Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 16th Jul 2009 12:51 UTC
Microsoft I'm sure most of you are aware of the advertisements going back and forth between Apple and Microsoft. Apple started out with the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" campiagn, and Microsoft responded - after a long wait - with the "Laptop Hunters" ads. Recently, Apple made some price cuts, and according to Microsoft, the Cupertino company's lawyers contacted Microsoft, demanding they take down the ads.
Order by: Score:
Comment by daedalus8
by daedalus8 on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:00 UTC
daedalus8
Member since:
2008-03-10

LOLz..... That's all I can really say....

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by daedalus8
by FealDorf on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by daedalus8"
FealDorf Member since:
2008-01-07

Seconded! Apple seems to be hurt by this ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by daedalus8
by Clinton on Sun 19th Jul 2009 06:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by daedalus8"
Clinton Member since:
2005-07-05

Personally, I think Microsoft's adds are dumb for two reasons. First, even the lowest laptop offering from Apple is a decent machine with a decent screen. The same cannot be said for low end laptops. Second, I wouldn't run Windows on a laptop no matter how much it cost.

Reply Score: 2

v And in other news...
by memson on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:24 UTC
RE: And in other news...
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:30 UTC in reply to "And in other news..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

... Thom needs to stop watching bad SciFi!!! DS-9 was pitiful, as was much of the rest of the Next Gen universe!


ST:NG is awful, one of the worst sci-fi series of all time, as is most of the rest of the ST universe. DS9, however, is one of my favourite shows of all time. I ADORE it.

I know it won't make me any friends with such words, though.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: And in other news...
by BluenoseJake on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE: And in other news..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

This is the first time I've ever lost respect for you Thom, TNG was awesome, it was really DS9 that sucked.

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: And in other news...
by nbensa on Thu 16th Jul 2009 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And in other news..."
nbensa Member since:
2005-08-29

This is the first time I've ever lost respect for you Thom, TNG was awesome, it was really DS9 that sucked.


Absolutely

+10e100 to you

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: And in other news...
by Drumhellar on Thu 16th Jul 2009 19:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And in other news..."
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

You guys are both wrong. TNG and DS9 were both really good shows: TNG because it is Star Trek, DS9 because it's just a damn good show by itself.

It's Voyager that was terrible. Enterprise was better, but not by much.

TNG had awesome characters, and especially later on in the series when they had time to mature, there were frequently great episodes, although my favorite Star Trek episode ever was in season 2 (The Measure of a Man).
It was also much closer to Roddenberry's optimistic vision of the future.

It's not fair to say TNG "Isn't" Star Trek because it differs from the original series. It was a Roddenberry creation, after all, and it was on the air for 7 years, vs Kirk an company's 3 years. (I'm using that as a metric of quality, only the extra time gives it more weight when defining what Star Trek is) It also had a similar track record on dealing with the social issues of the day.

DS9 was frickin' awesome, not in the same way though. While the darkness of the series drove away some viewers, it's broad story arc made it an excellent, well-planned series. The characters were all really good, and it actually ended, unlike TNG which just kinda stopped.

Voyager was more than just terrible Star Trek: It was terrible television. It was way to reliant on the particle-of-the-week to save the day. While TNG's Borg episodes were tense and kept you on the edge of your seat, Voyager's Borg episodes boiled down to "What new weapon mod is going to shoot out of Tuvok's butt this time?" Voyager quickly removed all sense of danger from the Borg.

Enterprise was better, but Archer was inconsistent. He couldn't be relied on to make moral decisions. None of the other Captains would have tortured anybody. He frequently succumbed to desperation, especially during season 3. Picard could always be relied on to do the moral thing.
The other characters were all good, though.

I won't say anything about the original series, though. I'm way to young. Television, as a whole, was completely different when that show was on, and there is no way I can view the show in the correct context. All I have to say is, just being the original isn't enough to be make it the best. Ideas do evolve and grow over time.

But, I could talk all frickin' day though...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: And in other news...
by BluenoseJake on Thu 16th Jul 2009 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: And in other news..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I liked voyager, but I HATED Enterprise. I actually have watched all of DS9 and it isn't a bad show, but it is bad trek.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: And in other news...
by Drumhellar on Thu 16th Jul 2009 19:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: And in other news..."
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

DS9 is bad Trek, but a great show.

Part of what made Star Trek different from other Science Fiction, both in the original series, and in TNG, was that Roddenberry was optimistic for the future, while most SciFi was rather pessimistic.
Roddenberry truly believed that Humanity would eventually end war and poverty, and he thought technology would play a part in that. Picard frequently mentions how he does what he does not for the acquisition of wealth, but to better himself as a Human being.

I don't recall that sentiment ever being mentioned in DS9 or later. Rick Berman and Ira Bher didn't know what made Star Trek special. It was Bher that was responsible for the Dominion War and for the Kai Winn character.
Those story arcs did make it a good show though.

I feel I should add, generally, I'm not a big fan of SciFi. I couldn't get into Babylon 5 because I would watch the show and think, "This isn't like Star Trek."
That is the same feeling I get when I watch other sci-fi shows, too.

The only othe SciFi series I got in to are the Dune novels. I think my like of DS9 and it's themes helped me to dive in to Dune (which I'm currently in the middle of the series yet again). Of course, Brian's books aren't nearly as good as Frank's books...

I also got in to Stargate SG-1, but I think that's because I was secretly hoping Gen. Jack O'Neil would be forced to fix the Stargate with a piece of bubblegum (unchewed), a tin can, a bit of string, and some left-over cheese (Cheddar, not American).

Edited 2009-07-16 19:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: And in other news...
by Moredhas on Thu 16th Jul 2009 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: And in other news..."
Moredhas Member since:
2008-04-10

If the Stargate ever needed fixing in SG-1, it was usually Carter doing something dodgy with it, though. I guess you could call what she did similar to MacGyver, but with a large helping of treknobabble on the side. Her treknobabble usually seemed to mean something though, even it if was often pseudoscientific. But hey, it's a show about a big ring that punches holes in space, I think we can allow a little pseudoscience ;) .

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: And in other news...
by StephenBeDoper on Thu 16th Jul 2009 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: And in other news..."
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

It's Voyager that was terrible. Enterprise was better, but not by much.


Agreed there. Interesting premise - but they they ruined by basically just recycling every TNG cliche, and with weaker cast and characters. The best thing about Voyager is that it kept Brannon Braga occupied, so he couldn't screw up DS9.

TNG, the middle seasons were the best - say, 3 to 6. The early seasons are badly-rehashed TOS plots, and the last season seemed like the cast was having a contest to see who could get the most screen time.

DS9 was decent, as long as you skip the first 3 seasons. The multi-episode story arc(s) were a nice change - though it did have an annoying habit of throwing in a Ferengi/holodeck filler episode whenever things started to get interesting.

Edited 2009-07-16 21:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: And in other news...
by Phloptical on Fri 17th Jul 2009 00:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And in other news..."
Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

I'll second that. DS9 sucked hairy moose testes. TNG was far and away the better series with the better cast.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: And in other news...
by nbensa on Thu 16th Jul 2009 14:13 UTC in reply to "RE: And in other news..."
nbensa Member since:
2005-08-29

ST:NG is awful,


Watch your words or they'll come back and hurt you.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: And in other news...
by JMcCarthy on Thu 16th Jul 2009 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE: And in other news..."
JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

I'm one of the few that agrees with you. The persecution will never end. (fail).

DS-9 was great SciFi because it was bad Star Trek. TNG had it's moments, but there was nothing special about it. I've found most of the people I know who like it, like to pretend Season 1 doesn't even exist.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: And in other news...
by sukru on Thu 16th Jul 2009 14:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And in other news..."
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

I've found most of the people I know who like it, like to pretend Season 1 doesn't even exist.


Yes, you should ignore season 1, maybe except for the first episode (which has recurring plot references). When I started TNG, I had nothing else, otherwise I could've never gone beyond the beginning and see better stuff.

But am I the only one that like all of TNG, DS9, and Voyager (to some extent, except for the captain and her first officer)?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: And in other news...
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 16th Jul 2009 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: And in other news..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

I think "All Good Things..." was one of the best series endears to ever be on TV.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: And in other news...
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 16th Jul 2009 15:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: And in other news..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

TNG == Great
DS9 == Great
Voyager == meh
Enterprise == good and was on its way to getting very good before it was canceled. I think it would have finished off its run if SiFi had produced it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: And in other news...
by smashIt on Thu 16th Jul 2009 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: And in other news..."
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

DS9 == Great


DS9 == meh compared to babylon 5
but für a ST-series it was good

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: And in other news...
by JayDee on Thu 16th Jul 2009 16:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: And in other news..."
JayDee Member since:
2009-06-02

"I've found most of the people I know who like it, like to pretend Season 1 doesn't even exist.


Yes, you should ignore season 1, maybe except for the first episode (which has recurring plot references). When I started TNG, I had nothing else, otherwise I could've never gone beyond the beginning and see better stuff.

But am I the only one that like all of TNG, DS9, and Voyager (to some extent, except for the captain and her first officer)?
"

You're not the only one. I like all three also. Can't we all just get along ? Back to the point: I believe Apple is afraid of competition. The don't want to liscence OS X to third party manufacturers and they are afraid of Microsoft's new ads. They, however allow you to install windows on Macs ??? I'm tired of their one sided bs imho.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: And in other news...
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 16th Jul 2009 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: And in other news..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

season what?

Season 1 is actually very much classic ST in its set design and acting.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: And in other news...
by CaptainN- on Thu 16th Jul 2009 15:36 UTC in reply to "RE: And in other news..."
CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

DS9 was a lot like BSG - not Sci-Fi. ;-P

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: And in other news...
by anduril on Thu 16th Jul 2009 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE: And in other news..."
anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

ST:NG is def the best of the series but I cant stand DS9. It was such a blatant rip off of Babylon 5 its not even funny. Even the finale where Sisqo jumps into the fire or off the cliff or whatever the hell he did was a complete joke on Babylon5.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: And in other news...
by sbergman27 on Fri 17th Jul 2009 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE: And in other news..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

ST:NG is awful, one of the worst sci-fi series of all time, as is most of the rest of the ST universe. DS9, however, is one of my favourite shows of all time. I ADORE it.

TOS was great. ST1-4 and ST6 were even better. All the rest pale by comparison. I kinda liked Enterprise, though.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: And in other news...
by milatchi on Sun 19th Jul 2009 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE: And in other news..."
milatchi Member since:
2005-08-29

DS9 is okay, but I think TNG is the better show.

Reply Score: 1

RE: And in other news...
by sean on Thu 16th Jul 2009 14:43 UTC in reply to "And in other news..."
sean Member since:
2005-06-29

I thought SciFi was supposed to be spelled SyFy. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: And in other news...
by modmans2ndcoming on Thu 16th Jul 2009 15:38 UTC in reply to "RE: And in other news..."
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

I shed a tear every time I look at the bottom corner of the screen during Eureka.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:31 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

It reminds me of the kid going, "awww, he's being mean to me, he called me a name and I'm not that name". Personally if I was Apple I would have simply replied back with a series of ads showing how unrealistic the requirements were when compared with what end users expect. I mean, come on, how many end users make their decision *SOLELY* on the size of the screen as Lauren did. Most people I know go into the shop, they look around, the fiddle with the laptops till they find something that they are ascetically attracted to then they narrow down to what they can afford.

I'd probably do something very similar to what Whittakers chocolate did in New Zealand when Cadbury lowered the Cocoa content, added palm oil and reduced the packaging size (from 250GM to 200GM) - http://www.whittakers.co.nz/ (click on 'play video'). I'd point out the what you get when you purchase one of those el-cheapo laptops; the hours spent uninstalling the crap, the fact you don't get a proper restoration CD which allows you to pick and choose what to restore, the fact that it lacks a well integrated iLife package, the fact that when you ring up the vendor it is only a stroke of luck that you'll get someone who can speak your language clearly - and given the recession I'd even bank on patriotic buying 'getting American's back to work as the competitors ship jobs over seas' if required.

Steam rolling the competition should be relatively easy given the circumstances.

Edit: here is a funny parody, encompasses what was wrong with the Microsoft ads: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1s0xBgMArM

Edited 2009-07-16 13:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by FealDorf on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:37 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
FealDorf Member since:
2008-01-07

Apple can do that; except that for the message to be effective, it has to be simple. It's why the I'm a Mac ads ("Cool to be Mac") were such a hit, or why Laptop Hunters ("Just what I need") ads were well received.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by moondevil on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

It is all true.

But in Europe I am able to buy good quality laptops, without crapware, and usually come with some form of office suite.

For example, I am still waiting for a Mac laptop that can beat my 4 year old laptop Fujitsu 3438G (http://ts.fujitsu.com/Resources/59/562938810.pdf)
on available hardware features, that justify giving more than 2000€ for a new laptop.

Please note that I am aware of cheaper models, but I am speaking of a model that can offer better graphics/storage than what I already have.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Jul 2009 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It is all true.


I remember telling a European (French) about the poor quality of technical support; he didn't believe me. As I explained, imagine if you rang up me and had me trying to give you technical support given the quality of my ability to speak French (of which I gave a small example of my French) - you too would run for the hills.

But in Europe I am able to buy good quality laptops, without crapware, and usually come with some form of office suite.


I don't know about Europe, but in New Zealand we're subjected to crap from Acer, Toshiba, HP, Dell and Lenovo. There are EU laptop manufacturers but they refuse to sell to New Zealand - the best example of this is Fujitsu-Siemens, even though Fujitsu has an office in New Zealand.

For example, I am still waiting for a Mac laptop that can beat my 4 year old laptop Fujitsu 3438G (http://ts.fujitsu.com/Resources/59/562938810.pdf)
on available hardware features, that justify giving more than 2000€ for a new laptop.

Please note that I am aware of cheaper models, but I am speaking of a model that can offer better graphics/storage than what I already have.


That could easily be beaten by a Aluminium unibody MacBook - but then again, I don't really care what you run; run what ever floats your boat.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by moondevil on Fri 17th Jul 2009 10:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Those MacBooks don't provide a better graphics experience compared to what I already have on my laptop.

Besides the usual Internet stuff, I use my laptop for graphics/games development. And this is an area where Apple really doesn't provide a proper product on hardware/price level, when compared to the PC market.


But I really do like Macs and might eventually get one, if they only provided more attention to the gaming community.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by FealDorf on Thu 16th Jul 2009 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
FealDorf Member since:
2008-01-07

First off, the first three "messages" in your post are from I'm A Mac ads -- further elaborating my point; and they're more or less a sub-point of "Cool to be mac". I must correct the MS message, it's rather "cheaper and still fits your needs".

You're right though, I didn't bother watching the ad. But even after watching it, I don't see how it affects my point. The ad's message is "we're bigger and more delicious". And apple's message against MS will be what; "but we're cooler"?
Or are you suggesting those blog posts at mac fansites which go for pages about how the quality of service and total cost of ownership is better in case of a mac?

But hey, you're not here for making a point, you're just here for trolling. I've no urge to hijack any threads, I barely post in the first place..

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by anduril on Thu 16th Jul 2009 22:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

the hours spent uninstalling the crap
I dont know how you uninstall software, but it takes all of about 20mins to clean the crapware off even a Dell or HP. They've drastically trimmed down what comes with the machines and while its annoying, it also helps them reach the low prices points

the fact you don't get a proper restoration CD which allows you to pick and choose what to restore
A restore CD is ment to take the computer back to factor settings. most users are too uneducated about computers to pick and choose what they want. Those who do know wipe out the factory install immediately with their own copy of windows anyways. That OEM code works perfectly fine with retail or upgrade disks

the fact that it lacks a well integrated iLife package,
I actually think ilife is pretty crappy but hey, to each their own. Considering you can get a fully copy of Word/Excel/Powerpoint with a new machine for anywhere from $70-140 I dont consider iLife a huge deal. I can still buy a second laptop for the cost of your cheapest mac.

the fact that when you ring up the vendor it is only a stroke of luck that you'll get someone who can speak your language clearly
Considering Im spending $1000-3000 for a laptop and have margin markups of 15-35% I damn well better speak to an American! When you buy a $600 PC with the same general specs as a $1200 mac you're throwing somethings away...like "worldclass" support. Even though when my ibooks motherboard died, twice, I was still without a computer for a week at a time while apple replaced it. With ones that failed...again. Ditto the two hard drives. Having said that, I loved my ibook but I wont spend that much again on a laptop. Just plain silly

and given the recession I'd even bank on patriotic buying 'getting American's back to work as the competitors ship jobs over seas' if required
Considering macs arent built in america, nor are the parts, I dont see how you're supporting "American." Sure, they might be designed by Apple in America but even then I'd question that completely since they're often fairly stock Quntos (sp?) or Asus derived boards and such.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by TemporalBeing on Fri 17th Jul 2009 20:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"the fact you don't get a proper restoration CD which allows you to pick and choose what to restore
A restore CD is ment to take the computer back to factor settings. most users are too uneducated about computers to pick and choose what they want. Those who do know wipe out the factory install immediately with their own copy of windows anyways. That OEM code works perfectly fine with retail or upgrade disks "

Except a lot of manufacturers are no longer providing a CD or DVD, and instead putting the whole thing on the hard drive. If your hard drive crashes beyond recovery, you're out the whole factory settings.

Of course, Best Buy's GeekSqad and all the other sellers are happy to charge you $20-$50 to burn the CD/DVD for you; or you can order it from Dell/HP/etc for $17 or so when you buy the system directly from them.

Still - it ought to come with the system.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by anduril on Fri 17th Jul 2009 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

And the OEMs that dont provide it make it pretty easy to burn it yourself. Your just out of the cost of 2-4 DVDs. Should it be provided? Yes, but the option is still there and the HD recovery portion is a hell of alot faster if you need it to recovery the OS

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by rockwell on Fri 17th Jul 2009 16:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

//then they narrow down to what they can afford. //

Keywords, if ever spoken. Thus, Apple loses out on many customers looking for a sub $1000.00 laptop. Of which there are hundreds running Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by mabhatter on Mon 20th Jul 2009 00:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

It reminds me of the kid going, "awww, he's being mean to me, he called me a name and I'm not that name". Personally if I was Apple I would have simply replied back with a series of ads showing how unrealistic the requirements were when compared with what end users expect. I mean, come on, how many end users make their decision *SOLELY* on the size of the screen as Lauren did. Most people I know go into the shop, they look around, the fiddle with the laptops till they find something that they are ascetically attracted to then they narrow down to what they can afford.

I'd probably do something very similar to what Whittakers chocolate did in New Zealand when Cadbury lowered the Cocoa content, added palm oil and reduced the packaging size (from 250GM to 200GM) - http://www.whittakers.co.nz/ (click on 'play video'). I'd point out the what you get when you purchase one of those el-cheapo laptops; the hours spent uninstalling the crap, the fact you don't get a proper restoration CD which allows you to pick and choose what to restore, the fact that it lacks a well integrated iLife package, the fact that when you ring up the vendor it is only a stroke of luck that you'll get someone who can speak your language clearly - and given the recession I'd even bank on patriotic buying 'getting American's back to work as the competitors ship jobs over seas' if required.

Steam rolling the competition should be relatively easy given the circumstances.

Edit: here is a funny parody, encompasses what was wrong with the Microsoft ads: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1s0xBgMArM



really though that's the point. Apple is targeting other "PC" makers generically. The dig is that there's still only ONE OS on all those other PCs but they bring up non-specific "PC" problems not targeting any one company's merchandise.

Microsoft's ads are over the line. They walk into a real store, show other people's merchandise and don't even bother to blur out the price tags. There's a whole bunch wrong with those ads in terms of favoritism to PC makers and to Retail chains that MICROSOFT as an OS monopoly is not allowed to have. Not just anybody can walk into a Fry's or Best Buy and start shooting without being escorted out by security.

Apple did mention Vista by name but that's sold by many companies. Microsoft has only mentioned two brands and two retail chains.. if they're going to mention specific things like price, show a picture of the tag, but not mention system specifics in the fine print then it's bordering on false advertising claims of another product which is a legal no-no. Compare the claim that Vista is slow and bloated (which was backed up early on due to poor implementation) or plagued with security problems (again there's stacks of newspapers about "PC security" and they all mean "windows" security) versus here's a picture of a mac at a store and it costs too much money (X$$) compared to cheaper computer at Y$$ without any other context there's a big problem.

Microsoft can't directly attack Apple like this anyway... Microsoft is an OS vendor so they can attack the OS aspects, not a PC maker (and Apple is really attacking the crappy installed versions from Dell, HP, Sony, etc) ... if they endorse any one company's PCs (like HP or Sony) they are using their monopoly power illegally. Apple on the other hand is a PC maker and an OS maker.. they can pick on anybody they want because they're smaller and independent!

Reply Score: 2

Apple: Cry Baby!!!
by rakamaka on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:31 UTC
rakamaka
Member since:
2005-08-12

Apple have no moral right to ask MS to take down those ads after 'i am mac /pc' ads. They should realize business reality. People will buy things which give more value to them at lowest cost.

Just compare Mac vs PC specs and prices, or ipod vs zune specs or linux EEE PC netbook vs windows netbooks.
You will always get MORE with windows system. That is undeniable reality.

in this economy you 'cannot' improve your status/image just by flashing apple logo on your laptop in public places.....

Edited 2009-07-16 13:32 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Apple: Cry Baby!!!
by kholinar on Thu 16th Jul 2009 16:35 UTC in reply to "Apple: Cry Baby!!!"
kholinar Member since:
2007-09-10

It's really not that hard to see what's going on here.

Apple's not going to ask that Microsoft stop its campaign. They know that it's not possible to succeed at that tactic.

If you read at all closely you can see what's happening.

Microsoft quotes prices in some of those commercials. Apple changed their prices, making certain ads inaccurate/false advertising.

So when Apple legal sends a direct letter stating that ad #3f needs to be removed, Microsoft spins it as asking for the whole campaign to be dropped.

This is simply Apple harassing Microsoft in a perfectly legal way. I guarantee that Microsoft would do the same.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Apple: Cry Baby!!!
by 47ronin on Thu 16th Jul 2009 21:05 UTC in reply to "Apple: Cry Baby!!!"
47ronin Member since:
2006-04-03

I'm going to make an informed comment solely because I believe the entire context of the statement made by Microsoft's employees to their staff... yep I trust that they gave me a 100% accurate account of the situation. After all, why would they deceive their folks or the public about anything? ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Apple: Cry Baby!!!
by 47ronin on Thu 16th Jul 2009 21:06 UTC in reply to "Apple: Cry Baby!!!"
47ronin Member since:
2006-04-03

I'm going to make an informed comment solely because I believe the entire context of the statement made by Microsoft's employees to their staff... yep I trust that they gave me a 100% accurate account of the situation. After all, why would Microsoft ever deceive their folks or the public about anything? ;)

Reply Score: 1

Legal really involved?
by GCrain on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:33 UTC
GCrain
Member since:
2005-07-11

It is really funny and not very smart of Apple, IF it is true. I doubt that Apple's legal department would 'call' and ask "Hey, you need to stop running those ads, we lowered our prices.". It was a comment at a conference from a guy looking to get a laugh from the audience.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Legal really involved?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:38 UTC in reply to "Legal really involved?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

He's also an executive and shareholders won't like it if he made the story up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Legal really involved?
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Legal really involved?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

He's also an executive and shareholders won't like it if he made the story up.


Has that ever stopped him from lying:

And so we've been running these PC value ads. Just giving people saying, hey, what are you looking to spend? "Oh, I'm looking to spend less than $1,000." Well we'll give you $1,000. Go in and look and see what you can buy. And they come out and they just show them. Those are completely unscripted commercials.


Unscripted? come on, they're paid actors from a company who provides actors who were given $1000 for a device that they never kept - and marketed as though they randomly grabbed a person off the street and the compensation for the time was to keep the laptop. We're talking about a company who tries to portray them doing some marketing using 'real life people' when given $1000 but ignore the fact that these weren't real life people they were actors recruited from an acting company

For those idiots who claim, "oooh, you should know they're paid actors" - that isn't the damn point. The point of the ad, the motivation of the ad was to explicitly give the public the impression of a random scenario with no script or rehearsal (outside maybe some takes to clean up the video) that when a person is given cash in the hand that PC's loaded with Windows offer the best value for money. Well, the reality is that it was misleading.

Compare that to Apple with their switch ads, all the people who appeared on their ads actually own a Mac, they actually use their Macs, and apart from some compensation to get them from A to B, it was the genuine article.

Edited 2009-07-16 13:59 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Legal really involved?
by BluenoseJake on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Legal really involved?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

How do you know they are actors?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Legal really involved?
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Jul 2009 14:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Legal really involved?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

How do you know they are actors?


It came out after that Laura was a paid actor who decided not to keep the laptop. I've got nothing wrong with Microsoft going out and choosing some real people for the advertisement - but these weren't even real people; they were paid actors. Long story short, they lied to the public.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Legal really involved?
by Ventajou on Thu 16th Jul 2009 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Legal really involved?"
Ventajou Member since:
2006-10-31

Actors are fake people?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Legal really involved?
by smashIt on Thu 16th Jul 2009 15:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Legal really involved?"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

Actors are fake people?


only if george lucas is involved

Reply Score: 8

RE[6]: Legal really involved?
by Tuishimi on Thu 16th Jul 2009 21:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Legal really involved?"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Hmmm, my wife is an actress, and we live in a town that very much resembles Stepford...

I'm going to go see if she has a port I can plug some hardware into.

Edited 2009-07-16 21:05 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Legal really involved?
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Jul 2009 21:40 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Legal really involved?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Actors are fake people?


They were hired actors; as part of their job they were hired to act for Microsoft as a random consumer being offered the opportunity to get a computer for $1000. The fact that you can't make that understanding leap tells me how pathetically immature you are.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Legal really involved?
by rockwell on Fri 17th Jul 2009 16:15 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Legal really involved?"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

I did hear about the Laura chick being an actress .. but are you certain all the others are as well? It could be that some of them are random folks, i would think. Maybe i'm giving Microsoft too much trust, though ...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Legal really involved?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 16th Jul 2009 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Legal really involved?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Unscripted doesn't have to mean that they walked up to a few complete strangers and follow them around.

Unscripted can just as well mean getting a few actors, and simply asking them to "buy a laptop", and see where it's going... Without a script. Unscripted.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Legal really involved?
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Jul 2009 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Legal really involved?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Unscripted doesn't have to mean that they walked up to a few complete strangers and follow them around.

Unscripted can just as well mean getting a few actors, and simply asking them to "buy a laptop", and see where it's going... Without a script. Unscripted.


What a load of bullshit; ask any person what unscripted means in the context of advertisement and they'll tell you it means grabbing a random person off the street and using them in an advertisement. Dictionary definitions mean jack shit when the reality is that the meaning of the word is more than just what is written; it is how the person interprets - your interpretation is so off base it backs up your pro-Microsoft zealotry to a T.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Legal really involved?
by DrillSgt on Thu 16th Jul 2009 21:48 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Legal really involved?"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

What a load of bullshit; ask any person what unscripted means in the context of advertisement and they'll tell you it means grabbing a random person off the street and using them in an advertisement. Dictionary definitions mean jack shit when the reality is that the meaning of the word is more than just what is written; it is how the person interprets - your interpretation is so off base it backs up your pro-Microsoft zealotry to a T.


Actually grabbing a random person off the street would not be allowed. In order to have speaking parts on commercials or anything else they must be a member of the actors guild. Apple did exactly the same thing with their ads.

Basically no one ever gets grabbed off the street, no matter who the advertiser is.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Legal really involved?
by broch on Thu 16th Jul 2009 20:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Legal really involved?"
broch Member since:
2006-05-04

I think that Apple should hire you ;)
you are such ohh apple

"Well, the reality is that it was misleading.


Apple produced as many misleading ads as did MS (or more)

Apple claimed that they have fastest desktop computer (with falsified by Veritest data, violating Spec guidelines), "the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer" add in fact was banned in England as misleading
first 64-bit desktop add while in fact it was BOXX with 64-bit Athlon,
Apple was sued for misleading adds about the capabilities of the 20-inch iMac's screen
all that crap about superior security, twice as fas iPhones
Apple was sued many times for misleading adds.

I don't see any difference between misleading made by Apple and misleading made by MS

However if Apple really resorted to lawyers (I doubt that this is true), then this would be really sad (so much hipocrisy)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Legal really involved?
by kaiwai on Thu 16th Jul 2009 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Legal really involved?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I think that Apple should hire you ;)
you are such ohh apple


I don't think Apple are in a habit of hiring pitbull's.

"Well, the reality is that it was misleading.

Apple produced as many misleading ads as did MS (or more)


You're correct; hence the reason why I didn't raise the issue of "I'm a PC, I'm a Mac" given that the claims were borderline BS; claims of perfection when the faults lay clearly with the end user being an incompetent fool.

The claims over 'I get no virus' is rediculous given that no attention seeking wanker with a skill to code a virus is going to waste their time on a platform where they would get minimal coverage. Many virus writers are attention whores - and the biggest target will be the one that'll grab the most attention.

Apple claimed that they have fastest desktop computer (with falsified by Veritest data, violating Spec guidelines), "the world's fastest, most powerful personal computer" add in fact was banned in England as misleading
first 64-bit desktop add while in fact it was BOXX with 64-bit Athlon,
Apple was sued for misleading adds about the capabilities of the 20-inch iMac's screen
all that crap about superior security, twice as fas iPhones
Apple was sued many times for misleading adds.

I don't see any difference between misleading made by Apple and misleading made by MS

However if Apple really resorted to lawyers (I doubt that this is true), then this would be really sad (so much hipocrisy)


That is why it is called "benchmarketing" - it goes all the way back to the the PowerPC Photoshop benchmarks and claims of superiority when in reality the reality was some what different.

Its funny though, Microsoft in New Zealand hasn't advertised on television and the only thing advertised on television from Apple in New Zealand is their iPod; I guess both companies realising that the law in NZ sits on the side of consumers and quickly spoken disclaimers at the end of the ad like in the US don't cut the mustard.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Legal really involved?
by broch on Thu 16th Jul 2009 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Legal really involved?"
broch Member since:
2006-05-04

That is why it is called "benchmarketing" - it goes all the way back to the the PowerPC Photoshop benchmarks and claims of superiority when in reality the reality was some what different.


To put it simply "benchmarketing" as you call it is misleading add.

A lot of people think that these are real (data). While it is easy to check the actual sale prices, nobody is going to run benchmarks to confirm the results.

"I'm a PC, I'm a Mac"

while add is funny, the above statement makes not sense at all.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Legal really involved?
by kaiwai on Fri 17th Jul 2009 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Legal really involved?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

That is why it is called "benchmarketing" - it goes all the way back to the the PowerPC Photoshop benchmarks and claims of superiority when in reality the reality was some what different.

To put it simply "benchmarketing" as you call it is misleading add.

A lot of people think that these are real (data). While it is easy to check the actual sale prices, nobody is going to run benchmarks to confirm the results.


Did you see me defend it? I pointed it out for the fraud it is and the fact that it isn't the first time Apple has done it. For me when making a purchasing decision it doesn't matter given that I don't purchase a computer based solely on performance but if there is skulduggery being done then the company involved need to be raked over the coals.

while add is funny, the above statement makes not sense at all.


What makes no sense? you're the dip-shit you pulls a couple of words out of a paragraph whilst swinging naked form the rafters going, "it makes nonsense! it don't understand!", well of course you're not going to bloody understand, you took the f--king thing out of context for christ sake!

Edited 2009-07-17 07:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Legal really involved?
by broch on Fri 17th Jul 2009 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Legal really involved?"
broch Member since:
2006-05-04

naah
you are idiot. I was not even refering to whatever your comments.

I was refering to the original add
"I'm a PC, I'm a Mac"
Mac is PC and since this is not intel based even more so.
So Apple's distinction (not your as it looks like you are not able to think) is as good as:
"I'm a PC, I'm BSD"
it would make sense if add would say
"I'm Windows, I'm Mac"

No, I doubt that you can ever get this.

Reply Score: 1

Cry more Apple
by Lazarus on Thu 16th Jul 2009 13:53 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

Come on. After all the anti-Microsoft/anti-Windows ads coming from Apple? Seriously?

Suck. It. Up.

Reply Score: 12

Ignores a few small facts
by Anim8me2 on Thu 16th Jul 2009 14:51 UTC
Anim8me2
Member since:
2006-02-10

First and foremost,
No lawyer would ever just make a fumbling phone call. The issue is truth in advertising and this would certainly generate a certified letter at the least as well as some emails to MS.

Secondly, the guy is full of crap. The issue is not "about $100" it is at least $300 and also references the positioning of a price for the 17" laptop which is $2499 right next to the description for a 15".

Are there cheaper PC laptops? Sure. Are they cheaper as in crappy? Sure.
There are so many dishonest things in the laptop hunter ads that it is laughable to go after this one thing.

Guy wants long battery life and power, gets utter garbage with lowest rated battery life around.
Girls wants to edit video, gets a laptop that won't run anything truly powerful... oh and it has the same amount of RAM she derides the Mac for having.

Do we really need to rehash all the inaccuracies in these ads?

Reply Score: 8

RE: Ignores a few small facts
by s_groening on Fri 17th Jul 2009 07:32 UTC in reply to "Ignores a few small facts"
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

Yes, it's actually funny how Microsoft seems to put side (all) quality aspects of the laptop buying process, yet at the same time they tout their own horn on just how amazingly far better their own offering is compared to the opposition in respect to Windows vs Mac OS X vs Linux!

They ought to actually take it seriously that hardware quality, to some people at least, is a vital part of the buying experience.

Now, I'm not saying Apple necessarily is the way to go if you opt for quality hardware, but I do feel that the argument hinting that the super cheap, supermarket bought 'no-name' laptop necessarily is as good a computer as a $1.000+ laptop lacks some detail ...

Reply Score: 2

Why does it cause apple so much grief?
by deathshadow on Thu 16th Jul 2009 15:03 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Because even with their alleged price slashes you are still hard pressed to buy a system with as little ram and as small a hard drive for more than $700 from anyone else... and if you take that crappy little 13" macbook they brag about at $999 and configure it up to the average sub $700 16" Acer, Dell, MSI or Lenovo - you're looking at $1500.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115571 - faster processor, bigger display, double the RAM, double the hard drive, better GPU. $599

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834200025 - faster CPU, bigger display, same RAM, 60% more hard drive, slightly less GPU. $599

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152116 - slightly slower CPU, bigger display, double the RAM, double the HDD, about the same on GPU. $649

Ok, let's see what a 15" MBP with 4 gigs and a 320 gig drive costs... Hey look, $1800 bucks.

You know what Microsoft response should be? Fine, we'll stop showing THAT advert. Then release and advert asking how well they compete in the $500 arena.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114613

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115572

Both $450, both actually exceed the $999 MacBook's hardware specs.

But what do you expect from a company that charges three times more than the street price of the parts to go from a 160 gig to a 320gig drive or from 2 gigs to 4 gigs of RAM. Want a real laugh? Find the option to go from 4 gigs to 8 on a 15" MacBook Pro. A grand for 4 gigs of RAM difference (A 4 gig stick is what, $200 street?)

Cry me a **** river Apple. Oh noes, you can't compete since the only thing keeping you afloat is charging ten times the normal markup for a OEM reseller.

Besides, if Microsoft did half the shit Apple has done in terms of proprietary lock-in without anyone even batting an eye, you'd hear the rabid anti-Microsoft zealots screaming from every rooftop.

Edited 2009-07-16 15:09 UTC

Reply Score: 4

edmnc Member since:
2006-02-21

and if you take that crappy little 13" macbook they brag about at $999 and configure it up to the average sub $700 16" Acer, Dell, MSI or Lenovo - you're looking at $1500.


What if I want the small and ligh 13"? The choices narrow down quite a bit and are all about 1000$

Reply Score: 2

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Sorry, Uhm no.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834147925 - Comparable CPU, double the RAM, double the HDD, decent video chipset $774

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834114662 - Comparable CPU, same RAM, double the HDD, decent video chipset $799

The field narrows, but really 13" are considered toys in the PC world which is why most of them are half the price with a sub 2ghz core solo in them.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834115585 - so long as you don't mind dropping to a 1.4ghz core 2 solo, you get double the RAM, double the HDD.

I guess really that's always been what bothered me most about Apple - they cheap out on the cheap components - RAM and Hard drive. Lands sake they only stopped selling systems with DDR2 533 installed what, six months ago? I don't know what's worse, that they can get away with charging $100 to go from a $30 component to a $60 one, or that people are dumb enough to pay it.

Generally if you have to have your art *** form factor with all the aesthetics of a hospital ward and engineering that makes St. Francis Dam look good, you are better off buying the bottom model of configuration and then buying RAM and HDD from a third party - assuming you have the degree in rocket science needed to open one up. (ever replace the OPTICAL in a any MacBook? You will curse their engineers to the 9th ring of hell)

But hey, we're talking about the company that underclocked G3's 50% so they could wrap the cpu in insulating foam instead of heat sinks and fans (used to love that hole the iBooks would burn clear through the dialup adapter from that), that intentionally disables one pin on a ATA connector so you can't use third party hard drives (without butchering a cable), has been caught selling 18bit color displays as 24 bit, put full PCMCIA controllers and wiring in only to leave half of it unpowered so only broadcom chipset wireless controllers worked in them, came up with this 'safer' power connectors that have the habit of fraying and catching fire, improperly wired firewire ports that if the driver screws up (as happened in yellowdog linux at one point) it can overvolt and make the term firewire literal, has marketing paperwork saying it should never be called a laptop as they don't engineer them for use on laps, is perhaps the LEAST eco-friendly computer manufacturer, use of paints that release toxic fumes even after curing, and in general wouldn't know proper ventilation of electronic components if it stripped naked, painted itself purple and hopped up on a table to sing "Oh look at what a big cooling fan I am."

As someone who used to be an Apple certified tech, and has worked with computers for thirty years, most everything they have produced the past decade has some of the most POORLY ENGINEERED designs I have seen... I wonder what the hell is in the Apple kool-aid that makes people so blind to some of the rinkiest, flimsiest half-assed engineering this side of Soviet-era nuclear research.

After all, there's a reason they run all their QA through the CSA, who have passed more faulty products and received more warnings from OSHA than any other certification agency. Their shit wouldn't last five minutes in UL testing... Which saying something since underwriters is nothing to write home about since they've been caught taking bribes to rank products safer than they are. (at least they won't just glance at the blueprints and say "Yeah, that's fine")

Edited 2009-07-16 22:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Alex Forster Member since:
2005-08-12

Here's how that reads-

"Hello. I am a forty-something-year-old 'Apple Certified Tech' who was sometime within the last six months fired from a $15/hr position at a Genius bar where I had previously been spending a considerable amount of time dealing with the tiny, acceptable precentage of Apple's manufacturing failures."

Edited 2009-07-17 07:18 UTC

Reply Score: 1

rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

And here's how your post reads:

"Completely disregard any real-life evidence from above poster as simply neurotic ramblings, because the kool-aid tastes great, and iLife is perfect within the reality distortion field."

Reply Score: 2

so hypocritical.
by graigsmith on Thu 16th Jul 2009 15:12 UTC
graigsmith
Member since:
2006-04-05

so first apple makes ads that try to make windows users look uncool. and then microsoft does it to apple. then they get their lawyers involved. all i have to say to apple is booo, what a bunch of jerks.

Reply Score: 2

Haha
by FunkyELF on Thu 16th Jul 2009 16:22 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

Hit em where it hurts. Apple has a better OS but the hardware is still way overpriced. And since you can buy and run that OS on any laptop for only $100 it still doesn't justify the price. Maybe OSX is subsidized, if it is... they should fix that.

If Apple wanted to react, they could run a cost of ownership campaign. Great... you got a $1,000 laptop. Now you gotta buy Virus protection. Oh, you wanted to edit movies right? What are you going to use? Now you gotta buy that software. What about office documents once that 3 month trial runs out? All of a sudden you spent more than you would have on a Mac which has all that stuff, no virus, iMovie, iLife etc.

They would have a problem with this however since it could also be solved by loading OSX onto that $1,000 laptop for only $100. Also you could just keep running Windows and use free / opensource antivirus, movie editing, office etc.

Reply Score: 3

Hearsay
by lqsh on Thu 16th Jul 2009 16:24 UTC
lqsh
Member since:
2007-01-01

This is not news, it is simply hearsay.

Would Apple's lawyers really phone Microsoft and say "Hey, you need to stop running those ads, we lowered our prices." Do you really think this is how lawyers do business?

And the Microsoft crowd applauded knowing Apple lowered their prices? Microsoft should be saying 'Oh shit!, what have we done?'

Reply Score: 3

Nicram
Member since:
2006-01-31

One of my services is to help people, schools or corps to choose what is best for them with not too much cost. I check offers, talks with shops etc. about some gratifications if they buy many computers etc. Apple can;t be compared to any other hardware in price area. It will always be bad for them and with this policy they will do nothing and always fail. Good Toshiba laptops, with same good tech support like apple (or even better sometimes, but apple tech support is excellent AFAIK) and MUCH BETTER hardware wil got same or better price. When i check offers there is never Apple computer ahead. They just overpriced and do not offer enough power when compared to the rest on the market. So well, this information in the news show, how apple can fight with such adverts. They can do nothing, thay are overpriced, and they know it. Well everyone know it, even some Apple users that i know (and no, they didn't choose Apple for fancy logo and nice box, because those things in apple are really crap when u use them and check for example the temperature of macbook pro laptop ;) ).

What can i say more. Bad times for Apple are coming, when OSS will be better, and it will still not be used by so many ppl like windows, it will start to hurt Aple very much. Nice GUI+Unix under the hood is the only reason to get Apple right now. In future, this reason will be gone...

Reply Score: 2

kholinar Member since:
2007-09-10

I've gotta chime in and say that I used to feel the same about Toshiba's hardware as you do. I felt they were reliable and well priced.

After their Satellite m30-m45 i vowed never to purchase one again until I saw improvement in the way they handled things. The m30's at least got extended warranties via class action to fix the very flawed design. Toshiba never acknowledge the m45 line's dealbreaking flaws though. I've continued watching and it seems that Toshiba has fallen a long way from what they used to be. At this point I'm far more enthused about Lenovo...

Reply Score: 1

New MS ads hits Home with Apple...
by juvenile4909 on Thu 16th Jul 2009 17:16 UTC
juvenile4909
Member since:
2007-08-04

Those ads hit home. It wouldn't be of surprise to me that Apple called MS and asked them to take the ads down.

Some of you amaze me with the whole "that isn't true/honest marketing" campaign. When has marketing ever been straight forward and direct? Marketing is to sell something and hint a call to action. If done correctly you get the sales.

From a broader standpoint, i dont see much FAIL in the Laptop Hunter ads. They are true. Mac is more, it pays to be cool. But as average ppl we really just have a few needs. So why not get what you need(Less Expensive) and not what you want(Costs More).

However, Apple did make a response. Apple points out the obvious points of MS, no dark truths.

Apple Response to MS campaign
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW6e38lUngI&feature=related

Reply Score: 1

MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

With the latest series of Microsoft add campaigns, it would appear that Microsoft suddenly sees Apple as a threat, so why not just kill MS Office for the Mac? That would do more damage to Apple than any series of commercials. If Microsoft Office (like it or not, Microsoft Office is the THE world standard office application / document format), was not available for Mac, the I suspect Mac platform would no longer be viable to a significant portion of the Mac user base.

I wonder if Microsoft is asking the question of how much revenue due Mac sales take away from Windows, vs how much revenue they get from Office for the Mac? Also consider that if MS did manage to kill Apple, there would be zero competition (for all practical proposes), and they could jack up the cost of Windows and Office.

So, the question is if Microsoft sees Apple as threat, why to they provide an absolutely critical piece of software that makes the Mac a viable alternative to Windows?

Reply Score: 1

fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

#1 - Microsoft makes money selling office to the Mac users. Why give up that money?

#2 - Microsoft is not trying to "do in" the Mac platform. They need to keep them around to keep from being a monopoly (semblance of coompetition). At one time, they even invested in Apple to help prop them up.

#3 - Office for Mac is no longer as compatable with the Windows version. Specifically, VBScript was removed, which is very important to a lot of Office users (especially Excel).

#4 - If they did discontinue Mac Office, Mac users could just use OpenOffice, which is fairly compatable with Microsoft Office.

Class dismissed.

Reply Score: 2

juvenile4909 Member since:
2007-08-04

You answered your own question.
And you gave too much credit to MS Office.

Reply Score: 1

v This is rich, after Apple's lying ads.
by MollyC on Thu 16th Jul 2009 18:19 UTC
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

You need a new TV set. Some of the older sets filter out Steve's reality distortion field.

Reply Score: 2

skingers6894 Member since:
2005-08-10

Actually there is a difference here.

Yes the Apple ads "imply" a difference that may or may not be there, may be significant or not. Yeah, that's a bit sneaky and disingenuous, agreed.

No Apple ads however actually misquote the price of Windows itself. They don't for example say "Windows Vista Home Ultimate costs $1000". That would not be an implication, that would be factually incorrect.

This I believe is the crux of the alleged complaint - the Microsoft ad is actually stating a price that is incorrect.

They can say "PCs are cheaper" in a general sense without issue but when they say that something costs 1999 when it in fact costs 1699 then that is an error of fact.

Reply Score: 4

Before Troll on Apple
by pepsi92 on Thu 16th Jul 2009 20:22 UTC
pepsi92
Member since:
2005-09-09
Before Troll on Apple
by pepsi92 on Thu 16th Jul 2009 20:29 UTC
pepsi92
Member since:
2005-09-09

Sorry for my English...

But maybe somebody should try to understand why Apple wan't to remove/modify the Microsoft Laptop Hunter Ads campaign

Read this and after you can talk:

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/21807/

So if you find Apple price too high, stay with you PC Computer, where is the pb ?

Edited 2009-07-16 20:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Mr Turner wouldn't lie about...
by mrhasbean on Fri 17th Jul 2009 00:03 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

...the lawyers, the phone call from Apple, or anything for that matter. He IS a Microsoft Executive after all!

Those are completely unscripted commercials.


O I C

Reply Score: 1

Pu**ies
by Phloptical on Fri 17th Jul 2009 00:18 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

Apple top brass.......hypocritical pu**ies...the lot of them.

Reply Score: 2

MS/Apple ads
by ecruz on Fri 17th Jul 2009 01:15 UTC
ecruz
Member since:
2007-06-16

Did I miss something or are you guys posting on the wrong article here?
It is about the MS ads. Did not see anything realting to Star Trek and such things!

Reply Score: 1

RE: MS/Apple ads
by sbergman27 on Fri 17th Jul 2009 02:12 UTC in reply to "MS/Apple ads"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Did I miss something or are you guys posting on the wrong article here?
It is about the MS ads. Did not see anything realting to Star Trek and such things!

Would someone please neck-pinch this guy? :-)

Edited 2009-07-17 02:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: MS/Apple ads
by dylansmrjones on Fri 17th Jul 2009 06:54 UTC in reply to "MS/Apple ads"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

*neck-pinch*

Reply Score: 2

Give me a break
by Hakime on Fri 17th Jul 2009 14:19 UTC
Hakime
Member since:
2005-11-16

"Apparently, Apple isn't liking the advertisements, and are trying to get them off the air by sending in the Tal Shiar legal department."

Don't embarrass yourself pretending to be more an idiot than this Microsoft zealot. Do you really think a single second that Apple will be worried about those ridiculous Microsoft ads where Balmer and his zealots even fail to promote their own products? Have you ever heard the world windows in their ads?

And look at the facts, Macs seems to be selling like hot cakes, i wonder if it is not because those ads are so bad that they have the opposite effect, more people wants a Mac after watching such crap.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/07/14/strong_macbook_and_ip...

The matter of the fact is that Microsoft is lying in their ads, showing price comparisons that are not real, and you expect what, that Apple will let them do, spreading fudd and disinformation? Where are you from, Disney Land?

If Microsoft wants to make comparative ads, they need to do it right using the correct informations, or do you claim that because it is Microsoft, they can do whatever they want? This is the sort of practice that made Microsoft so hated by many people out there, the sort of practice that make it such a hatable company.

Get your facts right, their ads are full of intended false statements:

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/21807/

Microsoft is just pathetic, don't be like them trying to report their fudd without using your brain....

Reply Score: 2

Comment by troy.w.banther
by troy.w.banther on Sat 18th Jul 2009 17:29 UTC
troy.w.banther
Member since:
2008-06-28

Lawyers don't make social calls.

Lawyers sent 'cease and desist' letters if they know they have a case.

My instincts are is someone at Microsoft got seriously pranked or is pulling a prank.

After that, some media outlets sucked it up for lack of better news.

As a Linux, OS X and Windows server administrator, I say Microsoft should get out of the hardware, browser and electronics markets. It should focus on its core - its server and client operating system.

If I was offered $700 by Microsoft, I would purchase a $400 PC laptop, put Linux on it and then put the rest in the bank for my next Mac Mini.

Reply Score: 1