Welcome Stranger to OCC!Login | Register

New Microsoft Ad Targets Price of Apple Computers

Category: Manufacturers
Posted: March 27, 2009 05:16AM
Author: CheeseMan42

The advertising war between Microsoft and Apple continues. The newest campaign from Microsoft points out what everyone already knows, Macs cost more than PCs. In this particular commercial, a camera crew follows around Lauren, who is looking for a laptop to fit her needs. The first stop is the Apple Store where the only computer in her price range has a 13-inch screen; the only problem is that she wants a 17-inch screen. After a trip to another store, she settles on an HP that fits all of her requirements for only $700. This commercial should help Microsoft at a time when most people are trying to cut spending across the board.



Register as a member to subscribe comments.
d3bruts1d on March 27, 2009 06:55AM
Microsoft has finally gotten the right idea. Though I still think the ads are silly. A Mac user already knows the cost, and has justified it to themselves. The ad won't get them to switch. Likewise, a Windows user is still more likely to go out and buy another Windows based system. The majority of people that "switch" to Mac are those that are fed up with the Windows OS or who have been referred by a friend. If they want users to switch from Mac to Windows, or to quit leaving Windows then they should focus on improving their flagship products. -- Of course now Apple can fire back about the high cost of Windows and Office compared to OS X and iWork.
Guest comment
Jeffsters on March 27, 2009 09:52AM
I think this does nothing but show the desperation on MS part! I mean at long last is all they have is our OS runs of cheaper hardware? I mean is that it? Please tell me there is more?!?! Please tell me that MS hasn't hitched its future to poorly made, lowest common denominator hardware, as the basis for their success! Gawd help PC users!
CheeseMan42 on March 27, 2009 01:04PM
So the fact that they pretty much use the exact same hardware is irrelevant?
ClayMeow on March 27, 2009 02:08PM
Wow, there are so many things wrong with your comment, and I'm not just talking about the apple fanboyism spewing out of it. If you consider showing that Windows-based PC's are cheaper than Macs desperation, then what, pray tell, do you call the Mac vs. PC ads that have plagued our TV's for years?
malmsteenisgod on March 27, 2009 12:20PM
Jeffsters- it's not cheaper hardware. It's that Apple clearly overcharges for hardware, because like d3bruts1d said, mac users somehow find it justified to pay the extra cash so they can be different.
BillyBuerger on March 27, 2009 01:17PM
Jeffsters, by your logic, anyone who doesn't spend their money on only the most expensive things is stupid. Sorry, but everyone has to live with what they can afford. Just because you spent more money doesn't mean everything else that's cheaper is crap. malmsteenisgod, it was a while ago but a buddy who has a mac and I priced out a laptop with pretty much the same hardware as his mac and it came out pretty close. So apple doesn't charge grossly amounts more than others. My big issue with apple is the fact that they don't make cheaper things. Either you drop $1,000 for a macbook or you don't get a macbook. Sorry, I'm not going to spend that much when I can get something that will be just fine for $600. Sure, I won't get an LED backlight screen, or a multi-touch trackpad, or a power cord that uses magnets to hold it in place. (my buddy's macbook does, do they still use this?) But those are things I'm willing to give up to save myself $400.
ClayMeow on March 27, 2009 02:05PM
I agree on most of your points, except when you said Apple doesn't charge a lot more. I don't know what you tried to configure, but I recently purchased a 15" Dell Laptop, and when I configured a comparable Macbook, the Macbook was $1000 more. I posted about it here: http://forums.overclockersclub.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=159975&view=findpost&p=1623678
BillyBuerger on March 27, 2009 07:12PM
It was probably a good year ago that I was talking about. I will say the Macbook pro 15" doesn't look that good next to the Dell Studio 15. Although you could quibble about some of the specs. I think the Macbook pro is targeted at a slightly higher end target then the Dell Studio though. Now if you look at the 13" Apple against comparable 13" Dells, it's a bit closer. Here's a quick table I did: http://www.billybuerger.com/pub/DellvsMac.png A Dell Studio XPS 13" has a little better hardware specs and comes in at almost the exact same price. The Dell XPS M1330 is a little behind in specs and is a good bit cheaper. But then I think some of the interface stuff that Apple does helps bridge the gap in price/specs as well. Like I said, I wouldn't pay for it if there was an option, but it did cost them money to put those bells and whistles in there that you don't get from Dell.
ClayMeow on March 28, 2009 10:31AM
No doubt my example of the $1k difference is not always the case. But even in your table, the price between the macbook and studio 13 may be, for all intents and purposes, the same, as you pointed out, the studio 13 DOES have better specs. That being said, I do realize that Macs have their benefits, which is why people still buy them despite the higher costs. But I also think, as indicative in the success of netbooks, that the majority of consumers require cheaper solutions, and as the new MS ads point out, that rules out Macs regardless of people's allegiances.
d3bruts1d on March 27, 2009 03:29PM
Macs are higher up front costs, where as when you look at the cost for software over years (OS & Office) then Macs may actually become cheaper for some people. It's a mater of perspective. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think Apple would make a killing if they dropped their prices by 20%. That said, everyone may find Gizmodo's Apple Tax article interesting.
ClayMeow on March 27, 2009 04:25PM
As I'm sure you're aware, my laptop included an OS in the price (though even if I had to buy Vista, it would have cost a mere $100...and isn't that the same price for OSX?). Even if I had to buy Office on top of that, it still wouldn't have come close to bridging the price gap. Also, considering everyone I know that owns a Mac winds up buying Office for it, I don't think you can use that as a valid argument anyways. Regardless, I fail to see how the cost of software increases over the years? If anything, you're going to spend more on your Mac.
d3bruts1d on March 27, 2009 06:11PM
The Apple hardware includes OS X, iWork, and iLife in the price. Windows upgrades cost $100-$350 for the OS. Office is looking at $150-$700. Depending on what you want. If you have multiple systems then legally you'd be buying a copy for each system.

OS X cost $130. Or you can get the OS X + iWork + iLife bundle for $170, which is still cheaper than the Vista Ultimate Upgrade by itself. You can buy a 5 system license of OS X for $200, once again cheeper than the Vista U Upgrade (single system). iWork is $79 (1 sys) or $99 (5 sys).

Like I said, it may be cheaper for some people over a year or less if you have multiple systems. I have yet to find anyone who willingly uses MSOffice on the Mac. Not because of some anyi-MS ideology, but simply because it sucks. It's slow and clunky and there are better alternatives available (besides iWork).
ClayMeow on March 28, 2009 10:25AM
Well I guess the fact that the majority of macbook owners I know got it for college is probably why they all purchased Office. I don't remember the price, but it probably also helps that the Student edition is substantially cheaper, not to mention allows three installs (which really helps families with multiple kids college bound). As for the OS, Vista OEM price for Home Premium is $100, which is certainly in line with OSX. The general populace doesn't have five systems, but even if they did, with the decreased hardware costs for Win-based PC's, it'd still be cheaper. As for upgrading, it's hard to comment since that's personal preference. I bought Vista a little over a year ago, and even when Win7 is released, I'll be sticking with Vista. Not until I build a new PC, which will be 2-4 years from now, would I even consider upgrading to Win7, so there won't be any additional cost to me. Nevertheless, as I said, it's personal preference, so I'm sure there are people out there that WILL buy Win7 right away. But on the flip side, there are also people out there that insist on buying each version of OSX.
RHKCommander959 on March 27, 2009 03:47PM
Better than the Seinfeld commercial.
d3bruts1d on March 27, 2009 04:06PM
Heh... a root canal would have been better than the Seinfeld ads.
Guest comment
billw11 on March 28, 2009 08:52AM
ill stick with a pc... i dont need ms office & never have- wordpad works fine for typing a letter, if i need more than that, openoffice is free. apple bought out clarisworks long ago & dissolved it because it was a better product.... $400 price difference is the difference between a dual core & quad core , plus a blue ray burner.. i prefer to spend the money on better equipment thanks

This news has comment postings disabled because it is now archived.

© 2001-2014 Overclockers Club ® Privacy Policy

Also part of our network: TalkAndroid, Android Forum, iPhone Informer, Neoseeker, and Used Audio Classifieds

Elapsed: 0.1553940773