Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 26th Nov 2013 23:03 UTC
Microsoft

Microsoft has enlisted the reality-television series "Pawn Stars" in its ongoing campaign to bash rival Google.

An online video ad released Tuesday mimics the plot set up of "Pawn Stars," which features people toting precious or odd objects for appraisal at a Las Vegas pawn shop. In Microsoft's fictional telling, a woman is trying to trade in a Chromebook, a no-frills laptop powered by Google software.

"The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste, they have absolutely no taste."

Order by: Score:
This reeks of desperation
by WorknMan on Tue 26th Nov 2013 23:24 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Look, I'm not a huge Google cheerleader. Although I don't like/hate them any more than any other giant tech company, I think if they completely took over desktop and mobile, it would be a thousand hells worse than anything Microsoft ever unleashed upon the world. But right now, MS is getting its ass handed to it, and I couldn't be happier. It's like the bully going home and crying to mommy when somebody gives them a taste of their own medicine. MS spent so long being dicks that karma is coming back around to bite them in the ass. Eventually, what goes around comes around.

Reply Score: 11

RE: This reeks of desperation
by Nelson on Tue 26th Nov 2013 23:32 UTC in reply to "This reeks of desperation"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Ass handed to them? Chromebooks? Lol, no.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This reeks of desperation
by Morgan on Wed 27th Nov 2013 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE: This reeks of desperation"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I've used a Chromebook, and my immediate reaction was "wow, this is pretty sweet". Then I hit the brick wall the video talks about: No wifi means no apps. It's gotten better on that front recently with offline gmail and limited local storage; I tried Hexxeh's Chromium OS build on my netbook and those features mostly worked, but I still went back to Slackware after just a few days. If I ever end up with a "real" Chromebook I'll probably just wipe and install a more useful OS.

All that said, I live in a semi-rural area on the outskirts of Atlanta, so I'm not the target market for these devices anyway. Someone who is bathed in free wifi 24/7 would probably love it.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: This reeks of desperation
by Nelson on Wed 27th Nov 2013 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This reeks of desperation"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I just have to question the wisdom of Microsoft getting its ass handed to them by an OS which has worse sales than Windows RT.

They may very well be fantastic little laptops at awesome prices.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: This reeks of desperation
by Morgan on Wed 27th Nov 2013 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This reeks of desperation"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I just have to question the wisdom of Microsoft getting its ass handed to them by an OS which has worse sales than Windows RT.


I agree, and I think RT is a good comparison point.

Hardware-wise, Chromebooks can be nice or they can be worse than first-gen netbooks. The Pixel is almost Apple-level nice, but the price is a huge turnoff. The sub-$300 Chromebooks are hit or miss, with a lot of misses.

I would definitely rather have an RT based device than a Chromebook, as the two stand today.

Reply Score: 3

BlueofRainbow Member since:
2009-01-06

This hits the weakness common to all vendors - no exception (as far as I am aware).

Having web-apps and using cloud storage works fine in an urban area well served in all kings of wireless networking connections.

However - not so in a rural area.

Maybe, rather than trying to bash each others, Apple, Google, and Microsoft would be better (for us, the users), to come-up with a common API set capable of transparently dealing with the loss of wireless connectivity once one travels away from urban centers and major highways. That would be money well spent.

Reply Score: 2

raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

come-up with a common API set capable of transparently dealing with the loss of wireless connectivity once one travels away from urban centers and major highways. That would be money well spent.


Have you checked out http://hood.ie/ ?

I haven't looked at the framework itself, but it specifically targets this scenario, and I hold the people behind it in very high regard.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: This reeks of desperation
by tkeith on Fri 29th Nov 2013 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This reeks of desperation"
tkeith Member since:
2010-09-01

I don't understand this argument really. If you don't have wifi, what is it you are doing on your computer? If I am not at home or at work, I'm not doing anything on my computer. Do you guys go out in the wilderness and need to do some spreadsheets or what?

I think for 90% of people, the only time they use their computer is when they would have internet. Still I think the models with 200MB free internet make a lot of sense, and in some cases don't cost much more.

Please stop this lame strawman argument.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: This reeks of desperation
by Morgan on Fri 29th Nov 2013 17:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This reeks of desperation"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Nothing lame or "strawman" about it, no matter how much you, with your narrow point of view, want it to be. Fact is, a Chromebook is a computer designed to be used strictly online. If you try to use one offline, it's no longer useful. On the contrary, if I take my netbook to a place with no internet, I can still do around 80% of what that computer's OS allows. I can do some coding, I can play games, I can write prose, I can edit graphics, and so on. With a Chromebook, no internet means nearly none of that is possible. On my netbook, no internet means a very minor inconvenience.

Think outside the box, there's more to the computing world than looking at cat pictures and trolling discussion groups.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: This reeks of desperation
by zsekeres on Fri 29th Nov 2013 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This reeks of desperation"
zsekeres Member since:
2011-02-11

Fact is, a Chromebook is a computer designed to be used strictly online. If you try to use one offline, it's no longer useful.


That's actually not true. Chrome apps can use local storage:
- Angry Birds for example can be installed locally.
- QuickOffice works offline on locally stored documents.
- Google Keep also allows to read and edit notes.

Of course it's still mainly targeted for online use. But depending on what you want to do while being offline the gap between a Chromebook and a classic laptop is quite narrow. At least that's my experience during the last couple of weeks when I had both with me on train rides and flights.

(As an experiment I have written this on a C7 Chromebook with turned off wifi. Editing and preview just works. Now let's get back online...)

Edited 2013-11-29 18:37 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: This reeks of desperation
by Morgan on Fri 29th Nov 2013 19:35 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: This reeks of desperation"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

That's actually not true. Chrome apps can use local storage


Look up, I actually said that too in my original comment above the one you replied to. But it's just not the same thing as a true, fully useful OS.

My point though, is that you're just not going to do any serious work with one sans internet. You're not going to do any real development, and I'd be nervous about trusting my WIP fiction and non-fiction projects to such a flaky device.

But again, I'm not the normal use-case for one of these. I'm much better served by a full OS, and I've already said that for people with reliable, 24/7 wifi wherever they go, a Chromebook is a great device.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: This reeks of desperation
by zsekeres on Sat 30th Nov 2013 13:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: This reeks of desperation"
zsekeres Member since:
2011-02-11

"That's actually not true. Chrome apps can use local storage


Look up, I actually said that too in my original comment above the one you replied to. But it's just not the same thing as a true, fully useful OS.
"
Apps != OS

- If a Chrome app does not offer offline operation it is not the fault of the OS.
- If a Windows application does not use network access (e.g. for updates) it is not the fault of the OS.

My point though, is that you're just not going to do any serious work with one sans internet. You're not going to do any real development, and I'd be nervous about trusting my WIP fiction and non-fiction projects to such a flaky device.

A Chromebook is by default flaky? I do not see why. If the SSD in a Windows netbook dies the work is lost just the same.

But again, I'm not the normal use-case for one of these. I'm much better served by a full OS, and I've already said that for people with reliable, 24/7 wifi wherever they go, a Chromebook is a great device.

So I can perfectly understand that a Chromebook does not work you. But I do think that it is a matter of available applications and not necessarily of the OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This reeks of desperation
by WorknMan on Wed 27th Nov 2013 00:35 UTC in reply to "RE: This reeks of desperation"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Ass handed to them?


Not on desktop, but on mobile, and on the web. And I guess you might say Office as well. They're just not the giant behemoth they used to be.

Edited 2013-11-27 00:35 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: This reeks of desperation
by Nelson on Wed 27th Nov 2013 00:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This reeks of desperation"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

They have an unshakable domination on the Desktop, in mobile their seeing increased success, and Office is crushing Google's offerings especially Office365.

Office is especially hilarious though, Microsoft was able to reinvent a new business model, turn it into a two billion dollar business, and laugh all the way to the bank before Google even knew what happened.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: This reeks of desperation
by Rudiza on Wed 27th Nov 2013 05:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This reeks of desperation"
Rudiza Member since:
2013-11-27

So Microsoft dominate a shrinking desktop market. Down 11.2% since 2012.

They have managed to increase their mobile OS market share 156%. Which sounds awesome but then you read that it went up from 2.3% in 2012 to 3.7% in 2013.

Their search engine is so bad that it has to use Google to improve it's results and their best product is an on-line version of Office. Personally I disagree, I think Office 365 is overpriced and their best offering for me is Exchange on-line but that is just my opinion.

So tell me, if Microsoft are doing so well then why have they started with this smear campaign against Google? It must be that famous Microsoft civic duty we hear about all the time.

P.s Below I've listed my sources. Sources are how you let people know that you are talking about hard facts instead of wishful thinking mixed in with a unhealthy dose of fanboyism.

Sources:
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2610015
http://www.businessinsider.com/bing-is-cribbing-from-google-search-...
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24442013

Reply Score: 9

RE[4]: This reeks of desperation
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Nov 2013 16:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: This reeks of desperation"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Office is especially hilarious though, Microsoft was able to reinvent a new business model, turn it into a two billion dollar business, and laugh all the way to the bank before Google even knew what happened.


You are making little semantic sense. Again talking out of emotion, rather than sense.
And I'm pretty sure that Google knew that it's going to be hard fighting Microsoft's Office dominance, as I suspect that they have read The Innovator's Solution. Fortunately for Microsoft, they also have read that book and all they had to do it close the gap to remain the leaders.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: This reeks of desperation
by Nelson on Thu 28th Nov 2013 21:27 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: This reeks of desperation"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The OP said that Microsoft was getting its ass handed to them in Office, something that's laughable.

Of course Google knew it'd be hard, but that's an aside because I'm not commenting on that. I'm mentioning the speed at which Microsoft adjusted its strategy and killed the Google Docs baby in the cradle.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: This reeks of desperation
by Shannara on Fri 29th Nov 2013 03:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: This reeks of desperation"
Shannara Member since:
2005-07-06

Well... not bad. You got 1 out of 4 correct.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: This reeks of desperation
by mutantsushi on Wed 27th Nov 2013 09:21 UTC in reply to "RE: This reeks of desperation"
mutantsushi Member since:
2006-08-18

As far as I read that comment, nothing is stating that CHROMEBOOKS are handing MS' ass to them.

MS' grandiose schemes in general are all just falling down on their own. Of course, they have plenty of decent revenue streams. But clearly MS has a weird psychology of being unhappy when other companies find success, regardless of whether that is actually competing or threatening their own current success/niche.

That Chromebooks are a minor part of the market and not really taking over the world in their current form is exactly the point of why this negative campaign is such a joke and revealing of the state of MS. Why should MS bother to attack Chromebooks in the first place? That they are really says something about MS, more than Chromebooks.

Edited 2013-11-27 09:30 UTC

Reply Score: 7

It's terrible and I wish they'd stop
by ronaldst on Wed 27th Nov 2013 02:19 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

The money would be better spent getting those Metro "apps" included in Windows on par with the ones from Windows Live and Mango. Except the calendar app on WP, it's awful.

Reply Score: 2

True true
by sb56637 on Wed 27th Nov 2013 04:42 UTC
sb56637
Member since:
2006-05-11

Well, Microsoft's taste notwithstanding, they are unfortunately pretty much dead-on. The Chromebook is essentially useless without an internet connection, and truly pervasive and reliable internet access wherever you go is still a long way off.

That being said, I also hate Microsoft's current offerings, and I sincerely wish that 8.9" netbooks would come back.

Edited 2013-11-27 04:48 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: True true
by leos on Wed 27th Nov 2013 07:49 UTC in reply to "True true"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Well, Microsoft's taste notwithstanding, they are unfortunately pretty much dead-on. The Chromebook is essentially useless without an internet connection, and truly pervasive and reliable internet access wherever you go is still a long way off.


And worse, when you have an internet connection they are only marginally useful. I have a samsung chrome book and really tried to use it. The price was right and the battery life is great as well as the boot time. But it just sucks to use. The simplest things I would do on a regular desktop (presentations, spreadsheets, remote desktop, easy access to dropbox, some light image editing, etc) is all just impossible or really poor imitation of the real thing. I basically use it for a netflix box in bed, and even that is marginal because of the budget screen.

It's pretty much gathering dust. I thought I could save some bucks for an auxiliary travel device but the quality just isn't there. When I travel I just take my bluetooth keyboard with me and use the iPhone for everything. It does a better job than the chrome book for most things.

Edited 2013-11-27 07:50 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: True true
by Lennie on Wed 27th Nov 2013 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE: True true"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I run regular desktop Linux on my Chromebook, pretty good deal if you ask me.

Reply Score: 2

RE: True true
by JAlexoid on Thu 28th Nov 2013 16:17 UTC in reply to "True true"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'd say that in today's world not having an internet connection makes any computing device barely useful.

Reply Score: 2

Who?
by Soulbender on Wed 27th Nov 2013 06:48 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

At first I misread it as Porn Stars and though "woah, that's different". Then I read "Pawn Stars" and went "who?".

Reply Score: 12

comment
by pandronic on Wed 27th Nov 2013 06:58 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

The way Microsoft choose to advertise this past years is pretty pathetic. Instead of promoting their products (which sonetimes look nice and have interesting features) all they do is pick on Apple, Google and Android products. To me, they come off as petty and desperate. I hope the new CEO will change the advertising strategy and fire the awful agency they have now.

Reply Score: 8

RE: comment
by some1 on Wed 27th Nov 2013 18:46 UTC in reply to "comment"
some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

I hope the new CEO will change the advertising strategy and fire the awful agency they have now.

You think that Elop had no hand in Nokia ad campaign?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: comment
by pandronic on Wed 27th Nov 2013 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE: comment"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

He probably did and for Microsoft's sake I hope he's not the next CEO.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: comment
by some1 on Wed 27th Nov 2013 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: comment"
some1 Member since:
2010-10-05

I find your optimism unfounded.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: comment
by pandronic on Wed 27th Nov 2013 19:48 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: comment"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

I don't know if optimism would be the right word since I don't care about Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: comment
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 27th Nov 2013 20:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: comment"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Yeah, I'm not sure if I should be rooting against his selection because I don't think he's a good ceo, or if i should be rooting for his selection because it would be interesting to see Microsoft's downfall.

Reply Score: 2

Can't help but think...
by shotsman on Wed 27th Nov 2013 07:23 UTC
shotsman
Member since:
2005-07-22

'Hanging on is quiet desperation is the Microsoft way'

apologies to Pink Floyd and Dark Side fans myself included(I was at the 1st ever performance of it 20-Jan-1972)
but to 'dis' a competitors product like this is a sign of (IMHO) desperation in the redmond camp.

Reply Score: 5

Losing the conversation
by Chrispynutt on Wed 27th Nov 2013 09:40 UTC
Chrispynutt
Member since:
2012-03-14

My general impression of any company that trash talks about there competition is two things:

- They have little faith in their product succeeding so they try and make their competitors fail more.
- They are just a pathetic company, they have no class.

This goes for Apple's Mac Vs PC, Samsung's barrista cracking adverts and this from Microsoft.

You start talking about the competition the conversation stops being about you and about your competitor.

Maybe this goes over better in the States, but here it sounds like they are arses.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Losing the conversation
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 27th Nov 2013 20:21 UTC in reply to "Losing the conversation"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

They probably notice this behavior in comment sections all over the web, figure they might be able to invoke some positive association by stooping to the internet's level.

Its political BS that's found its way into technology.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by ricegf
by ricegf on Wed 27th Nov 2013 12:29 UTC
ricegf
Member since:
2007-04-25

As part of what are called “Chrome fighter” incentives, Microsoft about six months ago began offering computer makers discounts on Windows software to encourage them to focus on Microsoft PCs and not Chromebooks


First, that worked great with netbooks when Windows was a "must have" OS, but it looks kind of silly (and sadly desperate) now that Windows has a shrinking minority of the consumer market.

Second, if ChromeOS is "pathetic", why would Microsoft even offer "Chrome fighter" incentives? Did I miss the "Debian fighter" incentives, or the "Haiku fighter" incentives? Microsoft has inadvertently granted a huge endorsement to Google's desktop competitor.

In fact, they seem to be advertising more against an array of interesting Google products rather than for their own languishing products - or maybe it's just that Microsoft's ads for Google products are more interesting than Microsoft's ads for their own products.

Yep, they should fire their ad agency today.

Reply Score: 5

siraf72
Member since:
2006-02-22

I think generally it's best to avoid mentioning competitors. Quite obviously at a most basic level you're providing them with free advertising. However in some instances it does make sense. The old “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” campaign was great.

- Apple was coming back form obscurity
- Apple was the underdog and mentioning MS in the ad raised Apple’s profile by taking on the dominant force in the industry.
- Apple was redefining itself as cool against the an MS that was getting stale. because..
- Apple was pitching it’s benefits and comparing them to the status quo.
- It was funny (ish). It was mocking MS without being belligerent.

This MS ad however ticks all the wrong boxes:

- a big company calling out another big company is just acknowledging they’re in the same league
- It’s not funny
- It’s very forced and awkward
- No mention of what makes MS good, only what makes Google bad.

It comes off as desperate and awkward.

Ads are are largely subjective but one can objectively (through sales figures, audience reactions, etc) say the “I”m a Mac, I”m a PC” campaign worked well for Apple. Also, one can can subjectively say the MS’s Pawn Star ad is just terrible. (shame because I quite enjoy the pawn stars show).

Reply Score: 4

BlueofRainbow Member since:
2009-01-06

I fondly enjoyed those "I'am a Mac, I'm a PC" ads.

I also remember an earlier message - "Mac's works right out of the box". As a parent, I could relate to the poor dad opening up a new computer and setting up the internet connection and his son simply saying "I'm going over to his friends because they got a Mac".

When refering to competitors in advertisement, it seems that focusing on the strength of the product (whether imaginary or real) and with some humour has more lasting impacts than attack/negative ads.

On the other hand, if software giants and politicans alike would take note of this, then there would not be much left to bash at?

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

That is slightly different to when a bigger player mentions a smaller player.
Apple needed to show that they can compete with Windows systems, because they are a smaller player in the market. Droid Does commercials needed to show that they can compete with iPhone.
Mentioning or implying your competitor works only when you are comparing your product and pointing out something better or equivalence. Otherwise it's free advertising to a smaller competitor.

Reply Score: 2

Art of War
by martini on Wed 27th Nov 2013 13:04 UTC
martini
Member since:
2006-01-23

I really think that, in part, one of the problems with Microsoft is that there is a generation inside it that was trained as a salesman/evangelist with the "Art of War" by Sun Tzu.

That turned the salesman to be very aggressive in a bad way. And sometimes we tend to block aggressive/pushy people.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120829013937/http://techrights.org/wp-...

Page: 12 - War
Page: 13 - If they can't or won't help up - Screw'em - help their competition instead.
Page: 34, 35

Reply Score: 3

RE: Art of War
by kwan_e on Wed 27th Nov 2013 13:13 UTC in reply to "Art of War"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

I really think that, in part, one of the problems with Microsoft is that there is a generation inside it that was trained as a salesman/evangelist with the "Art of War" by Sun Tzu.


If they were, they certainly aren't showing their supposed training...

Otherwise, they'd stop trying to fight battles that others have already won and focus on winning battles that others don't even know need to be fought.

Reply Score: 2

Art of War
by martini on Wed 27th Nov 2013 13:12 UTC
martini
Member since:
2006-01-23

Maybe this is why I found this videos funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rmbPXa6TDU

"According to Sun Tzu what's most important is not that you win the battle. What's most important it is that you sell the Mainframe"

Reply Score: 2

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 27th Nov 2013 14:36 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

I've just watched the video.

The first thing I noticed is that the Pawn Stars have become older than they are on Discovery Channel.

This scene was staged of course, but it does make me wonder how real Pawn Stars is on TV.

With these reality shows you have to take notice where the camera crew is. In Pawn Stars they take to people outside the store, then the crew is in the store and the seller walks in. So if this is real they intercepted someone outside, had him wait until the camera crew was inside and gave him a signal to enter. The Pawn Stars saw the camera crew enter so they knew something was going to happen.

And when something happens they switch camera view a number of times. So either it is staged and they edit stuff or they have multiple camera crews, which I doubt. And for some reason all the visitors in the shop always ignore the camera crew(s).

At the end of the show the camera crew is always in place and filming when a funny dialoge happens.

So Google may f*ck us over with their spying and crappy products, but I suspect Pawn Stars are too, because it's not reality TV at all (like most or perhaps all reality TV).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Lennie on Wed 27th Nov 2013 17:46 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

It's an ad. It's scripted.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 27th Nov 2013 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Yes, I know, but I'm thinking Pawn Stars, the "normal" episodes, are scripted to. At least to a certain degree.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by Lennie on Wed 27th Nov 2013 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Ahh, OK, well, I'm pretty sure the normal series are are 'directed'. I mean people that wanted to go into the shop are directed to wait and start talking after the camera started rolling, that sort of things.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by Morgan on Thu 28th Nov 2013 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Pretty much all US-based "reality" TV is heavily scripted. Even Cops, which helped to start the reality craze over 20 years ago, has had scenes that were occasionally re-shot or embellished. Then you have the other end of the spectrum, shows like The Hills where it's painfully obvious that it's a fully scripted, fictional drama, shot in high framerates to make it appear like a reality show. The only thing "real" about that show was that they used the actors' real names for the characters.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Thu 28th Nov 2013 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I guess most of life is fake these days.

Microsoft should be careful with these kind of adds, because it's not that hard to pick one of the many Microsoft products and stage an act like this one making for of either the product or selected features of it.

For example: licences. Does any one here understand them? Of each product Microsoft has x versions, from basic useless to business ultimate pro++. Different features, prices. But then you can buy a single product, or a volume license, which can run on real or virtual hardware, the number of CPUs/cores makes a difference and then you have CALs.

You try to get the right version, like SQL Server, only to find out later some feature isn't available and you need a more expensive version.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by Soulbender on Thu 28th Nov 2013 16:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

But then you can buy a single product, or a volume license, which can run on real or virtual hardware, the number of CPUs/cores makes a difference and then you have CALs.


Oh god...CALs. I doubt there's a single person in the world who knows how CALs work.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by bbap
by Bringbackanonposting on Wed 27th Nov 2013 23:08 UTC
Bringbackanonposting
Member since:
2005-11-16

That advert is absolute crap. MS really can't work out why they are so hated?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by mightshade
by mightshade on Thu 28th Nov 2013 00:03 UTC
mightshade
Member since:
2008-11-20

Just a few days ago I discovered their Anime ads, and I though "Hey, these are actually pretty nice"... and now this. *facepalm*
Better stay away from "comparative advertising", too much negativity.

Reply Score: 2

a cheap linux notebook
by unclefester on Thu 28th Nov 2013 03:27 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

A few months back I was looking at Chromebooks. I told the sales guy that I was thinking about buying one and installing Linux on it. He replied "that's what everybody does.'

Reply Score: 2

RE: a cheap linux notebook
by Soulbender on Thu 28th Nov 2013 12:26 UTC in reply to "a cheap linux notebook"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Google: Doesn't matter, sold unit.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: a cheap linux notebook
by unclefester on Fri 29th Nov 2013 02:52 UTC in reply to "RE: a cheap linux notebook"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

Google: Doesn't matter, sold unit.



Chromebooks are sold below cost. It's a loss for Google when Linux is installed.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Thu 28th Nov 2013 18:35 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

I watched the commercial. Honestly speaking I thought it was dumb. However, I didn't see it as the desperate cry some people here seem to. I don't buy that pointing out serious drawbacks with the competition means a company is pathetic or has no faith in their own products. This commercial was obviously not intended to highlight all the positives about a Microsoft product. It was meant to belittle the competition, and it succeeded to do so.

Microsoft is no more wrong for bashing their competition as some of you are for using the ad to bash Microsoft. A lot of the melodramatic posts about the ad are far more pathetic than the ad itself could ever be. It's not a crime to cry & whine but that doesn't mean you should do it every chance you get.

Reply Score: 2