Microsoft to attack Mac pricing in new series of TV ads - Page 5

Microsoft can spin all they want and HP, Dell and all other PC makers can tout their cheap alternatives. The facts are clear: you buy cheap laptops, you will pay to fix them. My boss and the rest of his employees have bought Lenovo/IBM Thinkpads, ranging from $1300 to $1700. In the last three years we have has motherboard, cooling fan and hard disk failures. My bosses hard drive, manufactured by Hitachi, has its head break off and loose parts damage the sectors. The result: unrecoverable data, due to scratching of the sectors. He lost 6 months worth of work, but was fortunate enough to have the Maxtor external HD for back up.

Yes, I spent $3500 on my 17" MBP, but I have confidence and a peace of mind that it will not fail and I will be able to keep it for at least 5 years and pass it on to my kids. The MBP replaced my ten year old B&W G3 tower, that still works perfectly fine.

I'm pretty sure anyone with half a brain can download Picasa for free.


It isn't well put. If someone is completely priced out of the experience, then they have no means of entering and continuing to desire the experience. I may think that the hotels in Vegas offering cheap facades of other famous places around the planet are radically inferior to the actual places. However if the only place I could afford to go was Vegas and not travel to say, Europe, I won't have the basis of comparison to know what is better.

Apple isn't pricing themselves comparable to the market but rather out of the market. Their current customers will justify the price because of the experience but they need new blood all the time as does any platform. The kid buying his first laptop for college isn't going to drop $2500 versus $800 on an unknown. They don't have the money to purchase twice if they have made a mistake. Apple needs something to hook them in at a reasonable price. They used to do it with proprietary hardware that might not have even benefitted from the economics of scale. How they do have those advantages and still just run up the price.


While I agree to a certain degree, I simply think most PC folks replace at a faster rate since they are cheaper. At my work I have a Dell Latitude D600 which is considered reasonable old. It does just fine. I have two newer PC towers in my room but also two machines running XP and even NT that still do what they are supposed to do. My mother browses the web and types up legal documents in Word Perfect. Her PC is Pentium II class (around 800 mhz) and works just fine.

In my home I just retired two Pentium II class mini-towers that my boys were using. They both worked just fine. I gave one my wife's old G4 tower with a processor upgrade(originally G4@450) and the other my 2 ghz AMD tower that also ran just fine.

If you keep a house reasonably clean and non-smoking all this stuff should run for a good long while. This is true of both sides for the most part. I've never had trouble with PC's failing that didn't involve little boys seeing what happens when you twist the capacitors off.


Tell your friend to download and install Ubuntu for free and he can have Open Office, a great OS and use Firefox for all his browsing. He can do this even if he uses Windows. I keep plenty of older PC hardware running just handing out Ubuntu cd's. I own and use a MacBook Pro but that doesn't change the fact that this hardware doesn't fail. People might become frustrated with some bad tech support or pirate software but a cd can fix that. The hardware itself isn't bad. Hand them an Ubuntu disk and keep it out of a landfill.


Perhaps it was targeted for a precise reason. I'm constantly shocked at the little monologues I hear people engage in and the weird financial rationalizations they use in their activities. The same person who bought the granite countertops will now be the idiot saying "It's time to not be cool and save some money." Never underestimate the ability of the sheeple to disappoint.

My bad.

Microsoft should be careful with these ads... After watching this one, and then reading about how things were set up, it actually promotes Apple products. Here's how I see it:

She went into an Apple store FIRST. It was her FIRST choice, even though they were more expensive, she still preferred to have a Mac. Kinda shows how the Apple brand sits in people's heads, eh?

After she couldn't get a Mac, she had to "settle" for a sub-par PC laptop...

Picasa is miles above iPhoto IMO, and it runs on my Mac, Windows, and Linux (well, through Wine) just fine. Not sure if it comes with the Dell, but it's a free download.

I don't like how iPhoto handles photo libraries, I find it slow with more than a few GBs of photos, it's slower than Picasa, and it doesn't integrate into Picasa online, although that's to be expected, since iPhoto isn't from Google.

And that's when working with RAW, which Picasa even does pretty well on my netbook, iPhoto spends too much CPU time, drawing pretty Core Image animations. I would blame the GMA 950, but that's what my netbook uses as well, and Picasa runs fine on both Windows (XP and 7) and OSX with the Mini.

I love how Microsoft doesn't assign value to their operating system.

It's just a featureless component at the heart of a collection of cheap technologies. This is exactly what they want. They want consumers to walk in with a laundry list of features and shop based on these features because they know at Best Buy they are on %95 of all computers.

With Apple they promote what you can do with your computer and the funny thing is that everytime you see an Apple product odds are the users behind the product enjoy and leverage their product in the form of consuming content.

iPhone users regarless of their computing platform consume a lot of software. Mac users buy a disproportionate amount of software.

So when I see some obsessing about the "little" stuff like eSATA ports or card readers it strikes me as odd because the real crux of efficiency is the OS and Vista and it's replacement Windows 7 cannot match Apple I don't give a damn what anyone says.

Mac users pay a premium to compute on OS X ...Windows is there by default and for years companies and users alike were downgrading Vista boxes to XP. That speaks volumes as to how they value Microsoft's OS.

see below

That was a good one. Made my friday. If you need support on windows and linux then Picasa or some other too is your friend but if we're talking about strictly a Mac environment iPhoto stomps on Picasa in most areas save for speed and those who are finicky about managing their file hierarchy. I would not recommend Mac users utilize Picasa over iPhoto 09 unless they had specific needs (like storing/retrieving photos from a NAS or cross platform issues)

iPhoto is far easier to manage with Events, Google Earth is ironically much better supported, Geo tagging is a piece of cake and tagging is easier than ever. Picasa used to look good 4 years ago...times moved on. Google needs to do something.

Here are the comparisons being made in today's front-page "slot machine" ad in the New York Times online: http://nytimes.com/

MBP 17" $2799 -- Lenovo Y730 $1499

MBP 15" $2499 -- Asus G50Vt-A2 $1899

MB 13" $1299 -- Dell Studio 15 $1099, Lenovo Y530 $1029, Dell Studio XPS 13 $1099, Toshiba U400 $729

MB 13" $999 -- Toshiba A305 $629, Acer Aspire 5735 $499

The above comparisons are somewhat more fair than the one in the television ad (which is based on a lie about screen resolutions), even when you add the approximately $120 for Vista Ultimate instead of the crippled Home Premium I assume they all come with.

I don't think people here are going "crazy". And I, for one, have no problem with Microsoft 'attacking' Apple if they want to. I just think that spending tons of money on an ad campaign (particularly this example) that emphasises price is a little pointless.

Everyone knows that there is a much wider range of PCs out there.
Everyone already knows that there are cheap PCs out there.
PC to Mac switchers are probably not the bargain basement brigade.

This ad really is preaching to the converted.... not only that but it really is doing the OEMs a disservice. Think about it! In reality there are actually lots of 17" PC laptops that cost over $1000.00. Yet this ad encourages the viewer to buy the cheaper (less OEM profit) version while Microsoft walks away with their usual fee.

I don't care if Microsoft or their agency think these are negative... I think it's a mistake to show... her first choice is an Apple store .... and saying she's not cool enough just reinforces the Apple "cool".

That NYT.com banner ad says more than this commercial .... and a its a lot cheaper too!

Apple caters to the premium end of the market, not the $400 Dell segment. You assume the entire market reflects YOU. It doesn't.

So, like some have noticed, what some call a premium price, I call quality parts. Now let put as the price comparison of price which I will address in the end. Anyone knows that Apple's laptops start with a determined decision in matching user experience (user desired features, reliability, weight, style, etc.) with cost effectiveness. Now let look at a laptop from Apple. For this purpose I will use the base models of the 13in Macbook and the 17in Macbook Pro to show how cheaper is not better and what she has decided to give-up by putting price over quality. The woman in the video buys the 699 HP Pavilion Laptop with AMD Turion X2 RM-72 Dual Core Mobile Processor-with a Bronze/Chrome finish because nothing say stay like bronze and shiny chrome. It looks meh. Both Mac's look way better. Anyone can see that.

In terms of mobility, I don't know of anyone that would consider any 17in laptop portable. I have always thought of them as mobile desktops because of battery life concerns running hardware too heavy for it to be useable. That said, she choose a bulky (11.2"x15.6"x1.7") and heavy(7.8lbs) computer compared to the MB (8.94"X12.78"x0.95") and 4.5lbs and MBP's (10.51"x15.47"x0.98") and 6.6lbs. I think that anyone without good reason should avoid 17 laptops, but she insisted. I don't think her back will be happy after a few trips.

She has an AMD processor. AMD is a bit behind the time in terms of performance per watt. I wonder if see noticed that? Apple stacks top of the line processors sometimes being the premiere system featuring new processors. Releases of new systems can normally be planned around Intel's release schedule. Intel is ahead of AMD in terms of processors. If Apple wanted to compete in that market, they could use last years technology. 2 and 3 year old processors could shave off those dollars. Use old system cards with low bus speeds and tiny caches. Processor speed sounds impressive until your look at the things surrounding it. Her system has 2.1GHz, with 1MB of L2 cache with 4GB DDR2. The MB 2.0GHz, 3MB L2 cache, 2GB DDR3 and MBP 2.66GHz, 6MB L2 cache with 4GB of DDR3. Good enough for today verses prepared for tomorrow.

Hard drive are another matter. HP uses the cheapest large hard drives out there. Apple provides the best hard drives with sudden drop sensors with 8MB cache buffers on disk sets with faster throughput.

Media card reader are like nice to have but never necessary. If you need one on you at all times, then that is a plus, otherwise it is added tech that you won't use often. Video cards make the system sound way outdated. ATI doesn't even bother listing the HD3200 on their site it is so old. Apple uses MB 256MB GDDR3 Nvidia GP, and the MPB uses 2 different GPUs for battery verse performance concerns, and both are GDDR3 256MB verses the 512MB.

She wanted a 17 in screen, but seemed to ignore screen resolution. Her HP has 1280X800 verse the MB(1280x800) and MBP 1920x1200 (thats true HD capable and much more screen usage). I'll take this time to point out that the 15in MBP has better resolution than her 17in HP. Note, the Best Buy site is listing the external monitor size as the internal monitor size, a little deceptive if you ask me. What she can see on her 17in screen she could view all the same content on a 13in MB and more on larger screens.

HP has a modem. Anyone using a modem... well it is upsetting to say the least if someone must suffer like that. It also does not have a Gb ethernet jacks and only supports wireless B and G. I am convinced she enjoys living in life 3 years ago... Macs comes standard with Gb ethernet, access to A/B/G/N networks. The MBP comes with a firewire 800 and a PCI-expansion slot for additional versatility.

Battery life which is a major point of a laptop. The HP has 2.5 hours. The MB 5 hrs and MBP 8 hrs. The Mac has a multi-touch trackpad. It comes with OSX which is better protected against viruses and malware for average users that can slow or corrupt a system. In addition to the OS being way better and faster than Vista's resource hog, the added software of iLife is celebrated for its ease of use and power. There is no comparing iMovie, iPhoto, or Garageband to anything out there in the consumer range.

The woman should also know that her HP will probably die after her one year warranty is up or a year from then. She will wonder in 2 years why her computer is so much slower than the rest of the computers out there. When she goes to throw out her computer, she will be hurting the environment, because her computer contains so many harmful components. The Mac is design with carbon footprint in mind, from the packaging, battery disposal, recycling, having LED backlit screens. I mean look at the size of the box for her computer.

I will close with this little nugget of explanation. In January of 2007 I bought a 15in MBP. It has a 2.16GHz core 2 Duo Intel processor, 4MB L2 cache support for Wireless A/B/G/N, 3GB of DDR2 SDRAM, 1440x900 Native display, a PCI-X expansion slot, Firewire 400 and 800, and a backlit keyboard along with other features. I am willing to say that a computer that came out in late 2006 is better than what that woman bought in 2009. On Craigslist, one person is listing theirs for 1100 and the other person is listing theirs for 1200. Mac maintain their value better than other brands. What I am saying is that when the time come for her to get a new computer, it is likely that hers will either no longer work or it will be close to worthless.

Hehe . . . do I get an updated white Macbook to play with, or do I go for real portability and get an Air? Maybe a Mini to complement my current MBP? Do I go for a midrange MBP or loaded Macbook? THESE are the kinds of choices I love. All great quality, but very, very simple and straightforward. And all designed to run OS X flawlessly. The same kind of integration across the board, the same environment.

It's just strange to see Microsoft on the defensive. They are still the leader in terms of sales and volume, but are acting like the little guy. Every attempt to ding the competition just knocks them down a notch in my book.

I have found Macs to be reliable overall, but a bad disk can happen to anybody, no matter how good the drive supplier is. That's what Time Machine is for.

That said, integrators such as Apple can choose different reliability ratings (MTBF) for the drives they buy. Obviously the cheaper models have lower MTBF figures. I'm not sure what criteria Apple uses, but they use several brands of drives, including Hitachi.

I find it all comical. I know someone who recently purchased a shinny new DELL [by the way, I used to swear by these things]. They asked if I'd go over and help them set it up, and install some software they had; nothing fancy, Office, etc. After 2 1/2 hours of running update this and that. Apply this SP, and that patch. And finally the ever dreaded AV/Anti-Spy/Anit-Malware suite, I was done. I never noticed how noisy they were until then either...

I was never so happy to go home to my trusty MB an 20"iMac. Clean, Quiet...aahhhh...it was truly ZEN. My point? I paid a little more for each, but in the end...a much better, overall experience.

This is not about logic.

here is the deal;

Show a Rolls Royce. Show a BMW. Now show a Chevy!
"I shopped for a new car and I found a Nova for under 10, 000." So what if has plastic seats full of formaldehyde, the transmission will conk out after 35k, the owners manuel sucks, the thing chugs up hills and you have to shift/grind all three gears!. Then there is the frustration of getting questions when the dealer forwards your calls to India. "Where is the hood release? I can't find the hood release!" answer: "Da boot release is beneath the ancillary cabinet. Is there anyting else I con hellp you wit?"

Why would anyone in their right mind want to be associated with any product that came from a company with Steve Ballmer as it's titular head...

I'd like to emphasize the word tit in titular...

The recession is irrelevant. Either you can afford a Mac or you can't. It's that simple. People who have secure jobs shouldn't care if we are in a recession or not with respect to purchasing things. And while unemployment is high and some jobs are at risk, there are still a lot of people who can afford a Mac.

The only effect this will have on Apple is lame fodder for PC fanboys on Internet forums.

It's pretty well know that half of all mac sales are first-time buyers.

Lots of people complain about that, but I just plug my digital camera in via USB and iPhoto imports all the pics no problem. Why would I need some mega card reader? How many different devices does the average consumer have? Esp considering most use either SD or micro SD.

This seems to be the list of machines they will be using in the ads during the campaign:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/allaround/

All of the configurations featured in the NY Times ad are there, along with the one from the first television ad. The prices/configurations are as of February 18.

If she is an actress and the ad was scripted, then it is the director who is incompetent
(or a Mac partisan).

Anyone else think that Microsoft is looking desperate for a company with a majority marketshare? How many ad campaigns for windows have we seen since Apple launched the "I'm a PC" campaign? If anything, I'd say Apple seems to be winning on some fronts, because in the old says MS would shrug off Apple's ads. Its actually kind of pathetic.

In regards to the ad, it just relates to the price on the box, not what's inside. All I know is the woman wanted a 17 laptop, that's it. On top of that, the commercial is, if anything, for an HP computer with unknown stats. MS is shilling for hardware they don't make - which, if anything, is the advantage of Apple. Sure, the fact that they control the whole Mac ecosystem is bad from a competitive pricing standpoint, but it means that everything works. It also means that this woman likely had to spend a ton of time at home messing with bloatware when she got back from her shopping trip.

And I do feel that you get what you pay for. I just replaced my 10 year old G4 and my 7 year old iBook with a Macbook Pro. WHy? because they were getting dated and slow. But they still worked and were solid. At my last job I had a Toshiba Tecra. Not only did the OS grind down over a year, but the screws kept falling out of the bottom. I'd rather spend 2K every 5-10 years than 1K every 2 years. And I know upgrades can keep a PC running longer, but she bought a laptop which is limited in regards to upgrades, but also, if she is a typical consumer, then she likely won't upgrade anyway.

But what I really take away from the ads is that PCs aren't "inexpensive" or "affordable", but "cheap", which is a word I don't like when I buy things. "cheap" might mean low cost, but it also implies lack of quality and durability.

I also like the fact that I am considered cool because of my Mac. I didn't say it, the woman in the MS commercial did.

Edit: also, anyone else have the gut feeling that the agency made the ad on a mac?

No, I'm not talking only about my personal experience. I know people who also teach PC users. They are themselves very experienced users and were somewhat programmers in the past. They publish books about how to use PCs and Internet. They can't take Mac. Not because it isn't intuitive, but because they are not accustomed to and because they perform slower on Mac. This is enough for them to reject. They just have no time to lose with thinking how to do something.

And because I know the matter as good as you can only imagine, I state, that in your school you can not (and you do not) measure how efficient your students are at work on Mac.
You certainly teach them how to do this and that on Mac. They, sure, learn it, know it and can do it. What is guaranteed, after some short days they do same thing faster on PC, than on Mac, if they have some considerable experience on PC.

No, publishing isn't entertainment, it's a job like others. Yes, in terms of necessary operator working speed it's looser than some other jobs.

All interfaces are to some extent logical and seamless. Some of them are better just in some area, not at everything.

That's what I do. It's not like the cable is heavy, awkward or anything like that. I figure the ideal solution would be bluetooth though adding bluetooth to cameras will make them more expensive which is why many cam makers have avoided stuff like bluetooth and wifi.

I guess i'm just sick of card readers being tossed in everything. I just saw a SATA drive dock with a card reader in it (scratches head). Card readers in everything signifies to me that the vendor has run out of ideas and thus "tosses" in a $.60 card reader into the product and checks off another feature.

Plus another thing is that as these cards begin to go up to 32GB and beyond the performance of a card reader becomes essential. Go to Amazon and look up the Lexar FW800 compact flash reader. There will be a lot of photogs that love the device because moving 16GB of data takes time and many built in card readers are dog slow.

"However, Microsoft stepped in and dumped low cost Windows XP licenses on the PC makers to get them to stop selling Ubuntu's software as a competing product, according to Ubuntu CEO Mark Shuttleworth."

Call me naive, but doesn't this smell exactly like the behavior that got MS busted in the first place for monopoly behavior? Aren't they still under observation for this, or has that all passed?

Actually not a bad ad, especially by MS standards. While the hardware isn't as nice, they do have a point that for someone looking for a budget machine, Apple simply isn't competitive. And I'm not sure how apple can respond - they can't really dispute it in advertising, and they have long been unwilling to even offer any sort of budget machine, even though there are certainly people who just want a machine for basics and don't care about the expensive extras that apple doesn't give the option of leaving out.

I know apple doesn't want to go for the extreme low end, but would it kill them to offer budget laptops for under a grand, particularly ones that have bigger screens but leave off other high end features?

Not 'chicken little', but definitely short-sighted. This environment will pass, and Apple has the cash to ride it out and take advantage of the time for development and positioning, exactly as they did in 2002 recession when they did the same thing with iPods.
If they race to the bottom now, they'll be stuck there when the economy upturns again. Apple doesn't go there, and they're right.

I fully agree with this.

People are in a recession. Apple have 28 billion in the bank. I'd like Apple to reduce their margins so that customers who stood by the company in the 'good times' are rewarded in the 'bad times'. But no. Apple doesn't even keep them level. They jack them up by at least 20% here in the UK. And that isn't all stering either. Other PC companies...loads of them...can take a hit on margins to sell a fair spec for a fair price.

I don't think Apple's current prices are 'fair.' They're starting to look like the greedy margin chasers of the late 80s/early 90s. And it cost them marketshare. They just don't seem to get it.

It's not about having the cheapest PC for 10 pence. It's about a fair entry price for students, working class people for whom a £1000 is alot of money. It doesn't have to be £100. But the Mac Mini is a £195 computer if ever I saw one pretending it's worth £500 with a gig of ram. Puh-lease. There are PCs which cost the same and have plenty of ram, hd, discrete gpu, quad-core and monitor and k/board...for the SAME price. They're not junk.

The iMac? Apple used to make great play of the discrete graphics in their mini and iMac. Now? £900-1100 you have to spend on an iMac. And guess what? Integrated crappics. When you have 1 gig gpu middle market gpus like the 4870 in rigs costing a grand. With a quad core PC.

Sure, the iMac make be a competive a-i-o compared to Dell or HP. But that doesn't absolve Apple for not having a competitive consumer tower product which Dell and everybody else has...and THEY ARE more affordable than an iMac.

Apple's premiums over similar levels of performance...are ridiculous. I think they really lost the plot with the last round of desktop updates.

...and they yet to bring their alu' laptop into the price range of the former macbook's entry price.

Students...struggling artists...etc...what about them? It doesn't have to be dirt cheap. But define 'reasonable'.

Discuss.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Yes it would.

Never in the 30 year history of Apple have they ever compromised quality (at least not while under the direction of Steve Jobs). Why on earth would Apple, dead smack in the middle of a true rebirth, resort to a business practice which goes against everything they've ever stood for? Stripped down computers for the masses is not in their DNA. Doing so would DESTROY the brand loyalty the company has rightfully acquired over the past three decades. They'll do just fine continuing to sell "relatively" expensive computers which are routinely deemed to be worth the price many times over.

These ads are taking advantage of the fact Apple only competes at certain price points.

So a consumer says, "Okay, I want to buy a laptop. I have $1500/$2000/$2500 to spend." The fact is that the MacBook is very competitive at those price points, especially when tangibles like industrial design and Mac OS X are factored in. [In other words, when you don't ignore quality -- as this ad campaign must to be effective -- and you start competing against the best PC hardware designs and Vista Ultimate.]

At the end she says, ""I'm a PC and I got just what I wanted."
Then why did she go into the the "Mac" store?
And why was she worried about not being "cool enough?"

Sounds like she got what she had to settle for, based on price (free), not what she wanted.

And at 32 seconds in, she picks up a little 13 inch and coones, "this is like a phone".
Why is she even looking at it if she wants a 17" screen?

You're saying that offering a 17 inch budget machine for under a grand would "kill" apple?

Based on what?


I'd have an easier time believing all that if they hadn't been shipping that turd of a mac mini for the past three years or so. Compromised quality? Check. Stripped down computer? Check.

Apple DOES offer pretty basic machines, there are certainly models that lose out to PCs that are far cheaper. Apple just overcharges for their "budget" machine, using a pretty case as an excuse.

Maybe apple should just create a new brand name for selling budget machines, call it the Honeycrisp line or something.

Do lexus and infiniti and acura sell economical cars?

Sure, they are hondas and nissans and toyotas. Because they are smart and try to address the whole market, not just a small niche of it. There's nothing inherent to OSX that it couldn't ship on a decent but simple box at a competitive price. Apple just chooses to blow off part of the market.

Ballmer is trying to play on some of the "old" Apple attitudes with "I'm not cool enough for Apple."

I am a recent, but now hard core, convert to Apple and OS X. I bought a used iMac G3 in October 2006. It was just what I wanted: Unix in a slick, easy to use package!

Before OS X came out, I was an Apple hater. It seemed like a smug company, and yes, elitist, who charged way too much. I remember the girl in the Mac ad working away on a Mac saying "I'm sorry, I don't know anything about computers" to the guy with the PC asking for help. Great message: Apple is for non-technical people who lots of money! Not very appealing to us technical types. At the time, PCs seemed to give more bang for the buck hardware wise, plus you could get "under the hood" in a way you didn't seem to be able to do with Apple products. I remember using an Apple occasionally and all those smarmy little popups that said, "You can't do that." Way, way too personal!

Times have changed. The strength of PCs -being to add in hardware and customize - is now it's downfall. There are just too many pieces of hardware out there for ANYTHING to cover all of them. This is why Windows is a piece of junk. By trying to cover all, it doesn't run well on ANY hardware! Apple is an integrated system, same as, many of us remember, workstations from Silicon Graphics, IBM, HP, and Sun in the 80s and 90s.

Heaven forbid he should actually try to sell Windows!

Because they are scared, I mean I thought people said Apple was only at 3% worlwide and Microsoft had like 96%, why are they wasting their time on such a small segment, that is a blip on their radar. I guess they do feel the heat Apple lit under them.

Somehow I find that hard to believe.

What about the Apple III? Quality? LOL. Come on. They ain't perfect, and have put out some bad products.

I will gladly pay extra for the lack of headaches with using OS X. No wondering what is going to break and disable the machine when installing the latest updates or antivirus software. Easily sharing a printer even to Windows machines ... seamlessly fitting in in a Windows network ...

Besides, I love Unix! I have had a Linux machine for 12 years.