Apple Wanted Microsoft Ads Yanked
informationweek.com
informationweek.com
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.
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).
OS preference is not primarily dependent on OS age.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Somehow I doubt that...
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...
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.
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.
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.
I don't disagree about the build quality though; the unibody MacBooks are a sight to behold.
But if I, say, buy a craptop for $750 that does 90% of what I want from a $1500 Macbook, well I have $750 left over that I can use. I take a 10% productivity hit, but if I can get more than a 10% ROI on my cash (perhaps by buying a better software package or whatever) then I am ahead of the game, at least until such time as my craptop gets damaged and needs replacement.
And I have to say that the failure rates for PC laptops are not as bad as you (appear to) think.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. The burden of proof lies with you.
Read the facts. Windows has what, like 86% of the desktop market?
I think you might be confusing facts with statistics? In any market you choose to look at, you can find a high-quality alternative to the commodity product offering that has a minority of the market share. BMW is the oft-quoted example in the automobile industry. It would be a mistake to claim "A BMW clearly doesn't outperform a Ford Taurus because there are so many more Fords on the road." Their relative market share clearly has no bearing on their respective performance.
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.
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.
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.
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.