Really? Who are 'we'? Mac users? I would guess that a poll of Mac users would discover that they believed MACs were a better value. I wouldn't dispute their belief, but I wouldn't hold it up as universal. I don't think Mac's have greater value intrinsically. I may think they are a better device in some respects, but that isn't the whole of value.
Quite honestly, I am not sure why some people are getting all upset over the ad... Apple has been attacking Windows over the last few year, presenting their side of the story with all these Mac vs. PC ads. Almost all of the Windows users I talked to has taken it in good humor.
Now that Microsoft is hitting back, I see all these Mac fanboys start throwing fits and cry.
Ahhh yes, the old "fanboy" moniker.
You Windows folks never get tired of that one.
__________________
Current Apple Stuff: 24" iMac, iPhone 4, AppleTV (original), 4gb Shuffle, 64gb iPad 2.
My point is that you can't compare a luxury brand / item to a run-of-the-mill pedestrian item and say "Look how overpriced the more expensive item is." Of course it is. You also get a hell of a lot more.
Except when the Apple "luxury item" started the discussion by comparing THEIR product to Windows PCs as a whole.
So by your standard, it is perfectly acceptable for Apple to compare luxury to low cost, but not OK to go the other direction?
Again, MS didn't reject anything Mac has been saying - they just pointed out that "Yep, for 2 to 3 times as much, you can have everything Apple promises and be cool while you are at it - of course most of us don't have that kind of money so here is a great alternative."
Quote:
I've noticed we rarely see this kind of articles / posts / ads about Sony VAIO computers which are so ridiculously overpriced they're almost in the range of usury.
If you group "Windows" machines as a whole, the Windows market offers a range. If the ONLY Windows computers were overpriced VAIOs, yeah, that's a point. Also, VAIO never put themselves head to head against other Windows machines in their ads - Apple DID do this.
Quote:
There's no doubt that Windows PCs can be had for significantly less than Macs; Windows PCs are mass-produced commodity items sold in every big box store in the world, but it would've been nice to see them at least compare similarly spec'ed machines or compete in the real world, not the fake disparate comparison world they created.
But they aren't comparing specs - they are comparing what the user wants to get done. If the user wants X,Y,Z then it is perfectly acceptable to compare two products that accomplish X,Y, and Z and then see which one is more affordable. Does an Apple REALLY surf the web better than a Windows machine? Is your email that much better on an Apple? Do movies look significantly better? If not, then the comparison remains valid. If you want to do X,Y, and Z you can do it as well and cheaper on a PC, then that's a fair thing to point out to folks.
Quote:
And yes, I know it's advertising, but this is not the first time MS has played fast and loose with the facts, and it's definitely not the first time this stupid argument has come up. It's just odd to see Microsoft adopting it for their own, now.
I'm curious about which facts they are playing fast and loose with.
Look, I agree with you that Apple makes great machines, but we're talking about Joe user - not technophiles. For Joe User, with a limited income (which is most people) and limited needs, a Windows machine is a great choice and it is worthwhile for MS to point this out to folks - especially with the saturation of the mass market with the Apple message.
I just don't see why you're so angry at MS for doing this. If Apple doesn't like it, release a $300 laptop and undermine the argument! I'd buy one today if they did.
Regardless of your personal feelings, blind MS bashing is rather unbecoming a Thoughts website editor. MS and Apple people can debate the merits of both platforms all day long, but you're writing from an emotional standpoint, not simply debating facts.
I will say I like Macs, but will never own one, since I love building my own PCs. It's a long-standing hobby of mine. I have a company provided laptop, so I won't purchase one myself. Otherwise, I might get a Macbook, because price is not a concern for me. However, if you look at HP's website, you can get an HP laptop comparable on specs to a $2800 17" Macbook Pro for $1300 -- 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, 320GB 7200rpm hard drive, 18.4" screen, 512MB Nvidia 9600M graphics, 802.11N wireless, Blue-ray, webcam. Slightly slower processor, faster hard drive, bigger screen and Blue-ray for less than half the price.
I'm not going to debate whether the Macbook Pro is worth the extra money. For many people it is, and if I was buying a laptop, it might be for me, too. That said, the blind evangelism, combined with MS bashing just because you're an Apple supporter, isn't journalism. It's just trashy blogging.
I was recently in the market for a laptop and I really wanted to buy a macbook so I could fool around with developing some iphone apps. After doing some research I simply couldn't justify the cost. The $999 (on special) dell XPS at bestbuy seemed to have the same specs (slightly slower CPU plus a slightly bigger screen and a Bluray drive) as the $2500 15" Macbook. At that differential and the way computer prices come down I could probably buy at least 3 windows laptops over the next 6 years, and the 999 one 4 years from now is going to be way better than the macbook of today. I was definitely willing to pay a premium, but at 250% of the price it was just too much. I will probably end up buying a mini when I get some free time to try out the iphone SDK, the mini seems like a much better "value" than any of the macbooks to me. 1500 extra bucks for the extras just seemed way out of line. I really wish it was cheaper because a dual boot (I need windows for work) Macbook sounded really good.
There's no doubt that Windows PCs can be had for significantly less than Macs; Windows PCs are mass-produced commodity items sold in every big box store in the world, but it would've been nice to see them at least compare similarly spec'ed machines or compete in the real world, not the fake disparate comparison world they created.
I'm not going to say all that much here (OK, looks like I did anyway), because I know it will be a losing battle with you but I'll point something out here: it's every bit as valid to compare two products on price as it is to compare them on features, because for some, features are more important than price, and for others, price is more important than features - as long as the basic features are there, many consumers don't care about the rest.
For example, Ashley and I have been crib shopping lately. We've seen cribs for $249 and we've seen cribs for $1500. 95% of features that the $1500 crib offers are the same as the $249 crib. The $1500 crib simply looks nicer doing it, and is made of better materials, so would presumably last longer, etc. For some, the nicer looks are worth it. For us, they are not - we're looking for a crib that will hold our child, keep him/her safe, and make it easy for us to get him/her in and out. The longevity of the crib is essentially irrelevant to us - we're not looking for a family heirloom, we're looking for a tool that will do the job, and when that tool is done, we'll sell it and move on. It's perfectly valid for us to shop with price as the most important factor, just as it's perfectly valid for someone else to demand pure oak and accept nothing less, regardless of price.
Looking at your car comparison example, you sarcastically ask this:
"After all, if I just want a car with a V6 engine and 17" tires, it doesn't matter what the car is, right? I can get any car with a V6 and 17" tires and it's the same thing! There's no difference whatsoever between a 2009 Chevrolet Impala and a 2009 Chevrolet Malibu, right?"
For many consumers, there is no difference, at least not any that matter to them. That's the reason why some people will buy a used car for $1000 and others will drop $50,000 on a car, yet both serve the same basic purpose of getting the person from point "A" to point "B".
The flaw in Apple's game, if you want to call it a flaw, is that they highly segment their market into buckets that they feel make sense. In Apple's world, the only people who should need a 17 inch screen are professional content creators, and those people are willing to pay $2700 to get that size of screen.
In the Windows world, there are people who want a 17 inch screen because it might be their only computer, not hooked up to a monitor, and they just want a big screen to work on. That's perfectly valid. Apple doesn't have a product to sell to those people, so if someone has that need, they can't buy an Apple product - and that's all this commercial was really saying.
The explosive rise of netbooks has taught the industry one very important lesson: most people can get by on much less computer horsepower than the industry has been telling them they needed for years. Yes, people like you and I want the super fast processors and the huge hard drives because we're content creators, but many people out there simply consume content - and you don't need much horsepower to consume content.
As an aside, Apple doesn't have an answer to the netbook question because it's the antithesis of their own products: "just enough" engineering, low product price points, something that appeals to the lowest-common denominator. Something that's both form and function, but just-right-form and just-barely-function.
But that's OK, because Apple's game has NEVER been about mass-market success with their computers. Steve Jobs doesn't want to own 90% of the market, he wants to own the "best" 10% there is - the most profitable, the people who appreciate the aesthetics that the Mac has to offer.
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
Now, yet again, MS is ripping into Apple (a company with significantly smaller market share; says something about where their priorities are, doesn't it?)
You know full well the tremendous damage those Apple ads did to the perception of Vista over the years - hiding behind Apple's small market share isn't relavent here. Most people didn't switch to OS X, they stuck with crappy old computers running XP rather than get a new PC running Vista - and few if any could explain why. Advertising works. Pumping the same message - "Vista sucks" - into the minds of the American Idol-watching public, over and over, has a big impact on public opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Ferrari
...by selling HP computers and NOT their own OS.
When's the last time Apple did an ad for only OS X? I don't think I've ever seen one. Apple is a hardware+software company, and they use that to their advantage because consumers understand hardware more than they understand software - if Apple advertised only the SOFTWARE on the iPhone and didn't show a hand holding the product, it would have been more abstract and harder for the general consumer to grasp. By showing hardware and software together, Apple presents a complete package - and that's what people understand.
So knocking Microsoft for doing the same thing seems pretty silly to me.
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
I absolutely LOVE OS X. I have never had to deal with all the vagaries of software problems under OS X that I did with WIndows from Win 3.1 to Vista. OS X is a large part of why Macs "just work". And OS X is why I never buy that cheap PC - because I'd have to deal with Windows and I'd just rather not.
That's a perfectly valid reason - it's like some people who, once they purchase a vehicle with all-wheel drive, they simply never want to go back to a two-wheel drive system. The four-wheel drive "check box" becomes the #1 thing they look for, and it's more important than paying the lowest price for the car. Other people could care less about all-wheel drive and price is more important to them. Neither is "wrong".
__________________ Want to contact me personally? Use this. Want to read my personal blog? Check it out. Want to follow me on Twitter? Here you go.
Regardless of your personal feelings, blind MS bashing is rather unbecoming a Thoughts website editor. MS and Apple people can debate the merits of both platforms all day long, but you're writing from an emotional standpoint, not simply debating facts.
Wait, I'm supposed to respond to a rah rah "YAY US! WE'RE NOT THE COOL KIDS, BUT WE'RE STILL OKAY" piece of contrived tripe with some hipster actress that's designed to appeal to every single stupid stereotype (see the "I guess I'm not cool enough to own a Mac" remark) Windows jerks have been slinging at us while calling us fanboys and kool aid drinkers for years with pure journalism and impartiality?
Screw that.
For three years I've heard nothing but whining from Windows "enthusiasts" (because God forbid we call them fanboys) about how "mean" the Apple "Get a Mac" ads are. You know, the ones that say the out of box experience is better (it is; not for nothing but even Jason would admit that), the included software is better (it is; unless you think Quicken Trial Edition is awesome) and how Macs don't get the same virus and spyware infections that Windows do (or any for that matter).
For three years I've heard how horrible Apple is for those ads and they run one stupid piece with a bunch of loaded BS, I respond, and I'm being told to shut my mouth?
I don't get why Apple people are supposed to be impartial, lest we immediately be labelled fanboys, but when Windows people show the same zealotry, they're called "enthusiasts" and even rewarded by Microsoft for their evangelism as "MVP's." If there was any better example, take a look at how Daniel Eran Dilger is written about as opposed to how Paul Thurrott is written about. Both of them are as blind as blind zealots can be, and yet one is called a "journalist" and the other is regularly chastised for being a "fanboy."
I'm not a journalist, nor was I put on here to be one, pretend to be one, or appear to be one. When Microsoft lets loose some BS, I call them out on it (this crap ad, the not changing backgrounds in Windows 7 Starter, and so on). When Apple lets loose some BS I call their butts on the carpet for it also (see my continuing rants against their video DRM and their iTunes approval process for iPhone apps if you want proof; in fact on my first weekend here I wrote a gigantic piece about Apple being in bed with Hollywood and how hypocritical that is). That's the way I am. I call out BS.
If you see that as trashy, my apologies.
Just don't expect it to change.
__________________
Current Apple Stuff: 24" iMac, iPhone 4, AppleTV (original), 4gb Shuffle, 64gb iPad 2.
When's the last time Apple did an ad for only OS X? I don't think I've ever seen one. Apple is a hardware+software company, and they use that to their advantage because consumers understand hardware more than they understand software - if Apple advertised only the SOFTWARE on the iPhone and didn't show a hand holding the product, it would have been more abstract and harder for the general consumer to grasp. By showing hardware and software together, Apple presents a complete package - and that's what people understand.
So knocking Microsoft for doing the same thing seems pretty silly to me.
Not when Apple makes both parts (the hardware and the software).
I noticed the distinct absence of the word Vista anywhere in the ad. That's the part they make. That, my friend, is pretty silly.
__________________
Current Apple Stuff: 24" iMac, iPhone 4, AppleTV (original), 4gb Shuffle, 64gb iPad 2.
but I'll point something out here: it's every bit as valid to compare two products on price as it is to compare them on features, because for some, features are more important than price, and for others, price is more important than features - as long as the basic features are there, many consumers don't care about the rest.
Linear Mode
LinkBacks (?)
