The second installment of Microsoft's Laptop Hunters commercials went live today, and if you thought our
actress friend Lauren lit a fire, well, get ready for Giampaulo, who professes to be "technically-savvy" and calls the unibody MacBook he looks at "so sexy," but ultimately rejects it because he wants to pay for "computing power," not the "brand." Armed with a $1,500 budget, he walks out of Fry's with an
HP HDX 16 that features a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo, NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT graphics, 4GB of RAM, and a 500GB drive -- raw numbers that would cost you $2,499 from Apple, although you'd be getting a vastly better display. Fair? We leave that up to you -- video after the break.
P.S.- That's the two commercials and two HP machines purchased, anyone sensing a trend?
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Read - CNET
Read - The Fry's listing for the $1,099 HP HDX 16
posted Apr 4th 2009 6:17PM
Saw this on MacRumors, he didn't even try out the Mac, just looked at it and made an assumption the Hardware isn't up to scratch.
And he was right...
but remember he said he was tech savy... therefore he doesn't need to look at the mac... right? right?
Ok Microsoft loses at their second attempt at this... and chances are he is part of the SAG just like Lauren was. Plus what is with how they give Apple free advertising... they have pointed out a couple positive attributes about macs the last few commercials they have put out...
I can relate...
Maybe some percieve them as positive...
For most people, paying extra just for a brand isn't positive. And for those that it is, they were probably on macs already.
How long does it take to find out that the specs and the price don't add up to what you're looking for? I'd say a minute, if at all, especially if you're at least somewhat tech-savy.
As for the "so sexy" comment: of course they are - denying this would be stupid in a supposedly "real life" ad. On the other hand, I think it's pretty smart to lessen the "sexy" immediately with a "so expensive, only for the brand" statement. Stuff like that sticks in the brains of Joe and Jane Average I'd say.
sure you pay more up front, but in the long run a pc of the same equivalent specs as a mac will end up costing you more (that is if you are an average user and don't know much about computers)
I am really enjoying the butthurt that these adverts are causing the Apple fanboys. They like to dish it out but can't take none of it. They also criticize people for being "cheap" and yet the first thing they do is to get 3rd party RAM, HD and monitor because those three options from Apple are overpriced. What happened to not being cheap? What happened to Apple hardware being superior and the premium well worth paying? Hypocrites. It's clear that everyone has a budget.
@Proud Japanese
I have a MacBook Pro, and an Apple 24" display.
Wouldnt consider myself a fanboy though, I'm a Graphic Designer, and these tools are in my opinion a key to my success, thank you very much.
@Eddy: Then I hope you got RAM and HD upgraded from Apple as well.
Oh stop fucking crying, Apple fanboys. Everyone had to put up with your gloating at those cynical and nasty Mac vs PC adverts so just lie back and take your stripes like men.
What goes around comes around.
If all consumers really cared about is price, everyone would be using Linux.
Reply: Yes I did, Leopard does not require as much RAM as Vista, this has been proven.
Having half the RAM will still perform multi-tasking better than Vista / XP.
I must admit, I do have a third-party external harddrive, but there is no shame int that. ^^
Seriously i wanna know where i can sign up to do this, i really need a new laptop but can't afford it.
I love seeing the fanboys get all butt-hurt too. It's a kick in the nuts cause for Apple cause the only thing that Apple has for sales promotion now is cutting down Vista with it's "It Just Works" slogans. Apple can't come out with a commercial like this, NO WAY, cause for once, Microsoft isn't promoting its operating system or any of its other software, its promoting that Yes, You're getting a PC, and you can have it configured, upgraded, and used the way YOU want it.
Apple hardware is not superior, BTW. The motherboards are made by ASUS, processors are Intel, hard drives are either Western Digitals or Seagates, and their famed Cinema Monitor, its made by LG. Hmm, specs sound like just about every other HP computer out there.
@Eddy Munn
Benchmarks NAO.
What does 'NAO' mean?
Two things to consider:
1) You just failed the internet.
2) NAO = NOW.
I really don't get you.
I was watching 'The Gadget Show' on Five, they put the iMac up against the HP Touchsmart and one other 'high-polished' desktop computer.
@Mark Anderson
"Everyone had to put up with your gloating at those cynical and nasty Mac vs PC adverts so just lie back and take your stripes like men."
I thought most of the Apple fanboys on here were boys, cause real men would admit the defeat.
@Eddy
Yes, so tell me the specs of the machines, the release dates of the OS and then why Leopard requires less RAM than XP? Otherwise it's supposition.
I mean Vista I might have believed, but XP?
you got me there, Eddy. The key to graphics is the hardware, it has nothing about being a good designer....
Seriously, I use mac and PC, and I am 100% that they don't make 1 bit of difference on how my designs turn out. they might affect productivity a bit, but not DESIGN.
@Eddy: First of all, as a graphic designer you probably will know that only Windows has 64bit Photoshop. Secondly, real life photoshop benchmarks at macrumors forums show that on a same mac, photoshop on bootcamp is faster than photoshop on OS X.
About the upgrades, you seem to be in the minority. Almost every mac fanboy I've come across has 3rd party ram, hd and a display from dell, because unlike what they claim, they do have a budget as well.
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that Microsoft's big selling point in these ads is hardware? The Microsoft OS Giampauolo has just bought is almost universally acknowledged to be a failure and will be obsolete inside of six months.
Funny how he says he's looking for more power, not noticing the machine he got has some bullshit DDR2 ram that has to be about 4 years old, these adds get worse and worse lol.
@ Gary,
Surely your point is moot.. if this Windows advert promotes more sales of non-mac laptops (HP or otherwise), then its also going to lead to more sales of Windows licenses.
> "Leopard does not require as much RAM as Vista, this has been proven."
So leopard will fly at 1 Gig? not in my experience. You need 2 gigs just to be comfortable with either OS, and more for more intensive tasks. Vista does use more ram, but it is ignorant to equate that as a problem in and of itself- among other things it is pre-caching frequent requests to the hard drive (binaries that load in and out of memory frequently). You want a good chunk of your ram in use all the time, otherwise it is a waste. What you don't want is to be paging to the hard disk, but unfortunately very few people look at this when actually assessing an OS. Don't look at RAM usage, look at page fault frequency. That's how you tell how effective an OS utilizes memory. Of course this is all BS in the day and age of $40 for 4 gigs of ram (assuming you aren't buying from the Machine manufacturer- Dell, Apple, who the hell cares they charge too much)- It is very easy to get more RAM than you will ever need for either OS.
The Apple displays are nicer than HPs, but I hate that it is so hard to find good hi res displays from any OEM. 1440 or less for a 15"+ screen is criminal; that should be the standard res on a 13" (1280 is crap even at that size). 1650 should be standard on 15" and above, but almost nobody bothers anymore. Why was it easier to find good hi res displays on laptops 3 years ago than it is now? Many of us are not, in fact, blind (we also realize we can increase font and icon size if we must). My freaking 12" toshiba tablet from 2004 has slightly better resolution (though worse refresh rate and color depth) than the 15" Macbook Pros (let alone Dells, who default to 1280 at that size- though most allow upgrades). Come on manufacturers, offer the option of better displays for those of us who will pay for them.
Vastly Better Display? Even then is that worth ~$1,500? Nilay, must you really ask? Or were typing that out on a Macbook and had to fight a counterpoint no matter how weak it is.
@Neha:
I assume it's also the same "superior" display that even they have complained is glossed to fucking hell. I suppose it is a better display, Nilay. If you can see something on it other than reflections of what's behind you.
Dear Apple Nerds,
Shut it already and accept the reality. :)
Yours,
PCs
I'd say the best thing about the ad is the timing - recession and penney-pinching times are a good time to tell about value to the customers. It helps to play on the perception that "macs are expensive". MSFT is giving AAPL a dose of its own medicine. AAPL played on the perceptions of Vista being prone to viruses and malware, and the campaign worked very well for AAPL. MSFT is smartly taking this page from AAPL marketing and playing it well. I am loving the competition - I hope this helps bring down the price on AAPL machines.
http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/3313/starwarsstartrek.jpg
5 eggs on all 7 reviews at Newegg, 4 1/2 stars on 12 reviews at Amazon. Specwise and build quality, this is a much better candidate for MS to put up against Apple. It's half a pound heavier than the 17" MBP with a borderline-netbook screen resolution, but you get ExpressCard and HDMI out.
One thing none of you have pitched in Apple's defense: Apple's support will probably beat HP's, and that's likely a significant part of the $1,000 difference. If you're fortunate enough to live near an Apple store or a decent reseller, you probably won't get hosed. HP isn't bad - better than Dell and Gateway/Acer, probably a little short of Toshiba, YMMV obviously - but there's no equivalent retail service after the sale to Apple's.
The software talk is all bunk. Both systems factor the OS cost into the price. Both OS X and Windows have craploads of free software. Both systems can run Linux. It's time to get over crap like iWork vs. MS Office when software like OpenOffice exists on both platforms.
Personally? I'd've gone with the Satellite P305-S8915 or MSI GT735-024US. Same price (the MSI is $999 after rebate, even) and higher-res screens (1440x900 and 1680x1050, respectively). Both have eSATA, 320GB HDDs, dedicated ATI GPUs (3650 and 3850, respectively) and ship with 4GB RAM. The Toshiba adds a 64GB secondary SSD.
But that's just it: If the MBP isn't for you, your only other option is the underpowered, tiny MB. Apple is a luxury brand; just like BMW won't dare sell a new car for less than $12,000, Apple won't dare sell a laptop for less than $1,000.
The brand doesn't inflate the price, people. The price inflates the brand.
@bk7
True enough, they're selling the 'Windows platform', and with a degree of success if the reaction to this is anything to go by. However, until Windows 7 is actually released, Microsoft can't in good conscience recommend their own operating system, the product which is to all intents and purposes, the company's reason d'etre. That's something I find to be truly staggering.
You lost my attention at "Saw this on MacRumors."
In 2006 I bought a Toshiba core 2 duo w/ 15.4" screen for $499 from Best Buy. I upgraded the ram to 2gigs for about $20. Later I got a free extra battery from Toshiba.
I bought it to take notes at school, web/email, and ms office.
Now my wife uses it for the web/ email and recipe software (which by the way does not run on Leo)
What does the mac do for an extra $500? (maybe the cheapest mac laptop was more then?)
Why the hell is Proud Japanese being buried? he nailed it: Photoshop CS4 is not 64bit enabled on OSX. It is on Windows.
This should be reason enough for anyone needing a good graphics suite to use Windows: exponentially more ram is supported.
This commercial is a win any way you look at it. He got a 2.4GHZ CPU, 4gb of ram, and a Geforce 9600.
ALL features found on the macbook pro for $1400 less. Sure it might be DDR2, and benchmark wise the MBP will be a little faster. But not $1400 faster.
Also the screen on the MBP might be better, but unless he's doing high end photo work, it's not gonna be $1400 better(had to say it again).
Microsoft win
@ David
How could a PC of equivalent hardware cost more than a mac? He said in the article that a Mac with equivalent hardware as the HP would cost 2,499 USD. The HP cost less than 1,500 USD. How does this make sense in your mind? A PC costing as much as a Mac would have far better hardware.
@ obo:
"The software talk is all bunk. Both systems factor the OS cost into the price. Both OS X and Windows have craploads of free software. Both systems can run Linux. It's time to get over crap like iWork vs. MS Office when software like OpenOffice exists on both platforms."
--Have you ever used OpenOffice? I use it on the machine I use for programming regularly, and compared to MS Office 12 it a complete joke. Nothing is nearly as intuitive as it is in MS Office, the UI is garbage, it frequently badly formats when your uploading a file from different software, comparing it to Office 12 is completely baseless
At the end of the day the clear, common sense conclusion is that the Apple costs $1000 more for better service, a good display, and the name. You lose absolutely innumerable software options, you're left with much less compatibility than any computer in the professional world, and you lose computing power. You are paying much more for a machine that places countless nonsensical restrictions on you. The only reason to buy the Apple is because you have too much money to care about what you do with it, or you are an illogical consumer.
@josh : I have an iMac with 1gb of ram and it does pretty well. If you compare issues of battery life, speed of the os, design, ease of use and lack of malware the mac is better. Don't believe me? Go check out reviews of the unibody MacBook pro. Consistently the mac os has significantly better battery life in upwards of an hour. For all the talk about mac security, there are still no current exploits for the mac. Mac users get to use the full power of their device free of AV.
There is nothing wrong with windows. For most it will be good enough. For others who want the best, the mac is still the best. It's nice for them to compare a garbage HP but a more true comparison would have been against a lenovo or Sony Vaio. People can talk about about how there is 64bit for photoshop for windows and not the mac. Have you ever been to adobe? Adobe has a 2 to 1 ratio of macs to pc's. Virtually every superstar at adobe uses a mac. Adobe has 64bit for windows first because it is about marketshare, not by personal preference. In these ads, microsoft is not even comparing their OS to the mac. They seeem to have conceded to that. They are pushing the same argument they always have. That pc's are cheaper. The commercials will probably work in this economy. Just because a corvette can go as fast as a Ferrari at a third the price, it doesn't make it as good or better than a Ferrari.
its okay to prefer either company, apple or microsoft... but what i dont understand is the people hating on the commercial, especially those that liked the mac vs pc commercial. the mac vs pc commercials lied, and im not even saying they hid the truth, they just straight out lied about PCs (and well, hiding the truth part about macs and other factors of general computing)... and these commercials always compare two machines with the same specs, and then look at their price and personalization. hell they even say good things about their competition and dont argue them back..., something the Mac vs PC ads never dd.
even if i was the biggest apple fanboy in the world (which you may have got by now that i am not) i would give kodus to this commercial.
So let me get this straight: Microsoft is spending millions of dollars to tell people what EVERYONE already knows - that Apple hardware almost always costs more than generic plastic junk running Windows. Wow, MS must think people are idiots.
Actually, MS *knows* people are idiots - just look at their dominating market share. Idiots love Windows. Just ask the idiots' official spokesperson, Mark Anderson.
Apple. More expensive. And worth it. Suck it, haters. You think those of us who buy Apple hardware don't know that we could get HP crap running Windows for a lot less money??? The ignorance on the Winbot side is astounding.
P.S. I love how the "regular people" in these ads are under NDA - forbidden from talking about their HP laptops (or the Windows OS that plagues them) post-purchase. I wonder why...
Why is Microsoft obsessing about Apple? They are always saying Apple is such a small player it doesn't matter, but every time they open their mouths "Apple" comes out of it.
I guess Apple matters a lot, after all.
LOL. PC nerds and apple fanboys at war!! OMGZZ the INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!! get out and exercise people.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/04/04/microsofts_latest_ad_attacks_mac_aesthetics_computing_power.html
did a nice write up.
Its about the software stupid.
All this excess in hardware is what you'll need to run the latest and greatest version of M$ products like Office. Just remember to pay extra for features you'd normally find in the OS of, say a Mac or Ubuntu, i.e. a spell checker that works OS wide in your mail client (and I don't mean French) http://forums.firingsquad.com/firingsquad/board/message?board.id=software&thread.id=8785
Or how about a spell check that works in your browser too, you can't even get that on IE w/out and extension from a virus infested third party. A 'find' feature or media player that can handle 300+ CDs and search in under a 30 seconds? You'll be waiting 30 minutes with MCE.
As a M$ developer, all I can say is pooey. Its about the software stupid. All the hardware is nice if you want to run the cutting edge of tomorrow that 'sorta works', or you can stick with something that actually had a real Q&A process with its development cycle and in the end 'just works'.
The thing is that alot of Engadget readers here like to hack. So stick to your Hondas with tripped out neon lights and and about $60k of extras... I'll take the BMW M3 with yesterdays engine, thanks.
Anyone else think that the douche in the video looks like a douche?
I really don't give a crap, and can use both Windows and MacOSX (as well as Linux Distros)... They all work just as fine as long as you tune them up properly (well... maybe except the Mac.. almost null tuning up possible; but pretty good on it's own)... however, I can't help but laugh at Engadget apparently being mac-fanboy-land.
Because, David, unlike the Mac ads, they're trying to be more realistic about it. While the Mac ads just try to claim that Windows and PCs just basically suck (without proof of their claims), Microsoft is trying to be more realistic about it, because it's realism that wins people over in ads, to be honest, not slander.
@mynk
Of all the insanely incorrect PC lovin' comments on here, I chose yours to reply to, so pay attention:
On more than one occasion, the Mac commercials complemented PCs on doing work related activities, more so by far than all Microsoft's commercials combined*. Also, the first commercial of this kind and the Apple Mac/PC commercials both made fun of their opponent's best qualities, as they rightly should. Apple's commercials made fun of PCs for being for work and sucking (comparatively) in the area of security (sure you can get Norton or another anti-virus software, but Microsoft hardly included that in the final price of their commercial...), and the Microsoft commercials are (finally) going after the Macs for being for 'cool' people who just want a good looking computer (mainly not true, but the truth is hardly what the goal of a commercial is).
*note that you stated the exact opposite. EPIC FAILURE to even consider the opposing viewpoint. Stick to the stuff you know, or at least do minimal research. LAME.