Apple Wanted Microsoft Ads Yanked

http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218500923

by bullseye • 17 years ago

34 51 17 years ago

pkulak• 17 years ago

"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...

sfphotoarts• 17 years ago

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.

loumf2• 17 years ago

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.

liscio• 17 years ago

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.

jemmons4• 17 years ago

For my part? I doubt the part that's "so nebulous that it would require further clarification to establish".

loumf2• 17 years ago

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.

anigbrowl4• 17 years ago

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.

ynniv2• 17 years ago

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.

arsenic• 17 years ago

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)

anigbrowl4• 17 years ago

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.

mdasen• 17 years ago

It's not surprising. Most of Microsoft's attempts at advertising make them look stupid. The Gates/Seinfeld ads? They just made the company look aimless. They made the company look like they didn't know what people wanted or why Apple was doing well.

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.

poppysan4• 17 years ago

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).

likpok• 17 years ago

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).

drewcrawford2• 17 years ago

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.

fauigerzigerk2• 17 years ago

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).

lurkinggrue• 17 years ago

I did that with a dell laptop except they did all the work at my home.

jpierce4208• 17 years ago

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.

jemmons4• 17 years ago

Care to give us any data points to back up your broad unsubstantiated claims? They're certainly at odds with my own experience.

poppysan4• 17 years ago

Wow. I wish I can vote down more than once...

jpierce4208• 17 years ago

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.

jpierce4208• 17 years ago

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?

redrobot50502• 17 years ago

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?

raganwald• 17 years ago

"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.

natch• 17 years ago

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.

bitwize2• 17 years ago

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.

poppysan4• 17 years ago

Exactly... This is really off base...

anigbrowl4• 17 years ago

That's why I use an Alto.

potatolicious4• 17 years ago

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.

ynniv2• 17 years ago

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.

umjames• 17 years ago

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.

bitwize2• 17 years ago

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.

geebee• 17 years ago

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."

Apple Wanted Microsoft Ads Yanked

Related Stories