New Microsoft Ads Point Out, Cough, High Cost Of Macs | Hacker News Reader

New Microsoft Ads Point Out, Cough, High Cost Of Macs

techcrunch.com

19 pointsvaksel30 comments

I have to disagree, with the disclaimer that I'm a Mac user.

While I don't really expect top notch punditry from TechCrunch, this short, well-worn jab at Apple is unhelpful, if not simply linkbait.

"[Microsoft's] got a point on the cost to feature ratio of Macs v. Windows machines..."

I'm not arguing that Macs are commodity priced, but I think the cost to feature ratio of most products is extremely difficult to define, especially for something as complicated as a personal computer. The fact that TechCrunch just trots it out as truth irks me.

In my personal opinion, the intangibles that come with a mac more that compensate for the relative difference in price between Macs and PCs with comparable specs. Simply saying that macs have a lower cost to feature ratio than Windows machines because there are cheaper PCs than Macs isn't unlike saying that BMWs have a lower cost to feature ratio because they can only go 50MPH faster than Toyotas and cost twice as much (not to mention the fact that PCs are far from uniform in their pricing and options).

Flame wars aren't beneficial to anyone. At some point we must accept that we each have a different definition of value, and discuss things based on their relative merits.

Isn't the ad just pointing out that you can't really get a sub-$1000 Mac, a market Apple consciously abandoned?

Considering her first choice was an Apple store, and she eventually settled for an HP (abet happily, it was free), it isn't exactly a winning endorsement.

No, the ad was pointing out that you if you're looking for a 17" laptop for under $1000, you can't get a Mac without doubling your budget. How many people out there right now can just throw down an extra $1000 to meet that requirement? Is having a mac that essential?

Her first stop was the Apple store because thats the first stop of a lot of people who are shopping around for laptops. If you're in the same boat as the lady in this ad then she basically saved you a trip. Unless, you want to go and look at all the laptops you can't afford.

If you want a netbook, you can't get a Mac. If you want a tablet, you can't get a Mac.

My point is that Apple doesn't try to produce the perfect computer for everyone, and this ad targets a market that wouldn't be seriously considering a Mac anyways.

It's not that Microsoft targeting the affordable market is a bad decision, just that it's kind of unambitious.

I understand where you're coming from, but a lot of what I'm seeing in this discussion is analyzing this lady's situation out of the context of this ad.

This was a 'her situation is similar to me' type of ad mixed with an 'incentive to find exactly what you need'. Arguably, two very potent advertising concepts executed in a short and effective commercial.

The targeting of these 'i'm a pc' ads and this particular one is 'I'm a person, with dynamic requirements as to what I need in a computer, one of those happens to be a 17" screen on an affordable laptop'. Contrast this with the Apple ads. There are people (read: average consumers) that see those ads and then walk into the Apple store (without knowledge of all the particulars that comprise the Mac experience) and think "wow, these are really nice, but a bit out of my budget". They then go into Best Buy, see something in their price range, and settle on that. I'd be willing to bet this happens everyday. More often than not, these are satisfied customers who could really care less about owning a Mac because they didn't just pay $1799 extra for a similar (in their mind) machine.

"Isn't the ad just pointing out that you can't really get a sub-$1000 Mac, a market Apple consciously abandoned?"

It doesn't matter if Apple abandoned the market consciously or not for the purposes of the ad. "You can get a sub 1000 $ PC but not a Mac" reinforces the "Macs are expensive" meme and hints at "outrageously expensive". This is good marketing in a recession.

Does Microsoft really want to position Windows as the 'affordable' OS? I mean, have they thought this one through?

I think they are trying to point out that Windows is for everybody and anybody. The "I'm a PC" ads featured a wide range of people. I'm sure they will probably run some ads that talk about how Windows powers big companies too. I think the argument is that you don't need to buy into cult of Apple.

I think it's not about the affordability of the OS, it's about the affordability of the whole machine. In choosing a business strategy that allowed any OEM to load their OS on any HW, MS has ended up being on much cheaper machines (because of the competition in the HW market), and on machines that are less reliable and easy to use, partly due to that very openness (sure, not all Windows' faults are the consequence of this choice). So far all the things that Windows isn't, and all the faults it has, it is still the cheapest way to buy a personal computer, so I think it makes sense to MS to talk about that.

The thing I find strange about this ad is that they are trying to associate with people who can't afford a Mac (quote: my budget can't stretch..). Surely those people will buy a Windows machine anyway? If you wanted to make a point about price, wouldn't you try to associate with the people who do have the cash for a Mac, but point out to them that if they get a Windows machine their other $x000 can be spent on something else, e.g. a DSLR, holiday, etc. So maybe the real point of this ad is simply feel good factor, ala 'Windows is your friend'.

Absolutely. It's similar to those Kia commercials comparing themselves to BMW or Lexus.

Its a big mistake, given the enormous cost of Windows compared to linux running on Everyman's netbook.

Of course, what Microsoft wouldn't like to point out is that a $400 netbook running Windows XP will make a lot of people happier than a $700 Windows laptop full of HP crapplications will.

Wouldn't XP be at least 25% of the cost of that netbook? Firefox runs great on Ubuntu. :)

"Apples are expensive if the value of your time is zero." --Lance Weatherby

Whatever your opinion of the software, you have to admit this is a really good ad. It hits Apple where it hurts, and given the timing, it hurts more than ever.

"you have to admit this is a really good ad"

I don't. It not only refers to the competition by name, it clearly says that when given the opportunity to buy any computer, a person's first reaction is to visit the competition's store. It refers to the competition's computers as cool. It argues the only reason to buy a PC is if you don't have enough money to buy a Mac. Apple would agree whole heartedly with this ad. It essentially does their job for them.

"It hits Apple where it hurts"

How? By preaching to a market segment Apple doesn't even compete in? I don't think they'll be loosing any sleep (or sales).

"given the timing, it hurts more than ever"

What timing? Why would it hurt more? Your vague cliches have befuddled me.

I agree with your above statements. However, referring to the competition by name isn't always a bad thing. Many companies do it to great success. Direct comparisons are great in advertising and they are trying to draw a direct comparison though potentially failing here. It will be interesting to see how the campaign does.

I was referring to economic timing, if it wasn't clear. People have less spare cash than ever. Even Apple fans.

No matter how good the add is Microsoft completely missed the point. No one buys Macs because they are cheaper than windows machines. People buy macs because having a mac is cool.

also because of the macs vs pc ads.

I use both OS X and Windows. I use Windows during the day because I do .Net; and occasionally at home when I want to play a video game.

But when I work at home, it's Mac all the way. It's just easier to write software on a mac than on a PC.

I'm sorry. Really. I find XCode to be pretty bad overall. Interface Builder is an exercise in pain. And (for the iPhone at least) the simulator is so different from the actual hardware, that if you aren't checking your builds against hardware often, you are going to be spending a lot of time rewriting software.

I can't even give them props for including it, because it really is just a really bad gcc front-end.

Don't get me wrong, I do like the Mac Book I'm using. It's a decent machine. However, XCode shows the big difference between Microsoft and Apple philosophies.

Microsoft is a developer centric company. Apple is a consumer centric company.

I don't use XCode. I usually use vim, but I'm learning emacs at the moment and tend to use that for any new projects I work on. I'm not an iPhone developer, so I can't speak to that.

Visual Studio is definitely a much nicer IDE after you get ReSharper installed (VisualSVN is a nice addition as well).

The mac is nicer to develop on because of its unix underpinnings. Things in emacs tend to just work where it's a constant battle on windows.

Beyond that, I'm very lazy. Most of the stuff I work with at home has been written by people on macs. I have a much higher likelihood of things working "out of the box" when on a mac than I do on my windows machine.

I don't have anything bad to say about Microsoft in general (although I would love to have a heart to heart with the MSDN team), it's just that OSX feels like a much more developer friendly platform than Windows XP or Vista do.

You've never had any Microsoft-related developer gripes?

Not to the extent that I've had Apple-related developer gripes.

It's also easier to write iPhone apps on a Mac then Windows Mobile, Blackberry and Symbian on Windows. Not enough people mention that.

The ad markets to the current economy and highlights their strength (up front cost) with a friendly actress. Not much to it, far from innovative if you ask me.

On the other hand, I find Apple's aproach much more notable:

Apple is advertising by featuring products, err, rather apps, that Apple does not make. It's a commercial for the iPhone and not iPhone apps only because the ad states at the end that you can do all of it only on an iPhone.

The incredibly "cool" iphone gadget is featured 2nd to the developers' creations and the everyday user experience.

Apple is doing well in the mobile market. If it wants to sell more Macs, then maybe it might consider requiring people to buy Macs to use its mobile products.

No thanks. Apple doesn't need to act like a monopoly any more than it already does (i.e. iPod/iTunes lock-in).

Hopefully people liking iPhones will make Mac market share grow organically, but it would be a mistake to try and force it.

Love it or hate it, Microsoft is biting back

Reply on news.ycombinator.com