backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 121 comment(s) - last by gstrickler.. on Aug 5 at 6:20 PM

Microsoft's has censored its latest ad with Laptop Hunter Sue and her college-student daughter Lauren, after Apple's legal department complained about it being misleading.  (Source: YouTube)
The Laptop Hunter commercials undergo some curious edits

After years of attacks by Apple's "Get a Mac" ad series which portrayed its Windows OS as buggy and unattractive, Microsoft finally decided to fight back.  Debuting a series of ads criticizing Apple on its high prices and showing regular Joes and Janes picking PCs over Macs, Microsoft finally had its revenge.  And the ads worked -- so well in fact that Apple's legal team was begging for Microsoft to pull them reportedly.

Microsoft COO Kevin Turner glibly remarked at a recent conference:
. . . two weeks ago we got a call from the Apple legal department saying, hey -- this is a true story -- saying, "Hey, you need to stop running those ads, we lowered our prices." They took like $100 off or something. It was the greatest single phone call in the history that I've ever taken in business. (Applause.)

I did cartwheels down the hallway. At first I said, "Is this a joke? Who are you?" Not understanding what an opportunity. And so we're just going to keep running them and running them and running them.
Astonishingly, just days after that bold proclamation, Microsoft has caved to Apple's demands.  Microsoft's legal team must have prevailed over Kevin Turner as Microsoft has made extensive edits to its latest online ad, removing select portions of it that referenced Apple's prices.

Microsoft had just posted a new ad that featured a college student, Lauren, shopping with her mom for a new computer.  In the original ad, Lauren's mom had bemoaned "This Mac is $2,000, and that's before adding anything."

Microsoft not only removed that scene, which mentioned the previous price of the 15" MacBook Pro (before Apple's latest price cuts), but also removed nearly all other references to the Macs' prices being high.  In the new ad, the only mention of price is an ambiguous comment by Lauren that "It seems like you're paying a lot for the brand." 

A Microsoft spokesperson confirmed that the edits were in response to Apple's complaints.  They add, though, "This does not change the focus of the campaign, which is to showcase the value and choice of the PC."

Still, one is left to wonder if Microsoft, once known for its aggressive business tactics, is letting itself be victimized by a more aggressive Apple.  While it seems reasonable to correct direct mentions of Apple's prices if they are no longer accurate, removing all the commentary alluding to the fact that Apple's prices are higher than Windows computers is unnecessary -- numerous studies have shown that they are.  Sure, Apple could have complained to the FTC, as some speculated, and Microsoft could have faced a battle, but wouldn't that be better PR than meekly backing down?  That, however, is exactly what Microsoft has chosen to do -- soften it's attack campaign, while its competitor's barbs remain as sharp and nasty as ever.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What is this?
By AthlonBoy on 7/25/2009 3:46:14 PM , Rating: 5
To Microsoft: Grow some balls, man.




RE: What is this?
By someguy123 on 7/25/2009 7:51:51 PM , Rating: 5
seriously. sure, i think it's great they made it accurate, but how hard would it have been to play a little hard ball and gotten apple to remove things misleading in their commercials (i.e everything)?


RE: What is this?
By quiksilvr on 7/25/2009 8:35:58 PM , Rating: 5
Because Microsoft has honor and will not stoop to Apple's level. Microsoft wants to be 100% accurate to the consumers with their commercials and doesn't care what Apple does.


RE: What is this?
By someguy123 on 7/25/2009 9:27:31 PM , Rating: 5
not saying it's time to start making "MS rich entrepreneur vs apple hobo" just yet, but they had apple in a position where apple felt enough heat to send in their law department...so i think they could've pushed apple a bit to start putting more accurate information in their commercials.


RE: What is this?
By HaZaRd2K6 on 7/25/2009 9:40:34 PM , Rating: 5
What's this? Four straight posts (make that five now!) without a rabid Apple fan coming in with some of the usual "Macs still rule, Micro$ux still sucks" drivel?

Nice.


RE: What is this?
By ZeeStorm on 7/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: What is this?
By exanimas on 7/26/2009 12:55:16 AM , Rating: 5
Not to nit-pick, but one of Apple's commercials is based on how the PC needs all of these hardware upgrades because he is going to be installing Vista soon. That is the only one that comes to mind, though.


RE: What is this?
By invidious on 7/28/2009 11:55:33 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
With a Mac you don't have to worry about swapping out parts or changing jumpers, when its time to upgrade you just throw it away and buy a new one. It couldn't be simpler.


RE: What is this?
By someguy123 on 7/26/2009 1:40:39 AM , Rating: 5
they've said vista outright in a few commercials. you're right in a sense, though. they get away with it because they're insinuations are really vague, while microsoft had actual price differences in their commercials.


RE: What is this?
By Kary on 7/27/2009 11:47:42 AM , Rating: 5
That's the saddest part for me...Apple can get away with insinuations while Microsoft couldn't get away with facts.


RE: What is this?
By quiksilvr on 7/28/2009 1:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
Welcome to the land of opportunity.


RE: What is this?
By theapparition on 7/27/2009 8:44:58 AM , Rating: 5
Uh, I've seen several instances where Windows (registered trademark) and Vista (registered trademark) were mentioned by name, and certainly not in a flattering light.


RE: What is this?
By segerstein on 7/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: What is this?
By gstrickler on 7/27/2009 2:56:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Microsoft wants to be 100% accurate to the consumers with their commercials
One of the criteria stated in every one of the laptop hunter ads is great battery life. In the latest ad, they buy an HP DV7 for under $700. Go to BestBuy.com and you'll find exactly one HP DV7 (dv7-1245dx) for under $700 (or under $800 for that matter), and that machine is an "outlet" (aka clearance) item. Battery life is stated as "up to 2 hours 30 minutes". That machine appears to have been replaced with the G70-486nr (still under $700 before tax), battery life isn't specified, but it uses Intel GMA 4500HD graphics, so video performance will be rather limited.

Most of the ads also have portability/mobility as one of the requirements. The HP DV7 above weighs 7.8 pounds. The G70-486nr weighs 7.6 pounds.

How do those compare to a 13" MBP @ 4.5 pounds, 15" MBP @ 5.5 pounds, or 17" MBP at 6.6 pounds with 6-10 hours of battery life?

There are similar flaws in every one of the laptop hunter ads.

Can you get a Windows PC cheaper than a Mac? Absolutely.

Can you get a Windows PC with similar specifications for less than a Mac? Yes.

Can you get a Windows PC that is bigger/smaller, faster, lighter, or has more features than a Mac? Yes. You do have more selection with Windows PCs, so you may find a combination of features that better suits your wants/needs.

Those are easily shown and are not in question.

But if you're going to claim that xxx, yyy, and zzz are important in your purchase, then get a machine that provides xxx, yyy, and zzz and compare that machine, not a machine that is missing one or more of those features.


RE: What is this?
By Alexstarfire on 7/27/2009 3:32:44 PM , Rating: 4
Well, the problem is that the qualities they are looking for are subjective. "Great battery life" isn't very definitive on how long the battery should last, now is it? Same with "lightweight." My Acer Aspire 4330 is 14.1" and weighs 5.26 lbs. I think that qualifies as actual lightweight though. But would you trade some weight for longer battery life? I wouldn't, since I don't really need battery life, but if I did need it I'd gladly trade it.

Unless these qualities are absolutely necessary it's safe to say that price is going to top everything. Hard to buy a computer with those qualities if you can't afford it after all.


RE: What is this?
By bighairycamel on 7/28/2009 5:02:15 PM , Rating: 4
Hit the nail on the head.

I may have misunderstood gstrickler's post, but he seems to be insinuating that they should be comparing the specs of the purchased PC with that of the Macbook. The problem is the price is the deal breaker. Who wants to figure out if their $700 PC compares in battery life or weight to a $1500 macbook? I doubt any budget conscientious person would decide the 2 lb/1.5 hr difference warrants an extra $800.


RE: What is this?
By DOOA on 7/28/2009 7:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but I and many I know like me are exactly that person. Not the weight, but the battery life will be a deal breaker. I will not consider a laptop that will not last from Coast to Coast playing movies on the plane and surfing the web when I can. Spending less money for something that does not fulfill requirements is not done by the budget conscientious people. Although it may be done by their IT departments.


RE: What is this?
By bighairycamel on 7/28/2009 9:36:26 PM , Rating: 3
Not only are you the minority, but you're also not part of the target audience. The commercials appeal to the budget minded, not battery minded. Although the commercials mention battery life and portability, the primary focus is always drawn to the prices.


RE: What is this?
By gstrickler on 8/5/2009 6:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not insinuating anything, I stated things quite clearly. If they're going to state that xxx, yyy, and zzz are their criteria, then they need to find a machine that actually provides xxx, yyy, and zzz.

As the original responder to my post pointed out, "good battery life", and "portability" are indeed subjective measurements, but it's deceptive to compare and stress the only price difference of two machines with such radically different capabilities. It's rather like saying "I want a car with good fuel economy and great features", then comparing the price of a base model Honda Civic with that of a Civic Hybrid. They have nearly the same engine, chassis, etc, but the hybrid is at least 50% more expensive. The hybrid also gets better fuel economy, has nicer features, and has a nicer interior. They have different capabilities and are targeted at different markets. You don't buy the hybrid based upon cost, you buy it based upon other criteria that are important to you.

If price is your most important factor, then say that up front and don't even look at the hybrid, it's a waste of time. If other factors are important to you, then look for something that offers those. Cost might still be a determining factor in what you select, but then you know you've made a trade-off. In these commercials they make significant trade-offs in areas that they claim are important to the user, but never acknowledge that they made any trade-off or compromise, only that it was cheaper.

In one of the commercials, the user has $1000 (of Microsoft's money) to spend and only spends $700, so obviously those other features weren't very important or they would have looked for machine that might have cost closer to $1000 but offered more of the features they said were important. Whether I'm paying or someone else is paying, I'm going to get as close as I can find to exactly what I want and need with the available budget. I might not spend the entire budgeted amount, but it'll probably be close.

It's not 1.5 hours difference in battery life we're talking about, it's 3-4 hours difference (5-6 hours for the Mac vs 1.5-2.5 hours for the PC). It's the difference between "not useful without a power plug nearby" and "I can get through a typical day without power". That also makes a difference in the travel weight. With the PC, you have to carry the AC adapter and/or extra batteries and/or a higher capacity battery to get through a day, any of which adds weight (and batteries add cost) decreasing it's portability.

In any case, having supported lots of laptop users on hundreds of laptops over the years, I can say that "up to 2.5 hours" means you might get 2.5 hours under ideal conditions when the battery is new, but in typical use you're not likely to get more than 2 hours when new and will be down to 1-1.5 hours when the battery is 2 years old.

Having used laptops as my main machine since 1994 and having supported hundreds of laptop users, I can also say that less than 3 hours of battery life is not sufficient for actual use as battery powered portable. Whether you're using the machine for college, using it for work, using it while traveling, or even just using it around the house, 1-2 hours of battery life is not sufficient. If you're going to be using a laptop on battery power, you need a minimum of 3 hours of battery life, and that's still not enough to get through a typical work/school day without recharging during the day. It's barely long enough for a flight half way (East-West) across the US, and won't get you coast to coast. To make it coast to coast, you'll need at least 5 hours battery run time.

Having carried a laptop for 15 years, I can say that every pound you can reduce the travel weight is very noticeable. The actual difference in travel weight between the two systems (allowing for AC adapter and/or batteries) is going to be 2.5+ pounds, and that's a huge difference when you're carrying it around daily. While I generally carry the AC adapter with my MacBook Pro, I have forgotten it on occasion and I can still get through a day without a problem. I could not do that with most Windows laptops.

BTW, part of the battery life difference is the efficiency of the OS. Mac OS X does significantly better power saving than Windows, allowing a machine running Mac OS X to run for 1.6-2.0 time as long as a Windows machine with identical hardware (same CPU, chipset, HD, battery capacity, screen, etc.) That also applies to running Windows on an Intel based Mac. Don't take my word for that, check anandtech.com or google for comparisons.

None of my Mac laptops have ever had less than 4 hours battery life when new. In fact, when my MBP battery life dropped to 2-2.5 hours, Apple replaced the battery under warranty.

As I stated in my original post, you can absolutely buy a Windows machine for less than a Mac, and you can get more/faster hardware for the same or less. What you can't get is a laptop that can compare on performance, battery life, and weight. You can match/beat any 2 and probably be cheaper, but you can't match/beat all 3 at any price.


RE: What is this?
By mindless1 on 7/25/2009 9:55:01 PM , Rating: 5
A little hard ball would've been a commercial reenacting Apple's legal team calling MS and pleading to stop airing the commercials.


RE: What is this?
By Darkefire on 7/26/2009 4:47:56 AM , Rating: 5
Give 'em time. If anyone knows how to really twist the thumbscrews, it'll be the guys who've spent the better part of the last two decades turning the software industry into their personal bitch. Hopefully Apple's finally going to learn that if you poke the 800 pound gorilla with sticks enough times, it'll make you regret it.


RE: What is this?
By jhb116 on 7/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: What is this?
By Hieyeck on 7/26/2009 7:42:36 PM , Rating: 5
I dunno... The ballsy solution would've been to flaunt Apple's crying... splash across the screen "LEGAL DISCLAIMER: SINCE THE FILMING OF THIS AD, APPLE HAS INFORMED US THE PRICES HAVE DROPPED A WHOLE $100, MAKING IT STILL MORE EXPENSIVE THAN A PC."


RE: What is this?
By Ratinator on 7/27/2009 11:22:41 AM , Rating: 2
Ya that's what I would have thought they would do too.....very suprised they didn't


RE: What is this?
By DerwenArtos12 on 7/27/2009 2:28:20 AM , Rating: 5
Or, getting all the original Laptop Hunters back for a second commercial, six months after the first was shot, and asking them "so, apply has dropped the prices on all their products, the laptop you were looking at of theirs is now $100 less than it was when you bought your PC, and still $XXX more than the PC you bought, if you'd like the go buy the Mac, we'll buy the PC back at full price. Would you like to switch?"

Because they're GOING to say F Off, I'm keeping my computer.


RE: What is this?
By hyvonen on 7/25/2009 10:51:58 PM , Rating: 4
Simple: Microsoft just decided to prepare their own lawsuit against Apple's commercials, and wanted to make sure their own commercials are 100% accurate.

Without those "I'm a Mac" commercials, Apple is dead. Bye bye.


RE: What is this?
By Murloc on 7/26/2009 12:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
microsoft intends to beat apple with prices and non-misleading information, they don't wanna behave the same way as apple do.

it's a PR decision, good for the noob-nerd market segment.


RE: What is this?
By MrPoletski on 7/27/2009 6:39:24 AM , Rating: 5
yeah wtf, I never expected M$ to back down like this.

Maybe Jobs has some nude pics of Ballmer? haha


RE: What is this?
By Locutus465 on 7/27/2009 10:21:52 AM , Rating: 1
I guess I can understand why Microsoft feels they need to do this, they're obviously afraid of further anti-trust complaints. I just find it fustrating that smaller companies which really are anti-competitive are free to advertise bold faced lies... But larger companies, which are clean by comparison (perhaps only in comparison to apple, but still!) to their smaller rival can't fire back for fear they're going to be smacked with anti-trust lawsuites. It's B.S.


Modifying Ad to be 100% True != Giving In
By IceBreakerG on 7/25/2009 3:46:35 PM , Rating: 5
From my understanding, Microsoft did not "give in" to Apple. They just modified the ad to make sure it was 100% true, something Apple would never do. Originally the ad stated something about the laptop being $2000 or something like that. It's arguable that the only reason Apple cut the price of their computers was specifically to make Microsoft's original ads untrue in regard to price. Microsoft simply changed it so that they wouldn't get sued by Apple for false advertising. Never mind the fact that almost all of Apple's "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" ads were so blatantly false it's insulting.




By chick0n on 7/25/2009 5:26:12 PM , Rating: 5
+1 :)

How many years has Apple been lying again ?

Apple, go fuxk yourself.


RE: Modifying Ad to be 100% True != Giving In
By MonkeyPaw on 7/25/2009 9:04:06 PM , Rating: 5
Most of the ads already have the hunters saying that although the Macs look cool, they just cost too much for what you get. If MS really wanted to throw Apple under the bus, they could encourage their subjects to further flame Apple. They could say thinks like "Oh, Macs can't run any of the software I already own?" or "So to play most games, I need to buy and install Windows on it, too?"


RE: Modifying Ad to be 100% True != Giving In
By DEredita on 7/26/2009 2:04:16 AM , Rating: 3
Not true, as a lot of major software makers, now offer Mac compatible versions of their (Windows) software.

If Microsoft wanted to throw Apple under the bus, it would do a price comparison of two laptops with the same hardware specs, and show that the Apple laptop was almost always 2x-3x more than the Windows laptop with the identical hardware. Or that, you can get a Windows laptop with high end dedicated GPUs and dedicated Vram for ~ $600, where the cheapest Apple laptop that has a dedicated GPU and dedicated Vram starts at a whooping $1999.

Ok, the cheapest laptop on Newegg with the same CPU as the 2.66GHz Macbook Pro is $1049, or $950 cheaper than the Apple notebook. Not only are you saving $950, but you are getting a bigger hard drive (400GB), better video (1GB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650), and a bigger screen 17".

Apple's hardware is its weak point, and where Microsoft needs to focus its attacks. If Microsoft goes all out on attacking Apple's shitty overpriced and outdated hardware, I as an Apple user should find better offerings from Apple in the future, since they would be pressured into offering better hardware as people's perceptions change.


By MonkeyPaw on 7/26/2009 9:27:06 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Not true, as a lot of major software makers, now offer Mac compatible versions of their (Windows) software.


True, but that's not what I meant. Most people already have a library of software they've already purchased (like MS Office, Photoshop, etc). Yes, you can get many of those programs for Apple as well, but you have to repurchase them. This costs even more money and makes "switching" even more expensive.


By adiposity on 7/27/2009 12:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They could say thinks like "Oh, Macs can't run any of the software I already own?"


For that to be true, MS would have to be only asking PC users to do their commercials of people "deciding" which type of computer to buy. Oh, wait, I see your point now.

-Dan


RE: Modifying Ad to be 100% True != Giving In
By DEredita on 7/26/2009 1:50:56 AM , Rating: 5
I wish Apple's "I'm a Mac and I'm a PC" ads would cease to exist. I'm an Apple user, but every time I see those ads, it makes me want to toss a Macbook at Steve Jobs.


RE: Modifying Ad to be 100% True != Giving In
By Belard on 7/26/2009 11:12:35 AM , Rating: 3
Note: You said toss A macbook.... Just not yours.

:)


By spartan014 on 7/29/2009 3:50:15 PM , Rating: 1
Hint : Maybe he doesn't own one...


RE: Modifying Ad to be 100% True != Giving In
By Belard on 7/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Modifying Ad to be 100% True != Giving In
By Belard on 7/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: Modifying Ad to be 100% True != Giving In
By Alexstarfire on 7/27/2009 3:38:19 PM , Rating: 5
I think the lack of responses show that you're not even worth arguing with.


By Belard on 7/31/2009 6:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
Theres nothing to really argue about.

You have the baby Windows users who cay "ah mac is lying" referring to 30sec spoofs as if the actors are real computers.

How many people crap in their pants when SNL does a parody?


I always said...
By crazyblackman on 7/25/2009 4:36:00 PM , Rating: 5
I always said that Sony would be in a much better console sales position if they had made television commercials comparing their solid PS3 hardware to their competitors red ringed consoles.
That would have been devastating to Microsoft. They wouldn't be able to dispute the claims and it wouldn't have been false advertising on Sony's part. I think it would have been totally fair advertising. Sony's marketing should have taken advantage of Microsoft's repeated hardware failures. I may have to email them.

Vote me down accordingly...thanks in advance.




RE: I always said...
By theslug on 7/25/2009 9:16:06 PM , Rating: 3
I disagree..the worst thing a company can do is make ads that outright insult the competition. It's like admitting you're inferior. Sega did that all the time in the 90s, and now look where they are.


RE: I always said...
By crazyblackman on 7/26/2009 5:31:41 AM , Rating: 3
Ok. So telling the truth about a competitor's inferior hardware versus your quality hardware is considered an insult to you, the consumer, right? I thought that was what truth in advertising was all about. I am sure the consumer would react to an ad stating that even though they both have some of the same games available, that the 360 had a high failure rate in comparison to the quality hardware of the PS3. I am also sure this type of ad would also cause consumers to seek more info before they made a purchase ...just like the Mac versus PC ads are trying to do. This would have killed the 360 alone, without even having to mention Bluray.

But gee, I guess Subway or Taco Bell would never run an ad trying tell you to stop eating greasy burgers, right? That would make them appear "inferior" to you, instead of actually making it seem like they were trying to offer you a healthier alternative, right? WTF have you been smoking?

And by the way, Sega was the system to have in the 90's, so what-in-the-f are you talking about?


RE: I always said...
By bighairycamel on 7/28/2009 5:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
Did you just use Taco Bell and "healthy alternative" in the same statement? I guess if you want your colon cleaned out.


RE: I always said...
By Belard on 7/26/2009 10:36:39 AM , Rating: 2
Sega has issues...

Hey, if I was sony, I would.


RE: I always said...
By Belard on 7/26/2009 10:54:58 AM , Rating: 5
LOL...

360 - "Hello, I'm a 360"
PS3 - "And I'm a PS3"

360 - "I'm the #1 console on the market for high end games"
PS3 - "I play almost all the same games as you do, but more"

360 - "I can play HALO games, you cant!"
PS3 - "Fine, but I can play the upcoming HALO movie on Blu-Ray, as well as thousands of other Blu-Ray titles today and the future... you know, like Star Wars, Blade Runner"

360 - "I can DL movies too!"
PS3 - "So what? My Sony Cellphone can DL movies, and of course I can do that. How many HD movies can you store on your 60GB HD? 4 or 5?"

360 - "Uh... I Play games! First Person shooters!"
PS3 - "We know that. Also, I can use any USB keyboard and mouse"

360 - "And I can play games over the internet, even wireless with all my friends"
PS3 - "Oh yeah, $100 add on for the wireless and don't forget your yearly dues" (Shoes PS3 talking on Cellphone while 360 is using an old-rotary phone)

360 - "I come in many colors and styles, like whiteish-beige, green, black besides kewl face plates"
PS3 - "Oh? Where that Red Ring around your neck come from? Are you getting hot?"

360 - "..."
PS3 - "Hello, 360...?" (snap fingers in front of 360s face) "Are you okay?! Uh oh!"

Fade in PS3 Logo


RE: I always said...
By crazyblackman on 7/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: I always said...
By crazyblackman on 7/26/2009 4:44:31 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe we should forward that to the Sony Pr people and see if they can wake the hell up.


RE: I always said...
By MrPoletski on 7/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: I always said...
By MrPoletski on 7/27/2009 10:42:39 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, NOBODY spotted the Faith No More reference then.

Google 'cuckoo for caca', now.


RE: I always said...
By adiposity on 7/27/2009 12:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
LOL


RE: I always said...
By Belard on 7/27/2009 3:07:09 PM , Rating: 3
Who would we get to play the parts?

Need to get an American kid and a Japanese kid, of course.


RE: I always said...
By Danger D on 7/27/2009 4:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
aaaand, Microsoft comes back with "game system hunter" ads.


RE: I always said...
By Belard on 7/31/2009 6:19:47 AM , Rating: 2
Oddly...

In this Laptop hunter add:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qui43P1kztw

At 45seconds... they mom & son go...

"Blu-raaaaaaaaaaay!"

So, MS *IS* promoting Sony's BluRay, eh?


RE: I always said...
By eyebeeemmpawn on 7/26/2009 9:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I always said that Sony would be in a much better console sales position if they had made television commercials comparing their solid PS3 hardware to their competitors red ringed consoles.


I always said that too, until my 60gb ps3 shat the bed for third and final time out (of warranty). First, the power supply burned up, fixed that for $50 on an replacement. Then my hard drive was corrupted after installing downloaded content. And finally, the YLOD (yellow light of death) caught up with me. MS made the early X360s cheap, but Sony only made the early PS3s just well enough to survive the warranty period.


RE: I always said...
By crazyblackman on 7/27/2009 12:53:45 AM , Rating: 1
I have to admit that I've suffered the YLOD too on my 60gig launch unit, but YOU have the worst luck of any PS3 owner I've ever heard of. You must be using it while in the bathtub or something as irresponsible. Enjoy yourself. Never heard of anybody else with luck as bad as yours.

Watch your friends very closely around your wife. Just sayin...be careful.


RE: I always said...
By adiposity on 7/27/2009 12:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen a YLOD on a unit I bought (broken) on ebay. But none of my friends with a PS3 has had one. The failure rate is still at < 1%, so you are really unlucky, or maybe your house is super hot.


By MDme on 7/25/2009 4:35:18 PM , Rating: 4
after all, all the barbs about Macs not having virus problems or Macs being more secure than vista are all just plain lies.

In fact, in a security conference (I can't remember which), it was the Mac that fell first to hackers (within hours), followed by Linux, then Vista (only due to a third party app loophole) and only after 2 days.




By Tsuwamono on 7/25/2009 6:58:22 PM , Rating: 3
I haven't gotten a single virus in the past decade and I'm on a PC.

All the "tens of thousands" of system crippling viruses you speak of do nothing but annoy people who aren't smart enough to use a proper Anti-virus.

and NO grandma... Norton Isn't a proper anti-virus.. Neither is McAfee


By DEredita on 7/26/2009 2:13:57 AM , Rating: 2
Problem is that a lot of PC users are very unacknowledged about computers, send viral chain letters back and forth to each other, download and install anything, click on the first item in a search engine, and unwittingly get tons of malware/trojans/spyware/viruses.


By AlexWade on 7/26/2009 8:09:03 AM , Rating: 4
There is no security system that is able to overcome human stupidity. The fact is most of the time, people get malware because of being stupid. Not that they are stupid, just naive. Last week, there was a trojan that affected both Windows and Mac. The hook was people looking for Erin Andrews naked. Since more people use Windows, there is going to be more Windows malware. This means that Mac users have more room for stupidity. The people who get malware never think "What could possibly go wrong when I click here?"


By MrPoletski on 7/27/2009 6:43:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and NO grandma... Norton Isn't a proper anti-virus.. Neither is McAfee

Mind telling us what IS then?;)


By Alexstarfire on 7/26/2009 5:37:10 PM , Rating: 1
Sigh. The truly uninformed always show their colors proudly.


By dark matter on 7/26/2009 5:47:20 PM , Rating: 3
I guess you haven't read the article about how the iPhones encrption is completely worthless then...


By adiposity on 7/27/2009 12:49:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
after all, all the barbs about Macs not having virus problems or Macs being more secure than vista are all just plain lies.


Just plain lies? I'm a PC user, and I never get viruses. But, as a tech support person, I can honestly say that compared to PCs, Macs do not have virus problems. I realize that by nature a Mac is not less prone to viruses, but by count, they certainly are less threatened.

A fully patched Vista box is probably more secure than a Mac from a determined hacker. Since both have firewalls by default, though, the more likely problem is clicking on spyware links or something. And that really doesn't happen on Macs, today.

Security through unpopularity is not a great model, of course. But the fact is, if you buy a Mac, you are significantly less likely to get viruses. Personally, I don't think it's worth the cost. But I'm not sure it's "just plain lies" to suggest that your risk of viruses is less on a Mac. There's an extremely high chance that a Mac user will NEVER get a virus. It's about as high as the chance that they will NEVER play half life :)

-Dan


By Alexstarfire on 7/27/2009 3:43:27 PM , Rating: 3
Depends on how you look at it. I'm sure if you looked at the percentage of attacks that succeed that the Mac is probably only just as safe, if not less so, than Windows. But the inherent problem with looking at percentages is that it means little without numbers. Doesn't matter is 100% of attacks on Macs are successful if only 5% of all Macs are even targeted.


changed prices
By melgross on 7/25/2009 4:16:38 PM , Rating: 5
Its not as though MS has a choice. You can allude to something in an Ad. You can mock problems a competitor has, and this is what Apple does in their Ads.

But you can't tell an out and out lie. MS really was better off changing their Ads to reflect the new reality. If Apple sued them over that, it's possible that a lot of things MS wouldn't like to become public, would. I can think of several scenarios that would have been problems for MS publicity wise if they had kept it up.




RE: changed prices
By FITCraparo on 7/25/2009 4:25:19 PM , Rating: 4
agreed have to stay truthful

so on that point MS should change their commercials to be software related, i want to use this app and that app sorry sir but they dont work on apple 95% of the software just isnt compatible, but they remaining 5% does and we'll charge a mere 50% more than the exact same software that runs on a PC


RE: changed prices
By tim851 on 7/25/2009 10:44:19 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, 100% of software isn't compatible unless you virtualize.

And given that most "big" apps are multi platform (adobe, ms/open office, browser, mediaplayers, etc...) and for most non multi platform stuff there are equivalents, you'd basically boil it down to "What, CrystalCPUID won't run on a Mac and I can't play GTA IV?!?!?!"

Good luck with those commercials. I bet you'd do Apple a favor.


You suck
By Aberforth on 7/25/2009 10:49:06 PM , Rating: 5
Dear Apple,
Time for you to go bankrupt.




RE: You suck
By drnk on 7/26/2009 3:41:42 AM , Rating: 5
Last time that happened, they got saved by Microsoft.


In fairness to apple...
By dgingeri on 7/26/2009 6:23:22 PM , Rating: 3
In fairness to apple, their prices aren't that far off when you consider the software that sold along with their computers. (Something MS would be crucified for by the media as anti-competitive.) while their computers are $500-800 more expensive, they have extensive software for movie and picture editing and organizing that would probably cost about $300-500 more on a PC.

I just wish they'd quit advertising as being more stable, less trouble, and better supported. Those parts are absolute lies when it comes to Apple. I've had to deal with a 50% DOA rate on the crappy macs we got at my last company.

Their support couldn't figure out what was wrong with a Mac Pro for over a year and 7 service visits. Getting them to come out to make a service call on it was like pulling teeth. My company spent $6000 on a dual core, dual processor system with 8GB of memory (back in 2005) and it wasn't usable for the first year. We could have had an equal HP system for $4000, and had better support and more reliability.

Apple's claims of superiority aren't right, and should be removed from their advertisements by the FTC.




RE: In fairness to apple...
By Alexstarfire on 7/27/2009 3:14:43 AM , Rating: 2
The talk about software is only true if you go out and buy that stuff. Of course, if you don't need it or get freeware versions, which can be on par or better than what you would get on a mac, then it's $0 extra.


RE: In fairness to apple...
By adiposity on 7/27/2009 12:56:47 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! If you pirate the software, PCs are WAY cheaper :)


RE: In fairness to apple...
By Alexstarfire on 7/27/2009 3:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
WOW!!! How exactly did you go from my saying FREEWARE, to piracy?


WTF!?!
By sciwizam on 7/25/2009 3:56:46 PM , Rating: 5
Apple's legal department complaining that an ad was misleading?!?!

WTF!

Maybe they should take a walk down the aisle and talk to their ad dept about misleading ads.




RE: WTF!?!
By adiposity on 7/27/2009 12:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and we have Microsoft's word that Apple complained...

Although, I don't see why they shouldn't say, "hey, you say we sell X for Y, but we sell it for Z. Stop lying (it's against the law)".

Pretty simple, really. Get less specific and you can't be sued as easily.

-Dan


EDIT THE AD BETTER
By Nobleman00 on 7/26/2009 2:38:57 AM , Rating: 5
They should have just used a really obvious edit out of a cheesy movie and everytime the lady said $2000, the sound would be a man's voice (or even better a robotic voice) saying "$1900". They should do this to every commercial that mentions something apple doesn't like just to make a joke out of apple.

Finally feature a commercial with the robot saying it has the easiest job in the world because apple doesn't lower its prices very often, or by much.




RE: EDIT THE AD BETTER
By DotNetGuru on 7/27/2009 3:09:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, this is perfect! +1


"Gives In" versus "Begs for mercy"
By L1011 on 7/26/2009 9:42:46 AM , Rating: 5
Interesting that an earlier DT article stated Apple "begged for mercy" to Microsoft regarding these ads and now today Microsoft "gives in".

Good thing DT isn't biased <sarcasm>




By crystal clear on 7/26/2009 8:25:46 PM , Rating: 1
Sooner or later one day the author of this article will probably get a telephone call from the legal dept of Apple, then he would be begging for mercy.

Begging for mercy for distortion of facts,instigating/launching a hate/smear campaign against Apple etc.

I want D.T. to be nuetral & accurate in their reporting/articles etc.


hmmm...
By teng029 on 7/25/2009 3:58:59 PM , Rating: 3
yet another round of who's better... must be a slow news day.




RE: hmmm...
By tim851 on 7/25/2009 10:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
If you see the amounts of comments every single MS-Apple bit draws Dailytech can probably afford to dip their computers in gold with just the hits of one of these articles.

If anything, it's surprising how much restraint they exhibit.


ouchy...
By fifolo on 7/25/2009 6:39:32 PM , Rating: 5
It seems Apple corporation is as insecure as its customers.




Microsoft=apple
By espress0 on 7/26/2009 11:19:37 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft owns 41% of apple. its all gravy.




RE: Microsoft=apple
By nowayout99 on 7/26/2009 12:48:55 PM , Rating: 3
Huh? False.

MS bought $150M in non-voting shares and sold them in 2000.


HAHA
By icanhascpu on 7/26/2009 8:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA




1-20-2009
By hiscross on 7/26/2009 10:47:04 AM , Rating: 2
Need to give up on 1-20-2009 as well. John Galt is alive and well.




Whats wrong?
By Griswold on 7/26/2009 3:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
Whats wrong with being accurate? Thats not "giving in". Not every company feels obligated to lie to the public on every possible occassion (not that MS doesnt do any lying, its just that I feel apple does it more often - well, almost all the time when they kick off their marketing blabla...).

I for one salut evil MS for being the good bunch in this case.




I did cartwheels down the hallway.
By hemmy on 7/26/2009 7:47:44 PM , Rating: 2
I did cartwheels down the hallway.

LMAO!




Ugh
By Tom mc3s on 7/27/2009 2:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
I think this entire thing has been drummed up to heightened levels by fanboys (and girls) on both sides of the fence. This is still just barely even noteworthy and probably not "news".

The only thing I see that happened here is that a specific hard dollar amount price that a competitor was claiming a product to be was no longer sold at that price. I still don't buy the CFO's story of Apple legal calling him (of all people) to "whine". I'm sure, if anything, a notice was sent of the changes.

Why Microsoft chose to edit out more than just the hard number claim is beyond me. Frankly I see nothing wrong with either company shooting off questionable barbs at each other to scrape the bottom of the barrel of consumers. When you come to tech sites like this you can see the somewhat computer savvy and up have clearly made up their minds on what brands and products they like to purchase and delight in telling others of their opinions on the matter (to put it MILDLY). In other words I'm sure none of you have been influenced by either companies ads, these are for the tech-illiterate.

I will say that having a hard dollar amount that does not reflect current prices goes too far. I am not implying that Microsoft did ANYTHING wrong, only that they did need to edit their commercials to reflect the changes. This is something I imagine they were fully aware of when they made the ads and I'm sure it came as little surprise when revisions needed to be made. As far as everything else they claim, or Apple for that matter, feel free to fire away at each other.

Just for the record: I enjoy using both Macs and Windows PCs and I am excited about all great new hardware and software to play around with regardless of who makes it.




It hurts
By Tegeril on 7/27/2009 10:50:59 AM , Rating: 2
Save a few posts here and there, this whole thread of comments hurts. So much stupidity and inaccuracy on both sides.

Ugh.




Backing off, I think not.
By KIAman on 7/27/2009 1:41:54 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft needs Apple to do well. It reduces the anti-competitive scrutiny that Microsoft gets.

I think Microsoft did just enough damage to remind people what computers are; a useful and efficient appliance, not some artful collector's item that commands higher price. Microsoft did just enough to stem the eventual tide of Apple if left unattended.




cuz thats how they roll
By AnimeRomeo on 7/28/2009 10:35:23 AM , Rating: 2
I just hope Apple isn't to upset with these commercials. Otherwise they will need somebody to blame and soon John Hodgman will be thrown out an apartment window.




Microsoft does not want Apple dead
By osalcido on 7/28/2009 7:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
So long as Apple remains in the Desktop business... All trust allegations against Microsoft are moot




Latest Laptop Hunter AD
By Belard on 7/31/2009 6:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
New version, more accurate yet!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odxZY776COA




Show the PC Buyer purchasing Internet Security Suite
By honestIT on 7/25/09, Rating: -1
By Hyperion1400 on 7/26/2009 4:48:05 AM , Rating: 4
It's called Windows Media Player, and it works like a charm.

And if that doesn't do it for you, there are always, Media Player Classic, VLC, Winamp, Failtunes/Quickfail and many many other media players available for free on the internet.

And you don't need AV if you know which sites not to visit ;)


By Helbore on 7/27/2009 6:10:34 AM , Rating: 2
And if you do need AV, you can just get one of the many free ones (which will soon include a free version from MS themselves) and avoid paying for one.

But then we can't let the esxistence of free software stop Apple from claiming all Windows users have to buy AV software.

Maybe next time an Apple exec makes such a claim, Microsoft will sue them for false advertising.


Poor Everyone...
By jbizzler on 7/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Poor Everyone...
By drnk on 7/26/2009 4:05:18 AM , Rating: 1
Pretty much like as what you wrote, for lots of people a Mac is a single-purpose hardware running a single-purpose OS running a single-purpose software.If you just want your job to be done and you don't care about what else a PC may offer, get a Mac, since the surplus that comes with a PC sometimes brings troubles too.
A Mac may not be able to offer "a life without walls" but sometimes those same walls protects you from crap.


RE: Poor Everyone...
By Captain Orgazmo on 7/26/2009 4:19:48 AM , Rating: 2
The Apple monkeys started flinging crap at the Microsoft monkeys, and when the MS Monkeys realized it was sticking to their fur, they started flinging crap back the other way. Unfortunately for the Apple monkeys, the MS crap is really sticky and hard to wash out, and it seems the Apple monkeys have run out of crap to fling as of late. The end result being that the Consumer monkeys give their hard earned bananas to the product least covered in crap.


RE: Poor Everyone...
By Belard on 7/26/2009 11:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like rate you up, if I could. :)

Your first part of the rant about idiot proof, and people don't understand computer. Nothing will help in that area. The avg person is moron, too bad they reproduce. Still see kids getting out of school who barely know how to use a computer - just enough to use You-Tube, IM and MySpace... if you think about it, without the internet - there amount of computers out there wouldn't be nearly as big as it is today.

Now you said:
quote:
The Laptop Huner ads drive me crazy, because they show how little people know about computers. "I want a 17'' screen" okay... that's a preference "lightweight"... that's a preference too "and the ability to edit video". All new computers can edit video casually.


I think the MAC ads are funny, a bit. The Laptop hunters are kinda stupid... like what you said above. But truthful - you can get a 17" basic Windows Notebook for $500~800, no way on a Mac. Light? LOL... Edit Video? We can edit video on computers 10 years ago.

quote:
"To be good at games." Again, do you know what level of performance you want? Do you know how much your games require at the resolutuion you want to play at?


Always the dumbest part. The games a typical notebook can play are bottom end or whatever comes over the internet. Of course a high-end gaming notebook is $1200~3000.

quote:
A salesperson will say any discrete graphics card is good at gaming. My computer-geek-wannabe friends focus on the wrong numbers like the amount of RAM when they already have plenty

I see that too... I need 12GB of RAM. Or I need a $300 1~2GB video card for my 17" LCD so I can get the fastest frame rate! Uh... Besides the refresh rate limitation on a LCD screen... You can be a better gamer with a 24" monitor in 1920x1200 than a 17" one at 1280x768. Or those who buy a low-end video card with loads of memory it'll never be able to use. (IE: A GF 8600 with 1GB would get 2-4 fps in 2500x1600 res, which is where you need 1GB)

quote:
"The ability to upload photos." Don't even get me started.


Why? Will it make your head explode. Yeah, a pretty dumb line... I usually thing... "Wow, what idiots".


Correction
By Shadowself on 7/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Correction
By mcnabney on 7/25/2009 4:16:18 PM , Rating: 5
Ah yes, the Apple faithful. With the Kool-Aid stains still on his lips.


RE: Correction
By Atheist Icon on 7/25/2009 4:48:50 PM , Rating: 3
Are you sure its Kool-Aid stains? I know they make clear Kool-Aid, but not white...


RE: Correction
By Shadowself on 7/28/2009 11:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, the rabid anti Apple fanatics.

My statements have nothing to do with whether I am an Apple supporter or not. Some things just are whether we like them or not.

You'd probably be surprised to know I'm typing this on a Dell with Windows installed. I probably spend 20x as many hours a month on Windows based systems as I do on any other platforms (including *nix, Macs, mainframes, and supers).

If you bothered to research my earlier posts you'd find most of them are to point out facts that are misrepresented or missed in the articles posted here at Dailytech. I bash Apple when the facts require it. I bash Microsoft when the facts require it. Unfortunately, the authors here often get a given interpretation set in their minds and the facts be damned. People need to come back with a rational statement of the facts and realities of the situation -- not unmitigated "fanboyisms".

In this case, Microsoft changed their ads to be legally compliant. There's nothing more to it. Apple did not beg for mercy. Microsoft did not cave in. It's simply a matter of Microsoft making their ads legally correct. Nothing more. There is no justification to bash either company here.


RE: Correction
By bety on 7/25/2009 6:45:44 PM , Rating: 1
I think that was the funniest part..."The ads worked..."

Um...right...very boring, uncreative ads, that nobody talked about? Mission accomplished!


RE: Correction
By chick0n on 7/25/2009 11:07:42 PM , Rating: 1
Rofl.

do you know math ?

sales increased with how many % market shares?

and sales decreased with how many % market share?

lmao. get lost, you failed like ur mac, fanboy.

not to mention, most people who buy build computers more than 1000 bux will ALMOST ALWAYS build it themself, like me, I spent about hmm 2000 bux 2 years ago, and guess what, my computer is still faster than majority of Macs today. ROFL.

So yeah, Macs always failed.


RE: Correction
By Shadowself on 7/28/2009 11:32:20 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, I do know math. I have a degree in theoretical mathematics and a graduate degree in theoretical physics. Both are very math heavy. Do you know math like that? I doubt it.

Actually, you don't need to know math to understand what has happened here. Simple arithmetic will suffice. Hell, it's not even arithmetic. It's just counting. Something some of us learned by the time we were two or three years old.
1. Microsoft ran a series of ads.
2. During the period while the ads were running Microsoft's total sales for PC related items went DOWN.
3. During the period while the ads were running Apple's total sales for PC (Macs are PCs after all) related items went UP.

Up is in increase (higher number). Down is a decrease (lower number). You do agree with the "Well Ordering Principle" of numbers don't you?

Market share is irrelevant. If Microsoft's ads were truly working -- especially to the point of supposedly Apple begging for mercy -- then at the very least Microsoft would not be dealing with lower sales and losing market share.

Also Apple's target market is not the enthusiast who builds his own machine. Apple got out of that market over 30 years ago.

These facts have no bearing on whether I like Apple or hate Apple or even if I like Apple's products or hate Apple's products. They are just simple facts.


Can't tell which is more misleading...
By thekdub on 7/25/09, Rating: -1
By NuclearDelta on 7/25/2009 5:01:31 PM , Rating: 3
...Microsoft's legal team fired back at the Mac commercials citing confusion in that the ads conveyed the sense that macs are impervious to security and malware problems, kernel panics, and their machine air exhausts send out the scent of fresh bread and hot caramel apples while in operation. It is also of note that this will transition to Honeydew with a hint of mango during plastic case fractures, behind LCD condensation, $4.99 wireless N activations, super drive failures, Nvidia chipset/GPU failures, LCD display distortion, Processor rug-under-feet architecture switches, Intel TDP limit rail grinding with portable system default fan speeds, and finally while rm -rf * in console.

Richard Stallman was not available for comment, but was last seen on the outskirts on of the Microsoft Redmond complex armed with a katana. Local security reports much of its property has been vandalized with the cryptic message "G-P-L-V-3".

President Bill Gates was found dead at the top of Shinra tower.

All this and more at 11.


Somebody at Microsoft should be fired
By crystal clear on 7/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Somebody at Microsoft should be fired
By Helbore on 7/27/2009 6:25:26 AM , Rating: 1
Because they stopped running the ads, right?

Oh, wait, they are still running them. They just edited out something that was now factually incorrect. But the ad is still running.

Seems to me that Microsoft's response is more of a slap in the face to Apple, than a capitulation. Apple say "our prices have dropped, so stop running those ads." Microsoft responds by altering the ad so Apple's legal team have nothing to use as ammunition and carry on running the ads.

So I guess they are just gonna keep on running them and running them and running them.


RE: Somebody at Microsoft should be fired
By crystal clear on 7/27/2009 9:06:38 AM , Rating: 1
Its NOT the ads that are the problem...the problem is this particular Microsoft executive who makes a such a big thing about it.

Apple has not even bothered to comment on this issue/s,as a matter of fact nobody even knows if this whole story/issue is even TRUE.

All you hear is this Microsoft manager .

Empty vessels make the most sound !

Like any ad, people get bored & skip the channels so what the point keep them running & running,nothing gained.

People just anybody are NOT stupid, they know how/where to compare prices & get the best value out of their money.

They dont need Microsoft ads to convince them.

The whole episode/story of these ads is childish & unnecessary .


RE: Somebody at Microsoft should be fired
By smackababy on 7/27/2009 10:40:53 AM , Rating: 2
Oh really? So, the entire advertising industry is, in your words, not effecting consumer trends? Well, better tell that to those spending billions every year paying for commercial time.

Besides, at least Microsoft's commercials are even based in reality. Mac ads just spew FUD.


By Belard on 7/31/2009 1:18:22 PM , Rating: 2
er... the MS ads are actors. The Mac Ads are actors (they are not real computers).

They making of fun of vista is based on the problems of... vista, duh.

I'm a PC... and Vista has / had real problems that Apple made fun of. Live with it.

The LTH Ads are kind of bs with "I want a bit screen that edits videos, photos play games" - even a $300 POS can do that.

High end PC notebooks is $200~350 cheaper than a Mac. Go cheap, they are $2500 cheaper :)


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki