The truth is this ad just says what the uninformed everyman already perceives about the Mac. ....... I suggest they might consider a Mac. They invariably wrinkle their nose and say, "They're too expensive.
So why spend millions of dollars on an ad campaign telling people what they already know?
The daft thing is that Microsoft is promoting two companies. They are Apple and HP. The computers from someone other than Apple may be cheaper.
However, Microsoft makes software (particularly the OS), not hardware. And if we look at the price of Windows vs. OS X (a good comparison as it's software to software), Windows is more expensive than Mac OS X. But Microsoft will just gloss over that fact.
What does it matter? The price of the software is a non-starter because NOBODY CARES and it's already included in the purchase price of a machine. And when you buy an HP or a Dell or a Lenovo, people know that they are getting Microsoft Windows -- it's a given. Microsoft's brand name (for better or for worse) is tied to the purchase.
The only time the price of the software would come into play is when someone would want to upgrade their machine to the newest version of the OS say 2-3 years down the road AFTER the purchase of the machine.
So we're back to $2,800 vs $700.
Honestly, I can see the appeal of these ads. Take my mom for example. My dad wanted to get her a new computer for Christmas 2007. I shopped around for him and the best deal that I could come up with at the time was for a Dell desktop (Pentium Dual Core I believe) with a 19" LCD monitor for around $400. It came with 1GB of memory (I personally installed another 1GB for around $15), a 250GB HDD, a DVD burner and Windows Vista Home Basic.
All my mom does is surf the internet, write emails in Gmail, and do online banking. She also sells stuff on Half.com from time to time and prints out shipping labels to her wireless HP printer. My dad will hop on every once in a while to check lottery numbers, but that's only because that stuff is blocked from his work computer .
The machine has worked flawlessly ever since the day it arrived at my parents' house -- no hardware problems, no software screwups.
For most everyday users, I don't see what the big deal is with Windows machines -- especially given the price differences. If you need to step up to a higher-spec machine, then by all means go out and spend the extra $$$ on a high-end Apple or Dell/HP/Alienware/ASUS/etc.
The bottom line with the commercial is that if you want to get a 17" notebook from Apple, you have to start at $2,800. If you want to the "value" route, you can get a "Wintel" laptop for $700.
$2,100 is nothing to scoff at. Sure there are some things that the MacBook has over the machine pictured in the ad (screen rez, unibody construction, longer battery life, etc.), but it sure isn't $2,100 worth of features.
That being said, I'm not a fan of HP machines in the first place. I prefer the Lenovo ThinkPad X-Series when it comes to notebooks.
The truth is this ad just says what the uninformed everyman already perceives about the Mac. At work whenever I hear someone say they are thinking about getting a new computer, I suggest they might consider a Mac. They invariably wrinkle their nose and say, "They're too expensive.
If everyone knows that, then why bother advertising it?
guys, i can't believe you! what's true in advertising? is one of the apple ads true or real??? not really... that is called "scripted reality", and it is obvious. but besides this, it is a fact that macs are way too expensive. i often fail at convincing people to buy macs, often simply because they can't afford so much money. imagine there would not be the white macbook, at which expensive price would the mac book line start??? apple should really do something here. if you get a 17" inch for 600 US$ it is REALLY difficult to convince people to pay so much for a 13" model.
people thought that wasnt an actress how dumb could they be?
Apple made a series of iPhone ads in late 2007 with real people who used iPhone, not actors/actresses. Their stories were certainly edited and then scripted but they were real people telling real stories.
The daft thing is that Microsoft is promoting two companies. They are Apple and HP. The computers from someone other than Apple may be cheaper.
However, Microsoft makes software (particularly the OS), not hardware. And if we look at the price of Windows vs. OS X (a good comparison as it's software to software), Windows is more expensive than Mac OS X. But Microsoft will just gloss over that fact.
Agree! Maybe Apple should get Lauren's "sister" to go into one of those MS stores when they get built with $150.00 bucks and search for a non upgrade, MS Operating System that offers everything Apple's OS X Home Basic does. Everything Apple's OS Home Premium does. Everything Apple's OS Business does. Everything Apple's OS Ultimate does. Oh wait, there is only one Apple OS that does everything and at one low price.
Wow, what a fanboy dissection that story was. I think most of us could give a rats ass whether or not the ad was faked. I think this story does provides a peek into the mind of a mac fanboy.
$2,100 is nothing to scoff at. Sure there are some things that the MacBook has over the machine pictured in the ad (screen rez, unibody construction, longer battery life, etc.), but it sure isn't $2,100 worth of features.
Sorry for rambling
An Operating System from a company that puts to good use their R&D budget and the talent of many software engineers and the vision of their CEO, like Apple, to me, you can"t put a price on. Versus waiting to see the resemblance product to come from the competitor who's CEO is jumping around screaming, which is amazing in itself, when you try to envision a person jumping when they put not just one but both feet in their mouth every time they make a comment.
Back in 1995, I asked my friends who were Mac users why they chose Mac over PC and they said their friends had PC's and didn't know how to "use them" and "they sat on their desks like giant paperweights". So when I was shopping for my first computer back in Aug. '95 at mid-night shopping in CompUSA, while all the masses were drooling over the release of Windows 95, I purchased my first computer, a Mac, and was odd man out in the checkout line.
My sister and neighbors have PC's and they use their computer within the limits of their computing knowledge, not necessarily the limits of the computing OS. Meaning, while Microsoft's OS may have had the capabilities, it did not have the intuitiveness so the average, non tech, non computer geek, like my sister and neighbors could understand.
I'm so glad your mom was able to buy and set-up her computer all on her own, because usually it is the younger generation that is more computer literate then the older generation but my 24 year old next door neighbor bought a PC laptop this past Christmas and it had MS Vista Ultimate as the OS, a lot of bloat with the trial software apps etc. that even with 4 GB RAM, that thing literally ran slower than my first Mac I purchased back in '95.
Could she have cleaned it up and got rid of the bloat and have that machine scream with it's 4 GB RAM speed. Probably. However, since it was not intuitively easy, and she didn't want to mess things up, she just let it sit around the house until she was to go home for the holidays where she said she would get her brother who is good at such things, "clean it up". In the meantime, this computer Christmas present she bought for herself just sat on the desk not being used like a giant paperweight.
"Sat on the desk not being used like a giant paperweight", seems like for the most average of basic PC users, time hasn't changed very much for their computing choices!
anyone showing that much enthusiasm for buying ANY computer, wether PC, Mac, or Linux, is acting or just plain crazy. Who here has done cartwheels upon receiving a new Mac?
Yes, they were once in the red, before Jobs' return to Apple. I'm sure there are a few companies out there who have never been in the red. I'm pretty sure Wal-Mart is one of them. I'm also certain that Microsoft, if it does not find a new business model, will soon find it's way into the red.
Don't forget, Apple's growth rate is about 3X the growth rate of the rest of the PC industry. Microsoft's share was slipping well before the release of Vista, which was touted in the same manner that 7 is being touted today. That said, don't get your hopes up. Apple is doing very well and they're not slowing down, but Microsoft is facing some serious problems turning a profit on some of their largest product lines, such as the Xbox. They can't keep losing money on some of their products just to keep up market share while at the same time keep losing market share in their core businesses, such as Office and Windows. The cash cow is dying and the other products are lame ducks, in terms of profit.
Keep dreaming. Microsoft is just as capable of failing as Apple was in 1997. Apple was also the leader in personal computers before IBM and Microsoft strolled in. To think that Microsoft can't be dethroned is a pipe dream.
It does not take a genius to agree that Apple's growth rate is 3x more than other PC makers. When you got 8.9% market share it is much easier to gain then at 20 to 30% like HP or Dell. It is always harder to maintain or grow at that number. That said, as for Microsoft, it is harder to grow at 89% then it is to lose from 100%.
At the end of the day, Vista didn't help Microsoft and they have learned and Windows 7 will be a promising OS. This will bring Microsoft back up over the 90% market share.
Apple will need to try harder to maintain its growth with products that people want. Not what Jobs says. For example... People want Blu-Ray. Jobs refuses to pay for the fees of Blu Ray technology, hence why they are not on the Macs. Yet the fees for the iPod/iPhone technology are more expensive than the Blu Ray fees and companies have to pay for them. Does Jobs expects things for free? It called a business last time I checked.
Jobs can only get away with so much before people demand it.
guys, i can't believe you! what's true in advertising? is one of the apple ads true or real??? not really... that is called "scripted reality", and it is obvious. but besides this, it is a fact that macs are way too expensive. i often fail at convincing people to buy macs, often simply because they can't afford so much money. imagine there would not be the white macbook, at which expensive price would the mac book line start??? apple should really do something here. if you get a 17" inch for 600 US$ it is REALLY difficult to convince people to pay so much for a 13" model.
So MS should TELL THE PUBLIC that it was scripted, instead of PRETENDING she is a real amateur looking for a laptop under 1000 dollars, GENIUS! Do you understand it NOW?
As for people buying Macs, I have converted already more than 5 people over the last 2 years, and they couldn't be happier...Macs will be more and more popular with time...MS IS DEAD!
An Operating System from a company that puts to good use their R&D budget and the talent of many software engineers and the vision of their CEO, like Apple, to me, you can"t put a price on. Versus waiting to see the resemblance product to come from the competitor who's CEO is jumping around screaming, which is amazing in itself, when you try to envision a person jumping when they put not just one but both feet in their mouth every time they make a comment.
None of this really matters (to me at least). I don't care if the iPhone was made by a couple of monkeys wearing Santa hats, I'd still get one. All I care about is the final product. I don't care what the CEO does as long as the product is a good one. I think people get too wrapped up in these things to make a non-existent point.
I bought a 2G iPod touch 32GB because it was the best all-around media player (with wireless features) on the market for my needs.
I bought a new Lenovo ThinkPad X300 for $1,100 direct from Lenovo in January because I couldn't find any notebook from Apple or the PC-makers that offered me a fast CPU, 64GB SLC SSD, three USB ports, LED-backlit 13" screen, and a light frame for that price. Now I'm running Windows 7 64-bit Build 7068 on it and I couldn't be happier -- I don't give a crap about Steve Ballmer's antics.
Quote:
Back in 1995, I asked my friends who were Mac users why they chose Mac over PC and they said their friends had PC's and didn't know how to "use them" and "they sat on their desks like giant paperweights". So when I was shopping for my first computer back in Aug. '95 at mid-night shopping in CompUSA, while all the masses were drooling over the release of Windows 95, I purchased my first computer, a Mac, and was odd man out in the checkout line.
My sister and neighbors have PC's and they use their computer within the limits of their computing knowledge, not necessarily the limits of the computing OS. Meaning, while Microsoft's OS may have had the capabilities, it did not have the intuitiveness so the average, non tech, non computer geek, like my sister and neighbors could understand.
I'm so glad your mom was able to buy and set-up her computer all on her own, because usually it is the younger generation that is more computer literate then the older generation but my 24 year old next door neighbor bought a PC laptop this past Christmas and it had MS Vista Ultimate as the OS, a lot of bloat with the trial software apps etc. that even with 4 GB RAM, that thing literally ran slower than my first Mac I purchased back in '95.
Could she have cleaned it up and got rid of the bloat and have that machine scream with it's 4 GB RAM speed. Probably. However, since it was not intuitively easy, and she didn't want to mess things up, she just let it sit around the house until she was to go home for the holidays where she said she would get her brother who is good at such things, "clean it up". In the meantime, this computer Christmas present she bought for herself just sat on the desk not being used like a giant paperweight.
"Sat on the desk not being used like a giant paperweight", seems like for the most average of basic PC users, time hasn't changed very much for their computing choices!
I appreciate your experiences just as you appreciate mine. I love it when we can have a rational discussion and not resort to flame throwing For every anecdote that you or I can provide explaining the virtues of the Windows vs Mac experience, there's always going to be a counterpart. We could go one for ages doing this, so I won't even start.
The bottom line is, buy what suits you best and be happy!
In regards to the Lauren "fake" add..It's obvious that this particular blog is for children...IT'S ADVERTISING...! Everyone does it. You are really bored to spend time discussing this.
The ad doesn't try to say it's an equivalent computer. It's marketed as a professional computer too, with features that consumers might never use. I see no problem with other companies marketing consumer computers with the same screen size, I think it's pretty silly to associate the 15" and 17" screen sizes as a professional feature when anyone can benefit from a larger screen.
Also, crunching the numbers, the 17" model in question has a 100ppi screen. I recall a time a few years ago when Apple officially resisted going beyond 100ppi citing usability studies showing that 100ppi is about right for most typical people to comfortably use, because higher pixel densities mean that UI elements and screen text gets pretty tiny. Apple (and Apple fans) were basically saying that companies going beyond 100ppi were doing their users a disservice. Now, I guess the roles have reversed, though really, I don't think 125 and 133ppi screens are doing older users any favors.
Don't know what you are trying to say here. Whatever the 17in, $699 HP laptop is or is not marketed as is irrelevant. The 17in Apple laptop IS a pro machine. No two ways about it. The quality of the screen is just one of the differentiating things that makes a big difference - both in price and in usefulness for pro applications and solutions.
No, the roles are not "reversed." Yes, Apple has UI guidelines and advice. And a few years of technology makes all the difference. Icons aren't fixed sizes anymore, and last time I checked, you had a slider for your icons. The problem in the past was, for example, that a 16 px icon at 72ppi was readable, but "shrank" in real terms to be unreadable at higher resolutions.
At least on the Apple side with Quartz, tech is headed toward resolution independence anyway. The UI can be sized for the reader, and yet one can see a 100MB PS file in all its glory. Apple has always been ahead with its sub-pixel rendering and anti-aliasing. You are acting like Apple and Apple fans are being hypocrites. I usually find the shoe on the other foot when Windows users go on and on about real work in the real world and how Apple is all about the cool factor.
Simply, there are 17in screens, and then there are 17in screens. Big gamut here; and with Apple the 17in does happen to be a pro-level machine. With Apple this is very clear: it is much more than the apparently general perception that marketing a computer as pro means:
the user is a "professional" person in need of a computer to do something "professional" (MS Word users are afterall professional somethings). Rather, Apple is clearly about needing a professional computer for computer intensive "professional" applications. Hey, I am just a free-lancer and do a bit of this and a bit of that, but I know what I need or want in a laptop, what the difference is, and why. In fact, the MacBook is a far more professional computer than the vast majority of PCs at ANY price point.
The only thing that seems to differ between "consumer" and "professional" PCs is that one has Vista Home basic, and one has Vista Ultimate so that people can prolong their pain and feel better about it.
The point Mac users are making is that making "17in" one of the "criteria" was simply contrived in able to make the whole advert possible in the first place. Anyone who had real criteria and knew what they needed in a computer for under 1000 would look seriously at what the white Macbook offers and realize that with the screen resolution, quality, killer apps, GB ethernet, N wifi, firewire, front-side bus speed, etc. that it would be a far more worthy computer for any kind of "professional" (and Okay it may not so easy to watch a DVD from across the room with it as it would be on a 17in HP). But the real comparison of the actual specs on a spec by spec basis (instead of ticking off a list like size of HD and physical size of screen) is laughable. Even without any comparison between OS X and Windows, which is a no-brainer. The 17in Apple is not even in the same galaxy as the HP, so the comparison has to be with Apple's "consumer" laptop. And by any real comparison, it is quite a pro machine by most standards. Professionals presenters and trainers and programmers use it, just maybe not professional video editors and graphic designers.
A funny reversal of role is that people used to call Macs toys. Now MSfanboys turn up their noses because you can't play so many "cool" games on it. I guess a Windows PC is just too cool for me! I have to work for a living and actually get something done without tearing my hair out. Of course all this will change again with Apple and NVidia and OpenCL. Since MS is going down, ActiveX will lose its hold and appeal also.
In regards to the Lauren "fake" add..It's obvious that this particular blog is for children...IT'S ADVERTISING...! Everyone does it. You are really bored to spend time discussing this.
I love it when people go out of their way to post and tell us we're all idiots/children/bored/losers/etc. for going out of our way to post. Sometimes they even take the time to register with the forum for the express purpose of telling us we're wasting our time.
I think it boils down to people liking to have their decisions validated and not liking anything that challenges them.
A more practical consideration is concern over platform survival of something you really love. I think we're pretty safe, but MS is a sleeping giant. They have vast resources at their disposal should they ever get their act together. Apple has clawed its way back up from... what? 2 1/2% market share. That wasn't all that long ago and there's always the fear that those days could come back.
Apples at about 5.5% I believe. With everyone heaping and hawing over Apple's massive (new system) market share, I would think they would be less concerned about survivability. If nothing else, Apple's iPod and iTunes system will keep them afloat for a long time pretty easily.
Btw, kudo's for responding, most just seem to want to argue without realizing why they are
However, Microsoft makes software (particularly the OS), not hardware. And if we look at the price of Windows vs. OS X (a good comparison as it's software to software), Windows is more expensive than Mac OS X. But Microsoft will just gloss over that fact.
And the only way to legally install OS X or even have a reason to by a copy of OS X, is that have already owned a Mac. Now, you could always buy an upgrade way of version of Windows. You could also buy an "upgrade" of OS X (even though it's retail), but it's "upgrade" because it requires a Mac.
Is this really news worthy? It's not even a rumor.
It's pretty obvious that the ad was staged from the beginning. They never implied it wasn't. Plus all the different editing techniques used throughout the ad clearly indicate that it was shot several different times.
Oh and people have some messed up depth perception if they believe that guy is in the same spot in both shots.
But anyway, as much as people like to bash Microsoft for this ad, it just proves two things. One, it works. Thats tied to the second thing, that Apple fanboys can't handle hearing the truth, that Macs are ridiculously overpriced (typing this on my UniBody MacBook right now). If Microsoft starts pointing out that you can get a system more powerful than the $2499 MacBook Pro for half the cost, Apple fanboys are really going to throw a fit!
I also think theres a hint of jealousy, considering that Lauren is far more attractive than any woman to appear in Apple's ads or product walkthroughs. It proves the point that real and
attractive women are intelligent and know PCs are a better deal, and that Macs only attract
girls like Hanna.
Hey Linux is cheaper than Microsoft Windows, does that mean Windows is overpriced, think before you write.
Comments
The truth is this ad just says what the uninformed everyman already perceives about the Mac. ....... I suggest they might consider a Mac. They invariably wrinkle their nose and say, "They're too expensive.
So why spend millions of dollars on an ad campaign telling people what they already know?
The Commercial Works
Sure about that?
The daft thing is that Microsoft is promoting two companies. They are Apple and HP. The computers from someone other than Apple may be cheaper.
However, Microsoft makes software (particularly the OS), not hardware. And if we look at the price of Windows vs. OS X (a good comparison as it's software to software), Windows is more expensive than Mac OS X. But Microsoft will just gloss over that fact.
What does it matter? The price of the software is a non-starter because NOBODY CARES and it's already included in the purchase price of a machine. And when you buy an HP or a Dell or a Lenovo, people know that they are getting Microsoft Windows -- it's a given. Microsoft's brand name (for better or for worse) is tied to the purchase.
The only time the price of the software would come into play is when someone would want to upgrade their machine to the newest version of the OS say 2-3 years down the road AFTER the purchase of the machine.
So we're back to $2,800 vs $700.
Honestly, I can see the appeal of these ads. Take my mom for example. My dad wanted to get her a new computer for Christmas 2007. I shopped around for him and the best deal that I could come up with at the time was for a Dell desktop (Pentium Dual Core I believe) with a 19" LCD monitor for around $400. It came with 1GB of memory (I personally installed another 1GB for around $15), a 250GB HDD, a DVD burner and Windows Vista Home Basic.
All my mom does is surf the internet, write emails in Gmail, and do online banking. She also sells stuff on Half.com from time to time and prints out shipping labels to her wireless HP printer. My dad will hop on every once in a while to check lottery numbers, but that's only because that stuff is blocked from his work computer
The machine has worked flawlessly ever since the day it arrived at my parents' house -- no hardware problems, no software screwups.
For most everyday users, I don't see what the big deal is with Windows machines -- especially given the price differences. If you need to step up to a higher-spec machine, then by all means go out and spend the extra $$$ on a high-end Apple or Dell/HP/Alienware/ASUS/etc.
The bottom line with the commercial is that if you want to get a 17" notebook from Apple, you have to start at $2,800. If you want to the "value" route, you can get a "Wintel" laptop for $700.
$2,100 is nothing to scoff at. Sure there are some things that the MacBook has over the machine pictured in the ad (screen rez, unibody construction, longer battery life, etc.), but it sure isn't $2,100 worth of features.
That being said, I'm not a fan of HP machines in the first place. I prefer the Lenovo ThinkPad X-Series when it comes to notebooks.
Sorry for rambling
The truth is this ad just says what the uninformed everyman already perceives about the Mac. At work whenever I hear someone say they are thinking about getting a new computer, I suggest they might consider a Mac. They invariably wrinkle their nose and say, "They're too expensive.
If everyone knows that, then why bother advertising it?
people thought that wasnt an actress how dumb could they be?
Apple made a series of iPhone ads in late 2007 with real people who used iPhone, not actors/actresses. Their stories were certainly edited and then scripted but they were real people telling real stories.
The daft thing is that Microsoft is promoting two companies. They are Apple and HP. The computers from someone other than Apple may be cheaper.
However, Microsoft makes software (particularly the OS), not hardware. And if we look at the price of Windows vs. OS X (a good comparison as it's software to software), Windows is more expensive than Mac OS X. But Microsoft will just gloss over that fact.
Agree! Maybe Apple should get Lauren's "sister" to go into one of those MS stores when they get built with $150.00 bucks and search for a non upgrade, MS Operating System that offers everything Apple's OS X Home Basic does. Everything Apple's OS Home Premium does. Everything Apple's OS Business does. Everything Apple's OS Ultimate does. Oh wait, there is only one Apple OS that does everything and at one low price.
Two can play that game!
Something tells me you really don't have better things to do.......
I don't. Nor do you. Nor does anyone on the forums.
I'm late to my AIA meeting (Apple Insider Anonymous).
Just...one..more...article...
$2,100 is nothing to scoff at. Sure there are some things that the MacBook has over the machine pictured in the ad (screen rez, unibody construction, longer battery life, etc.), but it sure isn't $2,100 worth of features.
Sorry for rambling
An Operating System from a company that puts to good use their R&D budget and the talent of many software engineers and the vision of their CEO, like Apple, to me, you can"t put a price on. Versus waiting to see the resemblance product to come from the competitor who's CEO is jumping around screaming, which is amazing in itself, when you try to envision a person jumping when they put not just one but both feet in their mouth every time they make a comment.
Back in 1995, I asked my friends who were Mac users why they chose Mac over PC and they said their friends had PC's and didn't know how to "use them" and "they sat on their desks like giant paperweights". So when I was shopping for my first computer back in Aug. '95 at mid-night shopping in CompUSA, while all the masses were drooling over the release of Windows 95, I purchased my first computer, a Mac, and was odd man out in the checkout line.
My sister and neighbors have PC's and they use their computer within the limits of their computing knowledge, not necessarily the limits of the computing OS. Meaning, while Microsoft's OS may have had the capabilities, it did not have the intuitiveness so the average, non tech, non computer geek, like my sister and neighbors could understand.
I'm so glad your mom was able to buy and set-up her computer all on her own, because usually it is the younger generation that is more computer literate then the older generation but my 24 year old next door neighbor bought a PC laptop this past Christmas and it had MS Vista Ultimate as the OS, a lot of bloat with the trial software apps etc. that even with 4 GB RAM, that thing literally ran slower than my first Mac I purchased back in '95.
Could she have cleaned it up and got rid of the bloat and have that machine scream with it's 4 GB RAM speed. Probably. However, since it was not intuitively easy, and she didn't want to mess things up, she just let it sit around the house until she was to go home for the holidays where she said she would get her brother who is good at such things, "clean it up". In the meantime, this computer Christmas present she bought for herself just sat on the desk not being used like a giant paperweight.
"Sat on the desk not being used like a giant paperweight", seems like for the most average of basic PC users, time hasn't changed very much for their computing choices!
anyone showing that much enthusiasm for buying ANY computer, wether PC, Mac, or Linux, is acting or just plain crazy. Who here has done cartwheels upon receiving a new Mac?
I very nearly did, after I got my 8 core Mac Pro. But I am 44 and don't know how to do cartwheels. Otherwise, I might have. http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...ies/1smile.gif
Thompson
Yes, they were once in the red, before Jobs' return to Apple. I'm sure there are a few companies out there who have never been in the red. I'm pretty sure Wal-Mart is one of them. I'm also certain that Microsoft, if it does not find a new business model, will soon find it's way into the red.
Don't forget, Apple's growth rate is about 3X the growth rate of the rest of the PC industry. Microsoft's share was slipping well before the release of Vista, which was touted in the same manner that 7 is being touted today. That said, don't get your hopes up. Apple is doing very well and they're not slowing down, but Microsoft is facing some serious problems turning a profit on some of their largest product lines, such as the Xbox. They can't keep losing money on some of their products just to keep up market share while at the same time keep losing market share in their core businesses, such as Office and Windows. The cash cow is dying and the other products are lame ducks, in terms of profit.
Keep dreaming. Microsoft is just as capable of failing as Apple was in 1997. Apple was also the leader in personal computers before IBM and Microsoft strolled in. To think that Microsoft can't be dethroned is a pipe dream.
It does not take a genius to agree that Apple's growth rate is 3x more than other PC makers. When you got 8.9% market share it is much easier to gain then at 20 to 30% like HP or Dell. It is always harder to maintain or grow at that number. That said, as for Microsoft, it is harder to grow at 89% then it is to lose from 100%.
At the end of the day, Vista didn't help Microsoft and they have learned and Windows 7 will be a promising OS. This will bring Microsoft back up over the 90% market share.
Apple will need to try harder to maintain its growth with products that people want. Not what Jobs says. For example... People want Blu-Ray. Jobs refuses to pay for the fees of Blu Ray technology, hence why they are not on the Macs. Yet the fees for the iPod/iPhone technology are more expensive than the Blu Ray fees and companies have to pay for them. Does Jobs expects things for free? It called a business last time I checked.
Jobs can only get away with so much before people demand it.
guys, i can't believe you! what's true in advertising? is one of the apple ads true or real??? not really... that is called "scripted reality", and it is obvious. but besides this, it is a fact that macs are way too expensive. i often fail at convincing people to buy macs, often simply because they can't afford so much money. imagine there would not be the white macbook, at which expensive price would the mac book line start??? apple should really do something here. if you get a 17" inch for 600 US$ it is REALLY difficult to convince people to pay so much for a 13" model.
So MS should TELL THE PUBLIC that it was scripted, instead of PRETENDING she is a real amateur looking for a laptop under 1000 dollars, GENIUS! Do you understand it NOW?
As for people buying Macs, I have converted already more than 5 people over the last 2 years, and they couldn't be happier...Macs will be more and more popular with time...MS IS DEAD!
An Operating System from a company that puts to good use their R&D budget and the talent of many software engineers and the vision of their CEO, like Apple, to me, you can"t put a price on. Versus waiting to see the resemblance product to come from the competitor who's CEO is jumping around screaming, which is amazing in itself, when you try to envision a person jumping when they put not just one but both feet in their mouth every time they make a comment.
None of this really matters (to me at least). I don't care if the iPhone was made by a couple of monkeys wearing Santa hats, I'd still get one. All I care about is the final product. I don't care what the CEO does as long as the product is a good one. I think people get too wrapped up in these things to make a non-existent point.
I bought a 2G iPod touch 32GB because it was the best all-around media player (with wireless features) on the market for my needs.
I bought a new Lenovo ThinkPad X300 for $1,100 direct from Lenovo in January because I couldn't find any notebook from Apple or the PC-makers that offered me a fast CPU, 64GB SLC SSD, three USB ports, LED-backlit 13" screen, and a light frame for that price. Now I'm running Windows 7 64-bit Build 7068 on it and I couldn't be happier -- I don't give a crap about Steve Ballmer's antics.
Back in 1995, I asked my friends who were Mac users why they chose Mac over PC and they said their friends had PC's and didn't know how to "use them" and "they sat on their desks like giant paperweights". So when I was shopping for my first computer back in Aug. '95 at mid-night shopping in CompUSA, while all the masses were drooling over the release of Windows 95, I purchased my first computer, a Mac, and was odd man out in the checkout line.
My sister and neighbors have PC's and they use their computer within the limits of their computing knowledge, not necessarily the limits of the computing OS. Meaning, while Microsoft's OS may have had the capabilities, it did not have the intuitiveness so the average, non tech, non computer geek, like my sister and neighbors could understand.
I'm so glad your mom was able to buy and set-up her computer all on her own, because usually it is the younger generation that is more computer literate then the older generation but my 24 year old next door neighbor bought a PC laptop this past Christmas and it had MS Vista Ultimate as the OS, a lot of bloat with the trial software apps etc. that even with 4 GB RAM, that thing literally ran slower than my first Mac I purchased back in '95.
Could she have cleaned it up and got rid of the bloat and have that machine scream with it's 4 GB RAM speed. Probably. However, since it was not intuitively easy, and she didn't want to mess things up, she just let it sit around the house until she was to go home for the holidays where she said she would get her brother who is good at such things, "clean it up". In the meantime, this computer Christmas present she bought for herself just sat on the desk not being used like a giant paperweight.
"Sat on the desk not being used like a giant paperweight", seems like for the most average of basic PC users, time hasn't changed very much for their computing choices!
I appreciate your experiences just as you appreciate mine. I love it when we can have a rational discussion and not resort to flame throwing
The bottom line is, buy what suits you best and be happy!
I don't. Nor do you. Nor does anyone on the forums.
Heh heh..... I am not the one that said I did. Guess who that was.
Get out of your basement, kid.
The ad doesn't try to say it's an equivalent computer. It's marketed as a professional computer too, with features that consumers might never use. I see no problem with other companies marketing consumer computers with the same screen size, I think it's pretty silly to associate the 15" and 17" screen sizes as a professional feature when anyone can benefit from a larger screen.
Also, crunching the numbers, the 17" model in question has a 100ppi screen. I recall a time a few years ago when Apple officially resisted going beyond 100ppi citing usability studies showing that 100ppi is about right for most typical people to comfortably use, because higher pixel densities mean that UI elements and screen text gets pretty tiny. Apple (and Apple fans) were basically saying that companies going beyond 100ppi were doing their users a disservice. Now, I guess the roles have reversed, though really, I don't think 125 and 133ppi screens are doing older users any favors.
Don't know what you are trying to say here. Whatever the 17in, $699 HP laptop is or is not marketed as is irrelevant. The 17in Apple laptop IS a pro machine. No two ways about it. The quality of the screen is just one of the differentiating things that makes a big difference - both in price and in usefulness for pro applications and solutions.
No, the roles are not "reversed." Yes, Apple has UI guidelines and advice. And a few years of technology makes all the difference. Icons aren't fixed sizes anymore, and last time I checked, you had a slider for your icons. The problem in the past was, for example, that a 16 px icon at 72ppi was readable, but "shrank" in real terms to be unreadable at higher resolutions.
At least on the Apple side with Quartz, tech is headed toward resolution independence anyway. The UI can be sized for the reader, and yet one can see a 100MB PS file in all its glory. Apple has always been ahead with its sub-pixel rendering and anti-aliasing. You are acting like Apple and Apple fans are being hypocrites. I usually find the shoe on the other foot when Windows users go on and on about real work in the real world and how Apple is all about the cool factor.
Simply, there are 17in screens, and then there are 17in screens. Big gamut here; and with Apple the 17in does happen to be a pro-level machine. With Apple this is very clear: it is much more than the apparently general perception that marketing a computer as pro means:
the user is a "professional" person in need of a computer to do something "professional" (MS Word users are afterall professional somethings). Rather, Apple is clearly about needing a professional computer for computer intensive "professional" applications. Hey, I am just a free-lancer and do a bit of this and a bit of that, but I know what I need or want in a laptop, what the difference is, and why. In fact, the MacBook is a far more professional computer than the vast majority of PCs at ANY price point.
The only thing that seems to differ between "consumer" and "professional" PCs is that one has Vista Home basic, and one has Vista Ultimate so that people can prolong their pain and feel better about it.
The point Mac users are making is that making "17in" one of the "criteria" was simply contrived in able to make the whole advert possible in the first place. Anyone who had real criteria and knew what they needed in a computer for under 1000 would look seriously at what the white Macbook offers and realize that with the screen resolution, quality, killer apps, GB ethernet, N wifi, firewire, front-side bus speed, etc. that it would be a far more worthy computer for any kind of "professional" (and Okay it may not so easy to watch a DVD from across the room with it as it would be on a 17in HP). But the real comparison of the actual specs on a spec by spec basis (instead of ticking off a list like size of HD and physical size of screen) is laughable. Even without any comparison between OS X and Windows, which is a no-brainer. The 17in Apple is not even in the same galaxy as the HP, so the comparison has to be with Apple's "consumer" laptop. And by any real comparison, it is quite a pro machine by most standards. Professionals presenters and trainers and programmers use it, just maybe not professional video editors and graphic designers.
A funny reversal of role is that people used to call Macs toys. Now MSfanboys turn up their noses because you can't play so many "cool" games on it. I guess a Windows PC is just too cool for me! I have to work for a living and actually get something done without tearing my hair out. Of course all this will change again with Apple and NVidia and OpenCL. Since MS is going down, ActiveX will lose its hold and appeal also.
In regards to the Lauren "fake" add..It's obvious that this particular blog is for children...IT'S ADVERTISING...! Everyone does it. You are really bored to spend time discussing this.
I love it when people go out of their way to post and tell us we're all idiots/children/bored/losers/etc. for going out of our way to post. Sometimes they even take the time to register with the forum for the express purpose of telling us we're wasting our time.
Oh, the irony.
I think it boils down to people liking to have their decisions validated and not liking anything that challenges them.
A more practical consideration is concern over platform survival of something you really love. I think we're pretty safe, but MS is a sleeping giant. They have vast resources at their disposal should they ever get their act together. Apple has clawed its way back up from... what? 2 1/2% market share. That wasn't all that long ago and there's always the fear that those days could come back.
Apples at about 5.5% I believe. With everyone heaping and hawing over Apple's massive (new system) market share, I would think they would be less concerned about survivability. If nothing else, Apple's iPod and iTunes system will keep them afloat for a long time pretty easily.
Btw, kudo's for responding, most just seem to want to argue without realizing why they are
However, Microsoft makes software (particularly the OS), not hardware. And if we look at the price of Windows vs. OS X (a good comparison as it's software to software), Windows is more expensive than Mac OS X. But Microsoft will just gloss over that fact.
And the only way to legally install OS X or even have a reason to by a copy of OS X, is that have already owned a Mac. Now, you could always buy an upgrade way of version of Windows. You could also buy an "upgrade" of OS X (even though it's retail), but it's "upgrade" because it requires a Mac.
Wow this article is just pathetic.
Is this really news worthy? It's not even a rumor.
It's pretty obvious that the ad was staged from the beginning. They never implied it wasn't. Plus all the different editing techniques used throughout the ad clearly indicate that it was shot several different times.
Oh and people have some messed up depth perception if they believe that guy is in the same spot in both shots.
But anyway, as much as people like to bash Microsoft for this ad, it just proves two things. One, it works. Thats tied to the second thing, that Apple fanboys can't handle hearing the truth, that Macs are ridiculously overpriced (typing this on my UniBody MacBook right now). If Microsoft starts pointing out that you can get a system more powerful than the $2499 MacBook Pro for half the cost, Apple fanboys are really going to throw a fit!
I also think theres a hint of jealousy, considering that Lauren is far more attractive than any woman to appear in Apple's ads or product walkthroughs. It proves the point that real and
attractive women are intelligent and know PCs are a better deal, and that Macs only attract
girls like Hanna.
Hey Linux is cheaper than Microsoft Windows, does that mean Windows is overpriced, think before you write.