
Apple Wanted Microsoft Ads Yanked - bullseye
http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218500923
======
mdasen
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.

~~~
drewcrawford
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.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
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).

~~~
drewcrawford
> but their margin on hardware is probably somewhere around %40

Maybe, but remember there's a pretty big invisible hardware R&D cost. Things
like unibody, multitouch, internal battery, displayport, etc. aren't free. And
Snow Leopard probably cost a bit more than $29/seat to develop.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
Of course, but reported margins are _after_ all these costs.

------
anigbrowl
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.

------
pkulak
"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
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.

~~~
loumf
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.

~~~
potatolicious
You just nailed it on the head. The only other PC manufacturer with decent
build is Lenovo with the ThinkPads - and those will run you a pretty penny
also (well, $1100+ for a decent setup anyway)

Quality stuff costs money, hardly a surprise, but what _is_ surprising is how
many people believe there is a free lunch to be had.

You would not believe the number of people I've talked to who insist that BMWs
have the same parts as a Toyota, and that it's all just marketing...

~~~
poppysan
It depends on what you value as quality. Many of the things you guys have
mentioned is either cosmetic, or used to preserve my computer far past its
average lifespan...(with advancements in tech I have to get a new computer at
least every 5 yrs. The cheapest PC with non brand hardware will last you that
easily...

Cae in point, I bought my cousin an emachines computer for $299 three years
ago, and the only problem she's had in all of this time is with trojans (she
downloads everything).

I bought my mac in 2005 for 2400 (I loooove my monitor though)and I feel
soooooo outdated. So I recently got a MUCH stronger PC for under 600 bucks. I
wanted a mac, but the comparable Mac was $1900.

~~~
potatolicious
Quality is quality - and much of it is non-functional. The car analogy is
really apt here.

I can buy a Toyota for $20K that will get me to work at the same time as I
could if driving a BMW. It costs a hell of a lot less for the same
functionality, and if we believe the reliability numbers, will last me just as
long (if not longer) than the BMW - certainly longer than I plan to own the
car anyways.

So why would anyone in their right mind buy a BMW? Or really anything more
expensive than a Toyota? User experience. Maybe I like the extra frilly
features like dual-zone climate control, power seats, in-dash GPS, projected
HUD, or whatever. Or maybe I like the fact that the interior has a lot better
fit and finish than the Toyota, and is made from far better materials. Maybe I
like the fact that it sits low on the ground and doesn't feel like it's going
to float off the ground at anything above 70mph.

These are the factors and the features that people easily discount, but add
untold amounts of satisfaction to the user experience. Whether it's worth the
extra cash is up to you, but the difference is there, and not always easy to
notice if you're only ever looking at the spec sheet.

To bring it back to laptop-land, my old PC was thick, clunky, heavy, had tons
of flimsy plastic flaps covering the ports, and the screen hinge was loose and
floppy. Was it usable? Of course. Could I get work done on it? Naturally. Did
it have similar or better specs than the Macs of its day? Yes. But in the end
it was a poor user experience.

~~~
jpierce420
Thanks for the hysterical laughter that you just provided me. The only apt
analogy here is that the Mac is the taurus, with the price of the BMW. The
comparison with the laptops is hardware specs, monitor, functionality,
everything. The only differentiating yet irrelevant feature is the appearance,
in which they differ. The 'frilly extras' of the BMW simply don't exist on the
Mac. Very funny though.

~~~
potatolicious
Looks like there's now a timeout before replies, new feature pg?

You should probably stop shedding karma for today - your unsubstantiated,
inflammatory Apple-hate has already gotten you modded into oblivion today.

But I'll bite:

\- MagSafe. You cannot buy this feature anywhere, and it has saved my laptop
on numerous occasions. In fact, in university I knew a guy who fixed out-of-
warranty laptops for other students, and "power socket ripped off motherboard"
was _the_ most common repair he did. The fact that it snaps into place from a
distance also adds that little bit of extra ease (as opposed to hunting for
the hole).

\- Better monitors. Seriously, do you think a $500 HP laptop can stand up to
the monitor on a 15" MacBook Pro? Apple isn't the only ones offering 8-bit
panels on a LED backlit screen, but if you look at any other laptops offering
this you'll realize they're also in the MBP's price range. You do get what you
pay for.

\- Form factor and size. Your $500 Dell Inspiron is 2-3 times thicker than my
MBP, and weighs 50% more. Is the size and weight savings worth it for you? I
don't know, that's for you to decide, but there is a difference.

\- Metal vs. plastic construction. The best keyboard I've used on a PC laptop
ever is the ThinkPad keyboard (I have one right now, in fact), and even that
is no match to the stiffness offered by the new aluminum-framed MacBooks. Go
down to a $500 laptop and what you get is mushy crap that will twist and bend
as you type. Been there done that, sick of it.

\- Touchpad. The multi-touch gestures are an incredible productivity booster -
two finger scrolling is the way it is meant to be. Shoving your fingers into
the corner of your touchpad just to scroll is counter-productive, annoying,
and just plain backwards. Being able to access any open window from a single
gesture swipe has also improved my productivity.

I could go on, but go ahead and keep trolling and insisting that the "looks"
is all that is different.

~~~
jpierce420
Wow, that shot over your head. The comparison is in between laptops with
COMPARABLE specs. Good lord. Not a $500 Dell and a $1,000 Macbook. If you'll
remember, most commercials weren't too specific, but in most of them at least
a thousand dollars was being spent. We're not comparing a low end PC with a
high end Mac. I didn't realize I was going to have to hold your hand through
that. Man, I guess at least five of you also learned a new word today,
'unsubstantiated'. Congratulations!

------
ynniv
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
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.

------
geebee
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."

------
redrobot5050
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
"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.

------
jpierce420
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.

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

~~~
jpierce420
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.

~~~
jemmons
_I've obviously used both_

I think it's far from obvious when you've been unable to point to one concrete
(even biased and opinionated!) example of why you think a Macintosh computer
is inferior to the technology you choose to use.

~~~
jpierce420
Its not just me dude, millions of others share the same opinion, but here ya
go: My PC is faster than my friends' macs. The UI looks better on my PC, you
can even make a window fullscreen! I'm a programmer, and Apple has chosen to
base their platform on Objective-c, a jumbled mess of a wanna-be C++.
Honestly, I've neven even heard of another big company worth mentioning that
uses the language, other than to port their software to macs. I'm part of the
open source community, and while I'm sure their is some, I've never heard of
an open source Apple/Mac community. Hell, Apple even discourages it for the
iphone. There are vast communities for the platforms I use, Windows and Linux,
and there is also plenty of free software for these platforms, while it is
rarely the case on Mac. My guess its probably because software vendors have to
go through the hell of using Obj-C, so they want to be paid for every program
they write, as would I. As I stated I don't go looking for FOSS mac
communities, but they can't be that popular, i've never heard of any at all.
Is that enough for you? If not, I'm sorry but I'm tired of having to validate
my own opinion. I could say that I hate mac because I don't like the color,
and it would be valid because it is MY opinion. I guess I don't have the
leisure of having as much free time as you all.

------
loumf
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.

~~~
anigbrowl
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.

~~~
ynniv
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.

------
bitwize
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.

------
natch
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.

~~~
bitwize
_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.

~~~
poppysan
Exactly... This is really off base...

~~~
jpierce420
If 'getting stuff done' means wasting time, then yeah, you're getting stuff
done.

