology you choose to use.
I think it's far from obvious when you've been unable to point to one concrete (even biased and opinionated!) example of why you think a Macintosh computer is inferior to the technology you choose to use.
Its not just me dude, millions of others share the same opinion, but here ya go: My PC is faster than my friends' macs. The UI looks better on my PC, you can even make a window fullscreen! I'm a programmer, and Apple has chosen to base their platform on Objective-c, a jumbled mess of a wanna-be C++. Honestly, I've neven even heard of another big company worth mentioning that uses the language, other than to port their software to macs. I'm part of the open source community, and while I'm sure their is some, I've never heard of an open source Apple/Mac community. Hell, Apple even discourages it for the iphone. There are vast communities for the platforms I use, Windows and Linux, and there is also plenty of free software for these platforms, while it is rarely the case on Mac. My guess its probably because software vendors have to go through the hell of using Obj-C, so they want to be paid for every program they write, as would I. As I stated I don't go looking for FOSS mac communities, but they can't be that popular, i've never heard of any at all. Is that enough for you? If not, I'm sorry but I'm tired of having to validate my own opinion. I could say that I hate mac because I don't like the color, and it would be valid because it is MY opinion. I guess I don't have the leisure of having as much free time as you all.
Wow. I wish I can vote down more than once...
The worst thing about the ads is that at the end, they pay for the PC. If Lauren knew they were going to give her $1,000 -- she probably would have bought the Mac. That part of the ad makes no sense.
It's you, not the ad. The setup is 'I want X features at $Y','Yeah? OK, you find we'll reimburse you.' There is a Mac available at $Y, but not with the features she's committed to.
Some of their "required" features aren't well thought out. An intelligent consumer wouldn't insist on a car with 400 horsepower that costs less than $10,000. Yes, it is possible, if you are willing to sacrifice safety, gas mileage, product lifespan, and the ability to turn. There are well rounded laptops that run Windows and will serve consumers for years to come, but the bottom dollar "bargains" this campaign focuses on are only going to make consumers unhappy in a year or two.
Are you really that dense? The point is that if you were spending your own money you would choose the better value. (whether vista over mac os is a better value is another argument)
The problem is in just about any off-the-shelf PeeCee laptop you will find only a 6-bit-per-color display, which, if you do any sort of color or print work is just no good. Apple notebooks, however, by virtue of being aimed at graphics professionals, are bound to have superior 8-bit displays and... oh. Oh, right. Oh, crud.
From the very beginning of GUIs, all the way up to now, Microsoft's attempts at copying Apple's lead have just ended up creating cargo-cult operating systems. Yes, $450 sounds like a better price than $1200, and yes, they both look pretty with their eye candy. But what you are getting is fundamentally different; it is cargo-cult design. With a Mac, you get stuff done. With a PC, you get less stuff done, as you run into all the issues that come up with cargo-cult technology.
So... back to the ad. I read the yanking request was over claims about pricing, which were incorrect claims since Apple's pricing had changed. It wasn't about anything like Apple trying to censor Microsoft, as some hyperventillating commenters on the net have said.
So... back to the ad. I read the yanking request was over claims about pricing, which were incorrect claims since Apple's pricing had changed. It wasn't about anything like Apple trying to censor Microsoft, as some hyperventillating commenters on the net have said.
Had to downvote you for blatant fanboyism with no substantiation. I'm a Mac user too, and I dislike Windows strongly, but if you're going to bash Windows please do so with more backup than vague references to cargo cults (which as an analogy doesn't even make sense).
I get stuff done on a Mac, and I get stuff done on a PC just as well. I dislike the amount of maintenance that needs to be done in Windows, and the disjointed UI decisions, which is why I dislike it. Still, to say that people are less productive in Windows is blatantly false.
I get stuff done on a Mac, and I get stuff done on a PC just as well. I dislike the amount of maintenance that needs to be done in Windows, and the disjointed UI decisions, which is why I dislike it. Still, to say that people are less productive in Windows is blatantly false.
With a Mac, you get stuff done. With a PC, you get less stuff done, as you run into all the issues that come up with cargo-cult technology.
I don't know about you, but I nuke-and-pave any laptop I come into possession of with Linux or NetBSD.
Shit gets done on my laptops.
I don't know about you, but I nuke-and-pave any laptop I come into possession of with Linux or NetBSD.
Shit gets done on my laptops.
Exactly... This is really off base...
If 'getting stuff done' means wasting time, then yeah, you're getting stuff done.
That's why I use an Alto.
These new "laptop hunter" ads hit Apple where it hurts. While one can argue that Apple's computers don't cost more than an identically spec'd PC, the problem is that very few people would spec a PC in the way Apple forces them. Microsoft highlights Apple's inflexible cost. Want a 15" laptop? Well, that's $1,700 since you need to upgrade a ton of other components to get that screen. 17" screen? $2,500!
As a Mac user who has stayed with Apple through the worst of times, it's frustrating that every time I want to buy something, I have to pay a huge premium price for stuff I don't need. Plus, PCs generally come at a discount if you shop around. It's easy to find a PC that, comparably equipped, prices out like a Mac, but it's also decently easy to find ones that are cheaper.
These ads portray the PC as the every-person computer. "The Macs are cool, but apparently too cool (read: expensive) for me. However, I can get an awesome deal on a much better PC." They move the debate from "which one is more slick" to "which one gives me the hardware I want at the price I can afford". Sure, they might be conceding the "in a perfect world, I'd get an Apple", but they're positioning themselves as practical.
And every time I need a new computer, I have that thought process myself. But I go back to Apple anyway (I figure it's my livelihood, I can justify spending more for something I enjoy). However, from that perspective, many people aren't going to make the same decision. And Apple would rather the debate be about which product is superior, not which product fits your lifestyle and budget.