Print 118 comment(s) - last by B3an.. on May 29 at 1:37 AM

  (Source: List Phobia)

Out: "Get a Mac"  (Source: Apple)

In: "Why you'll love a Mac"  (Source: Apple)
Apple claims to have better software, hardware, OS, support, and compatibility in new commercials

The award-winning "Get a Mac" series of commercials, created by TBWA\Media Arts Lab ran between 2006 and 2009.  The commercials angered some Windows users, but convinced others to embrace Apple's slickly packaged hardware.  They also helped turn Justin Long and John Hodgman, the leads in the U.S. version of the commercials, into stars.

Back in April, Justin Long warned Apple's fans in an interview that the commercials might be dead.  Now it appears Apple has indeed pulled the plug on the popular commercials, replacing them with a new campaign.

Apple's new attempt at advertising will be a campaign called "Why you'll love a Mac."  On Apple's website the "Get a Mac" section has been pulled and now redirects to the new campaign.

"Why you love a Mac" features Apple claiming that it has "Better Hardware, Better Software, Better OS, Better Support, and It's [more] Compatible" than PCs.  If "Get a Mac" rubbed PC lovers the wrong way, the new campaign will likely be more of the same.

It's accuracy seems pretty subjective.  If you compare Macs against cherry-picked PCs, some of the claims become plausible.  However against high end PC laptops, Apple's graphics offerings even in its latest MacBook Pros come up a bit short.  And Windows 7 currently has many features that OS X Snow Leopard lacks (though the reverse is true as well in a handful of cases) and supports a great deal more peripherals. 

The strangest claim, perhaps, though is "better software."  While Apple has done much to expand it's software lineup -- including getting some game love, at long last -- most Apple titles are available for Windows.  And the majority of Windows software is not OS X compatible.  Oh, and the campaign claims it "doesn't get PC viruses" (in most cases technically true, rather it gets Mac viruses).

In memory of "Get a Mac" here's some of the campaign's greatest hits preserved on YouTube for all you Apple lovers out there [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By AssBall on 5/22/2010 4:35:50 PM , Rating: 5
Do they sell an ounce of cocaine and some shrooms with their systems so people believe this sh!t?

1 Better Hardware,
2 Better Software,
3 Better OS,
4 Better Support,
5 and It's more Compatible

1- No, unless you coun't the case as hardware. At least you can cook stuff on their laptops.

2- People run programs on Macs?

3- My OS has the freedom to run any piece of shit program I can think of on it, does yours?

4- Hello, Apple tech support. I can't seem get this Dude on a horse humping a dude video working on my Apple, can you fix it? Nope, sorry. $&%#!

5- Just purely and absolutely not true.

RE: What?
By Gul Westfale on 5/22/2010 4:44:28 PM , Rating: 4
Do they sell an ounce of cocaine and some shrooms with their systems

now you know why they cost so much.

RE: What?
By quiksilvr on 5/22/2010 6:48:43 PM , Rating: 4
And why they're laptops reach boiling temperatures. Freebasing on the go!

RE: What?
By themaster08 on 5/23/2010 1:52:43 AM , Rating: 5
1 Better Hardware,
2 Better Software,
3 Better OS,
4 Better Support,
5 and It's more Compatible

They purposely missed out the rest of each sentence...

1 Better Hardware, than netbooks.
2 Better Software, than PC's with no OS
3 Better OS, than PC's with no OS
4 Better Support, when support for your current machine runs out.
5 and It's more Compatible, with your iPod.

RE: What?
By Chillin1248 on 5/23/2010 12:04:34 PM , Rating: 5
Here is what they are basically claiming:


-Built with strong, beautiful, recyclable materials
-Innovative features like wireless keyboard/mouse and built-in webcam
-Superior performance from "blazing fast" processors, "high performance" graphics, and "high speed" memory


-Comes with email, calendar, and address book applications
-Search inside documents!
-iTunes, iSight, iPhoto, iMovie, and GarageBand are pre-installed


-If you switch from Windows XP to Windows 7, you'll have to re-learn everything anyway, so why not learn to use OSX Snow Leopard instead?
-Our 64-bit processes run super fast on a 64-bit CPU
-Download updates automatically, install with a click, "so you’re not tasked with tracking down updates yourself and installing all of them one by one"
-Features tools to enhance accessibility for the seeing- or hearing-impaired. "To get the same functionality on a PC, you need to purchase third-party software."


-Pay us $99 and we'll transfer all your personal files from your old computer


-Supports .doc, .pdf, .ppt, .xls, .wmv, .mp3, .jpg, .txt, and .avi files!
-"You can access your email and favorite websites with no problem."
-Automatically recognizes available wireless networks, remembers previously used ones and will connect to them whenever you're in range

Source :

They have got to be kidding. I personally own an Apple Laptop, so I got no resentment towards them; but they are pushing their luck with these retarded claims.


RE: What?
By bug77 on 5/23/2010 1:38:49 PM , Rating: 2
I was ROFL before I got to the "Better OS" part.

RE: What?
By ImSpartacus on 5/23/2010 3:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I think this new ad campaign looks like it's going to suck.

Apple simply isn't superior on the productivity end. The specs on their machines are not better. Going toe-to-toe with Windows on Windows' turf is just foolish.

They need to push the artsy, bullshit, fluff side of their products. That's honestly the only area they "succeed".

RE: What?
By RjBass on 5/24/2010 2:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
But with the way Adobe and Apple are fighting these days, that may not even be the best approach since most likely Adobe will optimize their programs for PC's now. Namely Photoshop.

RE: What?
By quiksilvr on 5/23/2010 10:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
I find it a bit hypocritical of you clearly recognizing the fact that Apple's claims are lies and yet you still paid for their overpriced hardware o_O

RE: What?
By bug77 on 5/24/2010 5:22:58 AM , Rating: 3
Why? A misleading ad campaign does not make a product not worthwhile. Apple clearly has its market segment and if people are willing to pay the price, it's ultimately their choice (informed or otherwise).

RE: What?
By rburnham on 5/24/2010 1:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
-Our 64-bit processes run super fast on a 64-bit CPU

Did a five-year-old write that?

-If you switch from Windows XP to Windows 7, you'll have to re-learn everything anyway, so why not learn to use OSX Snow Leopard instead?

Re-learn everything? Well, sure, if you'd recent head trauma.

RE: What?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/26/2010 9:31:51 AM , Rating: 2
yea, yea, yea, whatever... Let's be honest and cover what is really important. They have a much hotter girl in their advertisement. If she were to say something like my name is Candy. You want to lick me? I really will not care what type of computer she has in front of her.

RE: What?
By GroBemaus on 5/26/2010 1:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, all I see is a HAWT chick with SOMETHING in front of her...blocking my view ;)

RE: What?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/26/2010 3:28:56 PM , Rating: 2
hmmmm... maybe she like to live video chat.... Free of course, shhhhwwwing.

RE: What?
By marvdmartian on 5/24/2010 11:33:25 AM , Rating: 1
1 Better Hardware, than netbooks.
2 Better Software, than PC's with no OS
3 Better OS, than PC's with no OS
4 Better Support, when support for your current machine runs out.
5 and It's more Compatible, with your iPod.

My take would be:
1. better hardware (than we used to offer....thanks, Intel!)
2. better software (that you're stuck with, since NO ONE writes software for a Mac!)
3. better OS (than a PC running Windows ME)
4. better support (since all the other Apple fanboys will keep reminding you what an awesome purchase you made, even though you can't get it to do shit)
5. it's more compatible (with the apps that, by the way, we don't even develop, but make certain to get some profit from selling them to you)

As always, owning a Mac is really a dream! (it's a fantasy that you're buying a better product)

Seems to me that they just decided that sex sells, from the looks of that picture!

RE: What?
By MonkeyPaw on 5/22/2010 5:17:51 PM , Rating: 5
Run Flash on a Mac, and you'll begin to question most of those talking points. But if you ask SJ, he'll tell you flash isn't something people need or use on a regular basis.

Sadly, it's Apple's higher prices and advertising lies that keep me from buying a Mac. I like the machines, but I can't stand the hype. Computers are just tools, but those that think they are status symbols, well, that makes them tools, too.

RE: What?
By B3an on 5/22/2010 9:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
I dont live in the U.S, but cant something be done about Apples false advertising? Isn't there some kind of governing body that americans can complain to?

RE: What?
By FastEddieLB on 5/22/2010 10:23:51 PM , Rating: 2
False advertising is, by definition, illegal. Nobody has bothered to make any such claims, however, because Apple is a cult and Steve Jobs is the high priest. Been that way since the 1980s.

RE: What?
By B3an on 5/23/2010 11:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
Thats not true, because here in the UK more than a couple of Apple ads have been pulled off the air because of false advertising. It's probably also why the UK versions of the "get a mac" adverts were never put on TV here.

So why dont more of you americans complain about it? Theres lots of it going on on websites like this, but none of you ever seem to do anything about it.

RE: What?
By metaltoiletry on 5/23/2010 11:46:02 AM , Rating: 2
Good point.

People can go here to complain to the FTC

RE: What?
By afkrotch on 5/23/2010 11:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
They get around it by stating what they are comparing their machines too. Usually it the best Mac available against one of the worst PCs available. At least for those comparison charts.

For other things, they'll state something that isn't quantifiable. Thus, it's neither false, nor true.

RE: What?
By bug77 on 5/22/2010 5:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
Ha, #1 caught my attention and I actually thought of the same thing you did. I mean, come on, my PC got a GTX260 18 months ago and Apple still can't beat that today.

RE: What?
By mellomonk on 5/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 5/23/2010 7:11:58 AM , Rating: 4
The whole point was to demonstrate that Macs don't have superior hardware, not whether or not it's useful. Of course, a better video card will improve your experience if you have any GPU accelerated programs. Maybe there just aren't very many for the Mac OS. Not that there are a lot for PCs/Windows, but I don't think I've even heard of one for Mac OS.

Now, I'm not saying that you use an Apple computer, but this is precisely the type pf argument they would use. "Ohhh, we don't need that because it doesn't add to our experience." Really, who honestly believes that kind of BS? That's like saying you don't need a moon/sun roof on a car because it doesn't add to the experience. It's about options, plain and simple.

RE: What?
By seamonkey79 on 5/23/2010 10:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
But I love my sunroof :-) Before I got it, I didn't really care, now, it's not just an option ;-)

Seriously, though, that is the big difference between PCs and Macs. If I want to put whatever in my PC, I can, if I wanted a device a monkey can use, I'd get a Mac.

RE: What?
By Gul Westfale on 5/23/2010 12:27:46 PM , Rating: 2
but... on a PC you just right-click to open a menu, on a mac you have to hold down a keyboard button and then click the sole mouse button... that is MORE complicated than a windows machine.

RE: What?
By cdwilliams1 on 5/24/2010 12:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
The mac hasn't had a 1 button mouse for some time. The last two generations of mice (for sure - I have them) both right click. Both the one with the insanely stupid tiny trackball and the magic mouse. IDC if you criticize, thats fine. Whatever is best for you is what you should use. But at least let's be accurate :-)

RE: What?
By afkrotch on 5/24/2010 6:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, it's that awesome $60 2 button wireless mouse that can't compete with a $20 2 button ghetto mouse that ppl make for PCs.

RE: What?
By piroroadkill on 5/25/2010 4:46:14 AM , Rating: 2
Not by default, they don't.

Which is annoying.

I was recently trying to figure out how to set right click behaviour as the default on a bunch of Macs using Workgroup Manager. I gave up. They'll just have to live with ONE BUTAN

RE: What?
By Flunk on 5/23/2010 5:04:16 PM , Rating: 4
The average user would be perfectly well served with a computer in the $500-$600 range, half of what Apple's cheapest models cost. If you want to argue for what the masses need Apple doesn't even sell anything in the price range.

RE: What?
By afkrotch on 5/23/2010 11:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
Mac Mini. That is, til you add in their monitors and overpriced keyboard/mouse.

Obviously, if you're buying a Mac, having all the parts match is a requirement.

RE: What?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/23/2010 5:43:37 PM , Rating: 4
This is a geek site and all, but posts like most of the above boggle my mind. You have to think about the needs and wants of the average user, not some DIY geek. I build my own hardware and tweak everything to my personal needs, but I understand the general user. Beat it at what? The majority of people who use computers don't know or care what that graphics cards specs are. Apple doesn't push games or support DirectX. That card doesn't add much at all to the average Mac user's experience.

I think you are missing the point. Apple is the one who said "blazing" fast graphics, they didn't say "average" performing graphics. They are NOT catering to the "average" user, they are purposely using false advertising to get people to believe they are buying power machines. So what are you going on about?

1" thick AL enclosure behind a 27" screen. That is some slick engineering. The general user is far more impressed with that

Yeah I know the "average" user has been crying for a notebook that can fit in a manila envelope for years now. Because, you know, that is a super useful feature. I can't tell you how many times someone I know has said "man, I REALLY wish my laptop fit in an envelope."

I don't care if you throw a 486 in a fancy box and people are happy with it, that's fine. But don't call it higher performing and blazing fast! And don't go on a big stupid rant when people point this out.

RE: What?
By afkrotch on 5/23/2010 11:35:39 PM , Rating: 3
I love my home built PCs but I can't build everything into a 1" thick AL enclosure behind a 27" screen. That is some slick engineering.

Can you tell me exactly what is slick about it? It's laptop parts connected to a 27" screen. Anyone can do that and others have. PC OEMs found out that majority of users don't want it. Hence why they never take off, whenever an OEM throws out a new design.

Dell still makes one, HP makes one, Sony, Acer, etc all make one and they have been for years. The general users doesn't want them. They want either an actual desktop or just a laptop.

Also, what company doesn't use a CNC lathe or laser cutting in manufacturing? There's nothing special about how their stuff is built.

Less flex is a bad thing for something mobile. Drop it and all that energy from the impact translates right to the internals.

I will give credit to Apple. They know how to give inadequate cooling to hot hardware inside. Thus, the laptop being hot enough to cook eggs. All for the sake of "looking good."

RE: What?
By piroroadkill on 5/25/2010 4:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, they certainly didn't hire enough (if any) thermal engineers.

Oh, Time Capsule, how you cooked

RE: What?
By robinthakur on 5/28/2010 12:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
The whole package is slick on an iMac. If you can't appreciate that by looking at the casing then you are not the target market. The design has been obsessed over, and every little detail has been tthought of. Though i do not own one and personally build my own desktops (I also carry a Macbook Pro, iPhone and BB) I am always in awe of their design. The only issue I have is the thermal design of the laptops which I find lacking to be honest for a product that costs so much and that has had every other aspect thought of. Not really sure how they are allowed to sell them, as they get pretty toasty when running things like Flash.

You are correct that Sony, Dell and the rest make them, but they don't push them as iMac competitors and therefore the public doesn't perceive them as iMac competitors, mainly because when you put them side by side the gulf in design and build quality is usually massive, and the iMac nearly always has a superior screen. Whilst they might have higher spec parts (sometimes) for the target market of an all-in-one, the iMac suffices and even excels in most areas. If the iMac model is so easy to achive why on earth are all other simuilar form factors from competing manufacturers a dismal sales failure? Is it really true that PC OEM's don't want the form factor or would it be more accurate to say that the models they are offered are not enticing enough. The imac seems to sell plenty so the issue is not the form factor here, the issue is that PC OEM versions are cack-handedly designed by people with no design sensibility or taste and are marketed to people that want the same innards in an iMac's case at the same price as the PC version...Basically never going to happen, but no reason to diss the iMac solely for being beautiful and successful.

RE: What?
By Tony Swash on 5/22/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Exodus220 on 5/22/2010 5:34:00 PM , Rating: 2
Of course you can run any application on a Mac because they allow you to run Windows also. However, that means that you not only have to pay $1,000+ for their slower-than-a-PC-computers, but you also have to pay for the Windows OS. How stupid a person must be to go out, buy an overpriced Apple computer, and then run Windows...isn't the whole reason to buy the Apple computer because it has a superior OS?

RE: What?
By LordanSS on 5/22/2010 10:45:24 PM , Rating: 5
It depends, really.

Couple years ago, I was out trying to find a notebook with an average(ish) processor, but with non-Intel integrated graphics.

Appalling as it might sound, but the cheapest solution came out to be a MacBook (non-Pro), which at the time had nVidia graphics. There were a couple "laptops" with better graphics on the PC side, but they were geared towards graphic design professionals and whatnot, and had a beefier price tag on them. In the end, I just gave up and decided to stick to my desktops.

Obviously, I don't live in the US. The options I get from our local Dell, HP/Lenovo, etc. websites are pretty damn sad, can't compare that to what's available to the US market.

RE: What?
By karlostomy on 5/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By themaster08 on 5/23/2010 1:56:32 AM , Rating: 2
Give the guy some credit, at least he didn't blindly purchase one, instead stuck to his desktops.

RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 5/23/2010 7:14:38 AM , Rating: 2
He also said he doesn't live in the US. He probably doesn't have as many options as we do.

RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 5/22/2010 5:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
Mac is most versatile? I might be able to give you the rest, but that's just garbage right there.

Why do you start talking about homophobia though? Your argument too weak to stand on its own?

#2 and #3 from the OP are arguable and perhaps #4, but #1 and 5 aren't. PCs are far more compatible and have better hardware. Better support? I can't really say since I've never needed any real support. Had some faulty hardware a while back (like 6 years), got that replaced and actually upgraded for free since my model was out-of-stock. Nothing since then. IDK how that compares to getting turned down for a replacement on a yellowing Mac..... but I'd say it's looking pretty good for PCs.

RE: What?
By Tony Swash on 5/22/10, Rating: 0
RE: What?
By inighthawki on 5/22/2010 7:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
If you argue the compatibility of a mac computer, well then yes, it's a computer like everything else. Why can they run windows/linux? because windows and linux have drivers for macs. The sheer fact that OSX is difficult to get working on a PC is a clear indication that it lacks compatibility. When someone wants to talk about PC vs Mac, the only real argument about hardware is price, the rest comes down to the OS. So when someone says "Macs are less compatible" what they (that is, everyone except Apple) means is that OSX is less compatible than Windows.

RE: What?
By mellomonk on 5/23/2010 5:58:47 AM , Rating: 2
Compatibility has nothing to due with why it is so hard to get a hackintosh running. They make it difficult on purpose to preserve their hardware business model.

Compatibility is about versatility in manipulating the multitude of file formats and volumes in the computing world. As well as the ability to run multiple OSs.

RE: What?
By inighthawki on 5/23/2010 3:23:17 PM , Rating: 1
There is a thing called "hardware compatibility". Look it up...

RE: What?
By afkrotch on 5/24/2010 7:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if you want to get technical, it's "portability."

RE: What?
By RyuDeshi on 5/22/2010 7:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
Wait.. Wouldn't your argument show how LESS compatible the mac OS is? The whole difference with a mac is the OS, not the hardware, and it is LESS compatible across a broad spectrum of hardware than Windows OR Linux. You can put ubuntu on just about any hardware configuration and have it work right off the bat, others with a few tweaks and drivers.. Mac however can't.. that in my book is LESS compatible.

RE: What?
By RyuDeshi on 5/22/2010 7:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
Aw, someone else beat me to it by a few minutes :P

RE: What?
By mellomonk on 5/23/2010 5:52:50 AM , Rating: 1
Ubuntu runs awesome on the Mac. Need some screenshots? BSD is built in.

You can rate the guy above down all you want, but reality is standing in your face. OSX can see and manipulate Windows and Unix files. Windows cannot see Mac files or volumes and most Unix volumes and files out of the box. They don't even appear to the OS. OSX sees them and can play or convert them easily. The only minor hitch is that out of the box OSX cannot write to NTFS formatted volumes. Though there are plug ins for that.

So OSX can see and work it's own files, everything your likely to encounter on the web (except windows viruses),can handle Unix,Linux materials natively, and Oh, boot any X86 OS you care to mention, including Windows. How is that not MORE compatible?

RE: What?
By AssBall on 5/23/2010 8:34:02 PM , Rating: 5
If Mac's didn't have support for Windows files they would have been dead 15 years ago.

Windows doesn't support mac files because no one running a PC gives a damn.

It's about software freedom, not file support. You want to do something in Windows, you get a program. Done. You want to do something on mac, you get the same program, AND a copy of Windows, AND and boot camp so you can run it at 1/2 the speed. What a joy.

RE: What?
By B3an on 5/29/2010 1:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
Of course Ubuntu runs fine on a Mac - they all have basic PC hardware inside!
Now try to imagine if Apple opened up OSX and people tried to install it on all there PC's... it would fall flat on it's face! nothing would work as it's made to support a limited amount of Mac configurations.

Windows supports thousands of hardware configurations, and literally 100's of thousands of external hardware/peripherals. This is the biggest reason why Windows installs are much larger. The OS on a whole is vastly more complex.

Then of course theres gaming compatibility, not only can it not run most games but it's OpenGL is TWO whole versions behind, so even some software with HW acceleration cant do certain things. OSX has OpenGL 2.0, ancient stuff, the latest is 4.0 and has been around for a while.
Theres many other dated technologies inside OSX but i have better things to do than list them and explain to you as you clearly dont know what you're talking about.

RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 5/22/2010 11:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting that the other two guys posted about Mac OS compatibility, but I was talking about hardware. PCs are far more hardware compatible than Macs. Not only that, but I'd even argue that PCs are more compatible on the software side too since I'm pretty sure you can't go farther back than Windows XP with Bootcamp. I'm not that familiar so I might be mistaken. So I could just put on like Windows 98 or 95 on my comp and run just about every program since DOS, with ease.

The big question is whether there is anything you want to run on Mac OS that's worth it. There certainly isn't for me. And what exactly is the point of buying a Mac just to run Windows? You literally want to pay more to get less? I sure don't. You can argue the worth of Mac OS all you want, but there isn't anything to argue once you start talking about Windows/Linux on a Mac.

Ohhh, and I'm sure I could have pages and pages of programs that you can't run. I'm not going to go look for them though. It's not worth my time. Just look for any DOS program and I'm pretty sure you won't be able to run it.

RE: What?
By mellomonk on 5/23/2010 6:12:57 AM , Rating: 1
OSX has a few DOS emulators. As well as Amiga and just about any other useless past OS you can imagine.

Interesting you brought up hardware compatibility. If you are talking graphics cards or other add ons,you are correct. They do not provide driver support but for a small subset. They support a lean and tight ship. Apple themselves are referring to software compatibility.

Apple long ago saw the hardware as a commodity. Like a TV. You use it till it is superseded by technology or your needs change and replace it. Actually that is the direction all computing, including PCs is moving. Nowadays you may think your getting a bargain by upgrading your graphics card, but by then your bus is behind and they have moved on to a new cpu socket. It is just a matter of time till the majority of PCs are built like a iMac or Powerbook.

RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 5/23/2010 7:24:25 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, just cherry pick what you want. You should go work in the Apple marketing department.

And your argument is flawed, like most Apple arguments are. First off, the same would apply to Apple since they use the exact same tech as PC components. Secondly, tech doesn't evolve that fast. PCI-E x16 has been around for years, and what CPU socket hasn't been around for years? RAM is in the process of changing, but that's about it.

At least come up with some stuff that makes a bit of sense.

RE: What?
By afkrotch on 5/24/2010 12:11:24 AM , Rating: 2
Apple long ago saw the hardware as a commodity. Like a TV. You use it till it is superseded by technology or your needs change and replace it. Actually that is the direction all computing, including PCs is moving. Nowadays you may think your getting a bargain by upgrading your graphics card, but by then your bus is behind and they have moved on to a new cpu socket. It is just a matter of time till the majority of PCs are built like a iMac or Powerbook.

Yes, because not once has standards provided backwards compatibility.

Guess what? It's also a bargain to buy a new graphics card, than buy a whole new machine. Bus technology doesn't move as fast as graphics or cpu technology.

RE: What?
By amanojaku on 5/22/2010 11:53:46 PM , Rating: 5
Compatible with what? Themselves?
With more hardware and software than any other OS on the planet. In fact, Windows can run on a Mac.
Windows PCs cannot run MacOSX (except a tricky unreliable hack and then only some models can)
Because Jobs won't allow developers to port a version over to the standard PC platform that's existed for 30+ years. And when anyone tries he sues. Yet, Windows can run on standard PCs, and a Mac. And it used to run on other platforms, like the DEC Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC. How's that for hardware compatibility?
so they cannot, as one example, run Final Cut Studio
Because Apple won't port it to the Windows OS, in much the same way that the Mac OS doesn't have a lot of games because developers won't port to a platform with no market share. I'm sorry: 6.5% market share. It's actually a bit less, but I'm feeling generous. Anyway, it's not like there aren't alternatives to Final Cut, like Avid Media Composer.
If you think Windows PCs are "more compatible" list some programmes that Windows PCs can run and which Mac cannot.
Don't be stupid; a program can run on ANY OS if you write the code. It's just that the list of existing Windows software, even just the modern software, is way longer than any other OS. Not even open source rivals what's available for Windows compared to the Mac. And if you have a bone to pick with anyone it's Jobs: he's the one responsible for the Mac's limited existence and he'll tell you so. Something about maintaining master race purity... I mean, a high quality (no yellow or cracked screens, no overheating systems, no data loss) user experience.

But I guess you can't pick his bone since you're sucking it...

RE: What?
By Tony Swash on 5/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 5/23/2010 7:32:16 AM , Rating: 2
We care about substance more than looks? Why get an OS/computer that can't run every program that you want? That just doesn't make sense. By your logic you'd find it acceptable if everyone used programs like OpenOffice. Good for the average joe, but not for any serious tasks.

RE: What?
By Tony Swash on 5/23/2010 9:30:19 AM , Rating: 1
We care about substance more than looks?

That statement neatly encapsulates why Apple is wiping the floor commercially with all the other computer manufacturers and why it has achieved such spectacular success in the realm of new mobile computing gadgets.

The notion that "design" is just "looks', that Apple design is just about the wrapping, is what cripples Apple's competitors before they even start. The idea that design/looks is somehow less substantial than, say, technical specs is a view from the stone age of industrial design.

It's a view which underpins the common view expressed around here often that Apple customers must be stupid, or fooled by marketing, or passive sheep following the latest fashion to buy Apple kit. Where as what Apple's customers have done is look at poorly designed kit and looked at very well designed kit and decided that it is worth paying (an often small) price premium to buy the better product.

And that archaic view of design, that's its just looks, is what propels Apple's competitors to try compete with better specs and more features and then they scratch their heads when Apple outsells them.

Of course techies and geeks are going to focus on specs but they are a minute sliver of the market and so their likes and dislikes are simply irrelevant to Apple. Thats why Apple annoys them so much.


I am at the geeky end of the mac user base and so I can easily miss what Apple is doing. I remember when Apple brought out the first blue iBook with a handle. Yuck I thought it looks like a handbag. As I sat reading the article about the iBook's release my 16 old daughter came over and looked over my shoulder at the photo of the iBook and immediately exclaimed "Dad can you buy me one of those!" I did of course. And Apple sold millions

RE: What?
By damianrobertjones on 5/23/2010 11:15:08 AM , Rating: 5

Ego. That on word is now shifting iphones, macs and ipads. It's like a group of people wondering why the one girl in the corner didn't watch 'Eastenders' last night. If you're not in the gang, then you aren't in it.

The Get a mac adverts picked at peoples basic idiocy. If you don't own a mac then you're sad, lonely and not cool.


What a sad way to manipulate people and it's working. Oh well.

RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 5/23/2010 11:26:08 AM , Rating: 3
Design, by definition, is looks and function. Apple has looks with crap function while others have function over looks. People buy based on looks because it's a status symbol. If people want a status symbol that's fine, but trying to argue that the purchase was anything else is just dumb.

RE: What?
By Tony Swash on 5/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By alanore on 5/23/2010 6:03:21 PM , Rating: 1

How are people that don't like Apple confused? Are you so narcissistic as to think anyone that doesn't buy a mac as being wrong or confused?

RE: What?
By Tony Swash on 5/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: What?
By leuNam on 5/24/2010 2:18:42 PM , Rating: 1
you are entitled to that opinion, and everyone to theirs...but cut the crap, Apple is just downright bogus.. \m/

RE: What?
By afkrotch on 5/24/2010 7:37:03 PM , Rating: 1
What gets sooo tedious on this forum is the way people routinely dismiss the decisions of millions of consumers - such thinking explains nothing about how the real world works.

Millions of ppl buy kiddy porn and I bet you dismiss their decisions routinely.

RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 5/23/2010 11:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
So the fact that people do get swayed by marketing and all your "invalid" reasons simply don't matter? I'm not suggesting that's EVERYONE, but come on. People do those things in EVERY market, not just for Apple products. It just so happens that a larger percentage do it for Apple products.

Of course, considering that you say PCs are ugly, wondering why people would buy it is exactly what I'm talking about. You seem to be a hypocrite, much like Pirks. You can't say one things then do something completely opposite.

RE: What?
By themaster08 on 5/24/2010 2:38:41 AM , Rating: 1
people who do like it must be liking it for shallow reasons, because they have been bamboozled by Apple marketing, because they are faddishly following fashion, because they are stupid,etc etc.

I have a friend who has a brother with mental disabilities. He wants a new phone. When asked what he wants, he said the iPhone. When asked why, well, he's unable to comprehend the question.

A few people I know that have bought an iPhone, I asked them if they considered an Android or something else before puchasing their iPhones. Most of them asked "what's Android?". Ultimatey one of the people I asked actually did some research on Android after I told him about it, and eventually bought one.

My sister was one of those people that I asked who owns an iPhone. I own an Android, and showed her the phone, and her response was "it's ugly". I continued to inform her that there are many Android phones to choose from, some of which she might like the look of. At the end of the discussion she said with a rather regretful tone "well I've bought an iPhone now. I could always sell it if I wanted to ad get something else".

Whilst I acknowledge that there are many valid reasons for puchasing an iPhone over the competitors' offerings, the fact remains, that many of Apple's sales come from the ignorance of those that can't/haven't done their market research.

The iPhone is a household name, and it is the first (or only for that matter) smartphone that comes to the minds of the masses when considering what phone to buy.

RE: What?
By afkrotch on 5/24/2010 12:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure majority look for Windows, then price, then looks. The tech geeks look at just specs and price. Mac users just look for Apples.

Majority aren't looking for fashion. That's why things like Louis Vitton, Gucci, etc don't sell a lot. They just sell for a lot.

RE: What?
By afkrotch on 5/24/2010 12:14:04 AM , Rating: 2
Mac with zero OS = A PC with an Apple logo on it.

The OS on a Mac, makes the Mac a Mac. Throwing Windows on it, just turns it into another Windows PC.

RE: What?
By Pirks on 5/23/2010 10:08:04 AM , Rating: 4
Windows PCs cannot run MacOSX (except a tricky unreliable hack and then only some models can)
Haha Tony you're so yesterday, I'm runnig Snow Leo on a VMWare 7 on my PC and it runs faster than on your Mac INCLUDING Aqua/Quartz/OpenGL stuff. Boy you're so funny especially as I'm typing this in Snow Leo Safari in VMWare on my Vista PC ;-)

"OS X can't just simply run on a PC" is a stupid lie since the moment VMWare 7 and OS X 10.6 came out. NEVER use this stupid argument Tony if don't want to look dumb.

RE: What?
By AssBall on 5/23/2010 8:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
What did you do to the "real" Pirks?

RE: What?
By Pirks on 5/23/2010 9:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'd answer you but after your "boot camp runs windows at 1/2 the speed" statement above ( ) I realized you're not worth my time.

RE: What?
By Alexstarfire on 5/23/2010 11:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I read that statement and looked down in shame.

RE: What?
By themaster08 on 5/24/2010 2:44:03 AM , Rating: 1
Pirks actually talks a lot of sense at times, which is more than what can be said for reader1 or Tony Swash.

RE: What?
By afkrotch on 5/24/2010 7:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ya. He just likes to be the devil's advocate at times.

RE: What?
By frobizzle on 5/24/2010 8:08:02 AM , Rating: 2
He's too busy with his iPad to realize what he is typing!

RE: What?
By mircea on 5/23/2010 2:38:39 PM , Rating: 1
You do realize that you can run Linux and Windows on any MAC, because these 2 OS's can run in any hardware, not because of what Apple did. All they did was remove the lock they put before for other OS's.

So with the BS of better compatibility, why can't I put a MAC OS on any Linux or Windows machine if they wold unlock it. Yes you can if you hack it, not natively, because it's NOT compatible.

RE: What?
By karielash on 5/23/2010 4:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
Did you know you can run Unix commands on Windows?

I currently have a year old Windows 7 PC with a better spec than the latest Mac offering? (OK I upgraded the Graphics card just before Christmas to a 5870).

I also currently have close on 35 different operating systems installed, including most variants of Linux, Solaris, Windows and Netware (only 5 and 6).

So I have better graphics, better CPU, more RAM, more HDD space, better sound, any OS that I want to run (except I will give you, Mac OS 10, although I am pretty sure that if I really wanted to I could get it running) all for less money than a brand spanking new high end Mac would cost.

Now I am no Mac hater, but it appears to me that the advertising is somewhat out of touch with reality.

RE: What?
By robinthakur on 5/28/2010 1:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
I also currently have close on 35 different operating systems installed, including most variants of Linux, Solaris, Windows and Netware (only 5 and 6).

I think you've shared more than you know with that statement. This is also why your argument does more harm to the pro-windows/anti-mac crowd than it helps. Its not exactly normal to install 35 OS's for someone who is erm, using the PC as a productive tool and not just as a technical toy i.e. 99.99999% of the population.

RE: What?
By AlexWade on 5/22/2010 8:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if that girl in the picture comes with a Mac, it could be the biggest piece of junk that has ever existed and I would still buy it.

Maybe I should get a girlfriend and stop spending Saturday nights browsing Daily Tech or Anand Tech.

RE: What?
By bigdawg1988 on 5/23/2010 9:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
Don't feel bad, I only clicked on the article because of the girl.
Now if they could just move that darn piece of crap Mac out of the way!!

RE: What?
By rburnham on 5/24/2010 1:52:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I was sucked into the article by her picture too.

RE: What?
By alanore on 5/23/2010 5:14:07 AM , Rating: 2
There would be some truth to this if they changed the list slightly

1 Better Hardware^,
2 Better Software*,
3 Better OS*,
4 Better Support*,
5 and It's more Compatible*

^Compared to 10years ago
*Using MS Windows 7

RE: What?
By msheredy on 5/24/10, Rating: -1
By ihateu3 on 5/22/2010 4:55:55 PM , Rating: 5
Apple is the only company I know that can treat their own customers like morons and yet they love it. Then again, any customer that believes the claims apple makes, is already a moron.

Apple has always marketed to computer illiterate people, "dumbing" down their software to make it easy for them. All their customers know, is that there cool and not a nerd because they have an apple, and that the are immune from viruses.... LMFAO!

RE: Misleading?
By Exodus220 on 5/22/2010 5:40:09 PM , Rating: 1
Apple has always marketed to computer illiterate people, "dumbing" down their software to make it easy for them.

I must not be dumb enough, then, because I really struggle with Apple computers. Every time I sit down with one I get confused...unless they are running Windows OS, then I feel at home. We have Apple computers at both our elementary schools and university campus and even though I deal with them on a daily basis I still struggle.

RE: Misleading?
By brandonicus on 5/22/2010 8:31:47 PM , Rating: 4
Don't feel bad...

I had this problem too at first. My school has Macs in the library and for awhile I really struggled with average use. I was pretty decent with the command line thanks to usually using linux, but I couldn't even install Firefox on a Mac. OSX can be a pretty complex OS, but for the average GUI user you need to pretend you're a child who has never used a computer before. Then suddenly it will come natural. I remember the first time I installed a program by dragging the program's file on top of the hard drive simple it pissed me off.

This example and many others have made me realize I am just not ever going to be a Mac user. I need verbosity, I need challenges, and I need an absurd amount of options.

RE: Misleading?
By Hyperion1400 on 5/22/2010 9:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
AHAHAH, just READING that pissed me off!

Seriously, no double click to execute the installer? My God, it's like the stone age! Do they even have shell extensions yet?

RE: Misleading?
By brandonicus on 5/22/2010 10:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah they have shell extensions, although I not sure if they are called that...but they are a reasonable facsimile. As for the double click to install, I think not. I have yet to install anything with a double click. Some have been the (unnatural for me) drag into the hard drive. While some are the more Unix-Linux like 'chmod +x' + './'. The OS is still powerful, just different, and sometimes so simple it's hard to comprehend (Well I find it strange.).

RE: Misleading?
By jimbojimbo on 5/24/2010 2:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
I installed a program by dragging the program's file on top of the hard drive simple it pissed me off
That's what I don't want. I want to tell it exactly where to install and what it's installing. Do I have to go into a command shell to do so instead?

The GUI side is extremely dumbed down to the point where if you want to do some things you simply can't. It's either work simply of go into a shell and start typing out commands to get what you want done.

By Ziggizag on 5/22/2010 5:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
Have a look and judge yourself:

The poster tells: "Surf more safe with IE8" - are you really convinced now?

By Exodus220 on 5/22/2010 5:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
I am completely convinced!!! I will immediately uninstall my Firefox browser and recommit myself to MS Internet Explorer 8...

By damianrobertjones on 5/22/2010 6:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
You see, the problem with ie8 stems from the user and its a damn shame that MS don't damn well (at least) set their own pop-up blocker to 'high' and Internet security to Medium/high.

Once done, IE is fine.

I also use Opera.

Funny story.. When Anand's ads started trying to infect everyone's computers the other month, Opera and IE did the same thing. At times I wonder if people can use their own brain or just read and repeat what others say.

By Ziggizag on 5/22/2010 7:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
The case is not about browser but about the add.
Microsoft produces mostly poor, booring, trivial adds while Apple's adds follow their vision perfectly.

I really can't understand why Microsoft do not invest something into beter, more clever add campaigns to get some fresh look. Now - however good their products actually are - they look dumb with their ugly adds.

By inighthawki on 5/22/2010 7:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
Normally it doesn't bug me since it's normally a typo, but can we please spell 'ad' correctly, we're not trying to sum numbers together...

By Ziggizag on 5/22/2010 7:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
Sure - sorry - English is not my mother's tonque so sometimes it may happen I drop a bug from my dirty mind ;-)

By BigBitch on 5/26/2010 5:32:03 PM , Rating: 2
The security on IE8 is more than IE7. IE9 will be far superior, atleast we can hope.

Nicccce apple,...
By chagrinnin on 5/22/2010 6:52:22 PM , Rating: 3
...but the logo's slightly off...

RE: Nicccce apple,...
By Mitch101 on 5/23/2010 10:19:51 AM , Rating: 3
What Logo?

For those with screens larger than 3"

RE: Nicccce apple,...
By piroroadkill on 5/25/2010 4:49:20 AM , Rating: 2
I see what you did there ;)

She is damn fine

By FredEx on 5/22/2010 10:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
Steve, quick, somebody has a sexy babe using a is so so pornographic...break down their doors, the evil ones who made that photo should be stoned!

Maybe they were stoned. ;-)

By BigBitch on 5/26/2010 5:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
Added irony would be if she had an iPhone with her.

We have the moral responsibility to be complete hypocrites with everything we say and do.

Cashed the check yet?
By iFX on 5/22/2010 4:16:18 PM , Rating: 3
I bet you have.

Dosent get PC viruses
By spathotan on 5/22/2010 4:21:39 PM , Rating: 2 shit, its not a PC. Real clever wording there Apple.

By marsbound2024 on 5/22/2010 4:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
Most people like Macs, but do not like Apple's corporate attitude nor their pricing. I personally find PCs to be a lot more versatile, though. I think its true that Macs rarely if ever get any sort of malicious software--though possible and some are out there--and this is great to average users who want a computing experience without the headaches, but eventually it boils down to the fact that Macs just don't do as much as PCs can. Though you can use BootCamp to get Windows on there...

Anyway, maybe there ads won't be as ridiculous (though humorous) as the last set of ads.

mac is good not great
By hackztor on 5/22/2010 4:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
All I know is that in our college, without windows on the mac, we would not be purchasing macs. Macs are nice hardware, cost extra and are almost worthless as not much software is made for them atleast in the educational sector where everything is designed for windows.

By Exodus220 on 5/22/2010 5:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
According to the Apple Site it states:

"Fast Intel processors are standard on every Mac, so applications fly. Powerful graphics bring the latest 3D games to life. And 802.11n Wi-Fi gives you fast wireless connectivity."

Sure their computers might have the latest Intel cpus, but the tend to get incredibly hot. Also, it claims to support the latest 3D games but if they count being able to play World of Warcraft and Half-Life 2, both 6 year old games, then they have an odd view of "latest" games.

Aside from the OS and case, a Mac does exactly what a PC does, but there are fewer programs and hardware devices supported. I find it incredibly peculiar that Apple provides a way to run Windows OS alongside their this because they realized people really wanted Windows on their pretty Macbook cases?

Can't Apple be sued...
By MustaineC on 5/22/2010 6:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
for false advertising? They are definitely misleading the customer.

misleading advertising
By mer2329 on 5/23/2010 6:05:20 AM , Rating: 2
first the articles points
1. Better Hardware
2. Better Software
3. Better OS
4. Better Support
5. and It's more Compatible

1. not really its just overpriced mediocre hardware and the special thing about the laptops is they have a little apple that lights up
2. better software... show me
3. better os... in what manner
5. compatibility. show me an app for the mac and I will show you 3-5 apps with the same functionality

now the sites points
1. designed to be a better computer
2. it comes with software you'll love to use
3. it comes with the worlds most advanced os
4. award winning support
5. runs office and works with your existing PC files
6. its compatible with your stuff
7. it doesn't get pc viruses
8. its loaded with the latest technology
9. it runs windows and windows applications

1. yes its design is astethicly pleasing
2. true that's why the pc has the pc decrapifier
3. advanced in what manner
4. possibly true but also possibly false (not sure as ive never owned a mac)
5. also true with a PC
6. my the stuff is built universally compatible (most of the time) and I don't think I could I use my video card in my mac
7. true but the pc doesn't get the Viruses built for the mac
8. that's true at the time of purchase and it's quite hard to get mac compatible hardware for upgrades
9. through a virtual machine, and the pc can run mac software as well (either through hacks [Hackintosh] or through a virtual machine)

Mac Guy is made redundant.
By drycrust3 on 5/23/2010 3:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
PC guy: Hey, Mac man, why are you here at the bus stop?
Mac guy: I'm here because of backward incompatibility.
PC guy: What's that?
Mac guy: You know, when new software doesn't work on an old operating system - that's called backward incompatibility.
PC guy: You mean you lost your job because you couldn't do the new dance routine for for the new Mac TV adverts?
Mac guy: Yeah, they also said my optimum demographic lacked the cognitive ability to process the information.
PC guy: So on top of not being able to do the moonwalk, you lost your job because people didn't understand you?
Mac guy: Yeah, and so I got retrenched.
PC guy: Fired.
Mac guy: Yeah, I heard the Linux guy might need a co-star.
PC guy: And so you're taking the bus there because ... ???
Mac guy: My car had commuting interfacing issues.
PC guy: You mean you crashed it?
Mac guy: Yeah.

By ChipDude on 5/23/2010 9:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
All I want to know is what is the laptop in Sex in the City II?

By ApfDaMan on 5/23/2010 10:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
the only thing worth spending money on in that top photo is the woman.

By callmeroy on 5/24/2010 9:01:23 AM , Rating: 2
....of the picture with the hot woman in it using an apple..

I guess there's words next to it I should read or something but looking through the comments I'm not missing much. Just the normal "Apple is the best thing in the universe...blah blah blah stuff..."....

Why do they bother?
By BigBitch on 5/26/2010 4:45:40 PM , Rating: 1
What really burns me with Tony Swash, and the other mac fanboys, is that they lack the insight.

Apple computers will not reign prominent in the Corporate environments, ever. Why? Because it's not practical. The price, the hardware, the many man hours to convert the companies software to work on a less secure operating system. And it's certainly not acceptable to wait for critical operating system patches, or even paying for them.

If the corporate environments where to switch to mac and OSX products, I feel more than confident, that the operating system will be exposed of all its faults, and with their poor technical support team, it's not going to help at all.

Ever work on a Mac laptop before? Ever replace the LCD screen on it, or system board? There is more screws, bolts, and bullshit that you have to remove. The time it takes to repair just 1 part, and with the price premium, it's not practical.

Apple/Mac will never catch on, especially in the corporate environment. They can be as savvy on their marketing as they want, its just not going to fly.

...the inexplicable for the technically challenged
By Tony Swash on 5/24/10, Rating: -1
By afkrotch on 5/24/2010 7:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
Desktop sales grew 40 percent from the second quarter of 2009, and saw a 45 percent increase in revenue. Portable notebook sales grew 28 percent year-over-year, good for a 17 percent rise in revenue.

When you sell almost nothing, it's easy to have increases. How many PCs ship a day? How many Macs ship a day? Now increase that amount by 5%. Who ends up actually shipping more?

China: Added another 800 points of distribution. Through the first half of the fiscal year, revenue was almost $1.3 billion. Up over 200 percent year over year.

So expect more suicides the next month.

The 8.75 million iPhones sold in the second financial quarter represents 131 percent growth over the same frame a year ago. Total iPhone revenue for the quarter was $5.6 billion, well up from the $2.4 billion a year ago.

Yet Android is still going to surpass the iPhones.

Customers ranked iPhone first in JD Power study again in 2010.

Doesn't even make sense. How can you rank it first in 2010, when we haven't finished 2010?

I always found JD Power to be pretty bias anyways. If the iPhone is the best, then why are more using Nokia smartphones?

Apple earned $3.3 billion in revenue from its iPod business, based on sales of 10.89 million devices. That was a 1 percent decline from the same period in 2009, but total revenue increased by 12 percent to $1.7 billion.

Sold less, but made more. So, studies shows they are ripping everyone off year after year.

Well over 4 billion downloads of software from App Store.

I don't know why anyone bothers making this claim. It doesn't mean 4 billion downloads that made money. For all you know, 3.9 billion downloads netted X% loss, as it wasted electricity, bandwith, and so forth, while 0.1 billion downloads were actual purchased apps.

iPad continues to be sold out across the USA and has seen unprecedented pre-orders outside the the USA. Expects to sell millions in coming month. "It has shocked us, the level of demand, at least initially," said Apple's Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook,

And PC based tablets are already worldwide products and have been for years. Who knows how many millions own one.

Apple's World Wide Developers Conference scheduled for early June sold out in a week.

So does the porn convention in Las Vegas, yet, Steve Jobs sure doesn't want us with porn apps.

Apple's retail business saw an increase of 22 percent in revenue. 606,000 Macs sold, up 38 percent over last year. Half of sales continue to go to people who never owned one before.

38% increase over last year and it was only 606,000 Macs. Ah ha ha ha!!!!

PC has an increase of 27.4% the 2010Q1. 84.3 million PCs shipped. I'll go with the company that had the lowest shipments. Asus. 5.5% increase over last year. Shipped 4.6 million PCs.

Average of 284 stores open, average revenue per store was $5.9 million, compared to $5.5 million in the year ago quarter.

How many PC stores were already available in those locations they opened? Seems much easier to buy and get your PC serviced, than a Mac.

Wow - there must be a lot of stupid people in the world or the people posting around here must be out of touch with reality and in a state of denial. Lets see - the views of tens of millions of people as expressed in their purchase activity or the opinions of a tiny (and rather bitter) bunch of technical obsessives with a weird superiority complex: ummm tough call :)

No, we just look at the wider picture. Not the tiny one that you're looking at.

Nothing you've mention tells us anything that we don't already know. Not a single person here has ever said that Apple doesn't make money.

We are simply stating that their products tend to not be worth what they are charging and that their ads pretty much equate to false advertising.

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki