Wow, and you believe a 100% what this paid actress said. So what Lauren said is what every girl or woman is gonna say?
This is so rehearsed it's not even funny. And you're believing all this to be truly genuine?
I'm amazed at what people believe nowadays from commercials, especially Microsoft commercials.
Come on...

word Triplets
shake the camera a bit and its all reality tv ;)

Triplets - even if she was a "paid actress" - a claim emphatically refuted by both MS and the agency - her circumstances are typical and everything done and said in the advert makes logical sense.

I wonder if you own a Mac?

Think about it...

Microsoft is right. Apples are over priced but they still function better than any machine with Windows XP or Vista on it.

That is why I bought my MacBook used and later a Dell Mini 9 that flawlessly runs OSX for much less than half the price of a new 13" Mac.

Fanboys relax...
It can only get better from here when Microsoft makes a valid point. It will get cheaper or better or cheaper and better!

So this is news?? It's a false comparison. Any novice debater knows that, "When you state the obvious, you've overstated your case."

I've used Apple/Macs for years, and still, I have great respect for the PC. Computer owners like all consumers still "speak with their feet." I've regularly used PCs and for economy and the ability to pick parts from various domestic and international vendors to assemble a more affordable computer, PCs obviously rule.

Mac owners know what we want. And, it's not what PCs offer. Call it an "Mac tax" if you will, call it overpriced, but do call it our choice. But, for those of us who are willing to pay what we see as a superior and more enjoyable computing experience, we'll continue to support the Mac and likely other products made by those geniuses in Cupertino, CA.

Remember-our money, our choice.

The real problem is all apple products are overpriced over hyped yet beautiful and unique machines.

And you pay a high premium for having a solid built mostly aluminum computer with a design that favors fashion and durability rather than economics.

This is exactly the argument that I made in my post on why I switched from Mac to Linux, and it's one that the more fervant Mac promoters either don't comprehend or willfully ignore.

I needed a 15in screen. However, I didn't need two graphics cards, a 1GHz system bus, or the absolute top-end performance that I could have got from a MacBook Pro.

That meant that paying £1800 for one would have been bad value for me, giving me features that I just don't need or want. In the end, I paid £900 for a Dell XPS 1530 which gives me all the features I needed at half the price.

But does this mean Apple is doing something wrong? I don't think so. Apple's strategy since Jobs' return has been to limit the number of different models deliberately, refusing to be driven into the "niche" market strategy of a Dell or HP, where there's a large (and confusing) range of machines. This makes sense when you're a small player, as it makes buying decisions easy for the customer and reduces the company's overheads (lower stock, lower marketing costs, etc).

However, it also means - and Mac fans might not like to accept this - that for a big chunk of people buying a Mac makes no sense. I was one of those cases, and "Lauren" is another one. The key question is whether, in a tight economy, this kind of definition of value becomes more important - whether getting "the best machine for your needs and budget" triumphs over "the best machine, period".

Hardware will be out of dated in 6 months so "Lauren" can buy a new $700 laptop after 6 month with upgraded components and keep her old laptop too. Maybe she will buy a new ipod also and all these still cheaper than the MAC. LOL

Not only is the Dell XPS 1530 an awesome laptop but some of its available configurations can also run OSX perfectly. I got one of these myself last July for around $700 and I can run Vista, OSX, and Linux. I run Linux on it over 95% of the time.

Msf, right on. Macs are not by default better machines, they are different machines. The cost an arm and a leg, and I guess if that is what you want, that is what you will pay.

I enjoy reading all the Mac vs. PC debates. I use multiple OS,I have a PS3 with Ubuntu Linux and a Macbook tri-booted with Mac OSX, Ubuntu Linux, and Windows XP, and I use each one. What Mac users need to understand is that Apple has been attacking PCs for almost 4 years now with their "Hi, I'm Mac" commercials. Microsoft now is trying to come up with an effective come back to Apple's commercials (Lets not even talk about the useless Gates-Seinfeld Commercials). I think it is clever of Microsoft to use price in their argument against Apple, even though it feels like a late come back. I do find it funny that Microsoft is seeing Mac as a real threat. Apple will never be a threat to Microsoft because it controls the market, that is the only reason Microsoft can continue to distribute unfinished software into the market and get away with it. What gets me mad is this Windows 7 crap. Please Microsoft before you go running to a new OS, fix the one you forced us to buy with all your Vista installed PCs. Sorry I will return to the topic. The debate of Mac vs. PC simply comes down to what people want to do with THEIR computer whether Mac or PC. I will continue to use Mac because I FEEL it gives me the reliability that a Windows PC can not. This said, I will still use some type of Windows to test it and see if it can survive my beatings longer then two months and I will use Linux so I can screw with any thing I want in the OS(which usually results in me reinstall Linux :P I like breaking stuff.)

Design and utility are not monoliths; they work in tandem.

A Mac is not a PC.

People need to get past the "Mac vs. PC" debate and simply use what works for them at a tolerable price point.

Microsoft does itself no favor by essentially claiming, "We're not as good as a Mac, but we're cheaper."

That may be a good marketing ploy if you're selling hot dogs or Italian ices, but not when you're selling something a product that people depend on each and every day that helps them with a range of both personal and business issues.

if macs are overpriced, why have their market share been rising for the last 5 years? is people becoming crazy because of the global warming or so and they want to waste their money? what is the right price for an asset?

perhaps more consumers than we think do agree with Apple pricing. and maybe that could be the reason why Microsoft is so scared that has to start creating these kind of ads.

Comparing mac and pc is like comparing two sandwiches. Bread and tomatoes and cheese all look the same. One patty is a real beef and is 100% pure beef, but another is made of manure. Manure patty is priced cheaper, but looks the same. That is of course before you sink your teeth into it. After the first bite, the difference becomes quite obvious. After all what do you think MS stands for. Microsoft Software is one version, but after you tried it, Manure Sandwich is more appropriate description.

If you think Vista is anywhere near as useful as OSX, you're delusional.

I use both, and believe me, Apple wins hands down.

It's all about UTILITY.

Remember, computers are TOOLS.

I first purchased an HP DV8000 with a 17" screen. After about a year or so of struggling with the drivers, crashes etc I was VERY happy that Apple switched to the Intel processor, and I was able to go back to the computer I started with and that made computing an enjoyable experience.

No more fighting with my computer, I use it do get things done these days.

You should come back to Lauren in a year and see how she feels about her decision to buy on price, screen size and how the keyboard feels.

Apple has been taking dig at Microsoft for very long time. Now its Microsoft's turn. As a MS fan I am very pleased with their new ad campaign. MS has knocked Apple out in One punch. Microsoft has never reacted to any Apple ad targeting MS neither MS fans. But Apple and Mac fans has reacted to defensively.

Yup Apple costs more than a PC. But the total cost of ownership is far more for a PC than for a Mac. I got my first Mac three years ago (since then I have purchased 3 more). I have yet to call Apple for any help on anything. 0 downtime, no bugs no crashes NO NONSENSE. Thanks. I will pay the price for not having to listen to Steve Balmer.

Macs may cost more than PCs, but that does not mean they are overpriced. There is something you can't see when you look at a computer: You can't see how well integrated the hardware is with the software.

So, the main reason Macs are NOT overpriced, is because you can't buy another brand that integrates the software and the hardware, from anyone, anywhere. At any price.

In case anyone is missing this point, I'll say it another way: Apple is the only hardware maker that makes an operating system (Disputably the best OS around). The only one. Some people think (myself included) that's actually worth something.

Why is a software company (Microsoft) running a commercial that compares the cost of hardware?

Is Microsoft trying to avoid a direct comparison between itself and Apple's software?

I love watching Mac fanboys squirm. Can't beat it for entertainment value.

Oh, I also assume that since Lauren is cost conscious, she's going to install Ubuntu and OpenOffice on the laptop and save even more money.

I mean, she didn't say that the computer had to run Windows, did she?

The Ferrari guy from Apple thoughts is an insufferable iBoi just like Daniel Dilger and the rest of the lot. So quoting his drivel only will legitmacy for his half year old Apple Blog.

Although seeing of how revolting he is to look at I feel for him because the effete preening Applepheliancs probably treat him like a pariah or gasp the way he regards PC users.

Man, he's once Cici's restaurant away from being a shut in.

When I was an Apple Power Rep, I found a few occasions when it would have been a disservice to sell someone a Mac. With their needs, a PC was just a better option. But the great thing was, when they brought friends to me to purchase a computer, I had the reputation of someone who looked out for the customer, so if I said a Mac would be good for them, they were a lot more receptive. Mac's aren't for everyone. And while I think 'Lauren' could have done better, even in a PC, she got what she wanted at that moment, so it was a better computer for her. She might realize later that she wants a higher res monitor or wireless networking, or bluetooth, but most of those can be added later. And I do know people who shop for computer based on one or two criteria, ie RAM, display size, and/or price. So the commercial was as real as you can expect a commercial to be.

I'm surprised that such a big deal is being made about a commercial. Entirely advertising. Who has ever found truth in advertising? Except perhaps the Apple ads....

Mac's cost more, so do cars made by BMW, Levi's jeans and organic food If you want to buy the cheapest system buy a pc and put linux on it. If you want a cool looking computer that has more bells and whistles then buy a Mac. It is so very, very simple....

As a Mac user, it's clear that if you judge PC's by two criteria - screen size & cost, PC's are cheaper. AND if that's ALL PC buyers are using as gauge to choose a PC, either they cannot afford more or do NOT CARE to - hey, whatever. If you use the same criteria buying a Pc & the same criteria you do in buying a loaf of bread - that's your choice to make. But it's clear that people who choose to spend more on a Pc weigh different factors - the NPD retail data proves out (Macs hold 66% marketshare in the $1k segment). Mac buyers do NOT live in a vaccum, they can see the Sunday ads. They looked and decided otherwise - just as people can choose between a BMW and a Pontiac sports sedan. That's like POntiac ads saying they are cheaper than a BMW - yes, if that's your only gauge ... but car buyers don't usually just go on price but for some reason, PC buyers believe that the out of the door pricing is the ONLY gauge - you just have to read the responses above of people who buy PC's because they are "cheaper" than Macs. THEY DO NOT BELIEVE any other factor is OF VALUE TO THEM. Hey, whatever. You are free to buy a Pontiac or Kia also. If you want more info, mac users can help you but if your only criteria is what's in your wallet, great. Enjoy.

The only problem with the ad is people who buy PC's already use the exact same criteria "lauren" does so why preach to the choir? But two main other problem - does this tick off all the computer savvy people who buy a PC but get lumped with Lauren as uneducated buyers who only know two things about PC's screen size & price?

But the bigger hornet's nest is that MS is telling all PC buyers NOT to pay more than $699 as long as it has windows on it. Nice way to kill margins for anyone selling a WIN PC over $700 ... typical MS. Clueless.

Juan Carlos - why not run open office with windows, since she already paid for it? Almost every open source program is available for windows, plus, she has access to the largest collection of free and paid software for any platform.

And, someone please explain the functional benefits of the unibody design, which seems to lead to heating problems.

Joe,

You quoted me on theAppleBlog as a "classic defense" of Mac pricing. But I think a true "classic defense" would also claim the PC in question is crap, something I specifically mentioned I'm NOT claiming. The HP was simply built to a price, and compromises had to be made (hence the quote about using cheaper components).

There's nothing wrong with this, but the PC world is full of laptops that use better components, in better engineered packages, that cost a lot more than the $700 machine Lauren bought. Expense is not the sole domain of Apple.

People who buy Mac's are buying a solution. It is not just hardware. It is software that works together with the same interfaces. The ILife software that comes with every machine offers a terrific set of solutions worth more than the cost that might be given to them. Being virus free is worth quite a bit. If you own a PC and have been deeply infected you know what I mean.

I have owned 17 inch Mac laptops. They are heavy. 17 inch PC laptops are even heavier. In travelling, I have found physical size and weight are important. And if you are carrying around a laptop in a backpack at a convention this is even more of a consideration.

I have found few screen drawbacks with my 13" Mac Book and my even lighter 13" Macbook Air due to their high resolution. And at home I can connect to a larger screen very easily. And I can, with a $20 S-video adapter, connect to my older television and view Netflix, watch network television programs and basically turn my Macbooks into video machines.

Anybody that tries to compare hardware to hardware is not even coming in close in comparing machines. This has been true since the day the original Mac was announced. I am surprised that Microsoft thinks it needs to attack Mac and truly thinks it will increase PC sales and Microsoft windows sales. Windows Vista and upcoming Windows 7 do more to cause switchers than any advertising Apple might do. They are memory hogs, slow, hard to configure etc., etc., etc. Macs work out of the box - period.

"Over at Apple Thoughts, Vincent Ferrari calls the HP laptop "the piece of crap she decided on." Well, there's nothing too subtle in that. Vincent goes on to rip apart as valueless pricing as a buying consideration, while going on and on and on and on about how much better is the 17-inch MacBook Pro."

Having such a mindless troll fanboy in charge of one of the Thoughts network website is actually embarrassing. The fact that the other Thoughts website are serious give him credence that he don't deserve.

To start again the car comparison, I think everybody know that BMW are better than that basic Pontiac Sedan, and don't need to be explained that.
But not everybody can or want to afford the BMW. And if you just need to go from point A to point B, for a majority of us the basic sedan is good enough.

I'd like to give Apple the benefit of my experiences. My company had an Apple-like product at one time. It was an innovative and feature rich product that demonstrated significant operating cost savings over the more traditional products. We were continually beat down in price because of the comparisons with our competitors.

We finally got the message and produced a more traditional, less featured version and began offering it to these customers that claimed that our flagship was an over priced, over cool, gold plated monolith that they didn't need.

Low and behold, most of these same customers continued to purchase the flagship even though the new price reduced version was a fine product. It turns out that they really liked our flagship, but they wanted it for bargain prices. When we had both in the catalog, they couldn't gripe as much about the cost. We relieved the price pressure off of the flagship and sold the cost reduced version to those that previously wouldn't have bought from us anyhow.

So Apple, Lauren wasn't going to be your customer with her criteria. However, she could have been if you had a line of machines with a lowered feature set than your flagships. With your impressive product design talent I'm sure you could create a product line that plays in the lower tier .... If you want to.

So, all you whiny Mac users just admit that Lauren isn't right for your clique. She wants the lower feature product that you don't have and Microsoft pointing this out. If you really want to combat this ad, Apple would need to produce the full range of products, from the lowly netbook up to the top shelf. Then you could have the more interesting debate of apples vs apples (pun intended) at Lauren's price point, or even the more interesting debate of Windows versus MacOs on a level playing field.

Right now the debate is similar to arguing that a Trafone user should have picked an iPhone for obvious coolness reasons.

The ad IS right though and it is funny how people take it personally...

I am *VERY* sure HP also offers $3000 17" laptops too. There is just as likely a quality, feature, and performance differences between those too. Loren is not too cool for a Mac, she just has different criteria for her computer than what Apple offers. I rarely find people to be open to a platform or the other, but I DO see price as a limitation.

Most of the above people are missing the point and bringing in Mac/PC bias. The bottom line is she IS able to buy a 17" laptop for her price.

I fault Apple (a former employer) for not having less expensive machines. Apple chooses to not compete there, ok. I fault Porche for not having a $20k car too, who likewise chooses to not compete there, although I'm sure it is to not lose their expensive base, whereas I'm sure Apple prefers their margins and desire for using more expensive parts.

It boggles me that people get so much in a huff over this, they are both computers. People aren't superior based on their OS choice so get over it.

If is funny to see people parade out the fanboy name to drive home their own superiority of their OBVIOUSLY better choice over somebody else's. It is so "Rush Limbaugh", I'm not only right but you have to be wrong. It sadly makes me not listen even when he has intriguing ideas, the same applies here.

@ Mac Cultboy:

"I got my first Mac three years ago (since then I have purchased 3 more). I have yet to call Apple for any help on anything. 0 downtime, no bugs no crashes NO NONSENSE."

Yeah, right.

According to Mac websites, MacBook Pro users can expect to perform maintenance and hairpulling to deal with common problems of:

*"sluggish performance" while "using graphics-intensive applications" (omfG??!!)
*Battery Not Charging
*Trackpad Button Failure
*Keyboard malfunction
*Dead Laptop
*Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT chip "system lockups"
*DVD drive disc mounting problem
*battery "expansion"
*screen display "vertical line problem"
*firewire card purchase and installation (but I thought it came with EVERYTHING??)
*bothersome screen glare (how can that be when its so ergonomic???)

Google those, then bite me. And stop wanking on the fantasy of any brand of hardware being trouble free. So much for the $3000.00 price tag and the "Mac Experience" mystique.

BTW Lauren DeLong is a hottie.

I don't recall Apple ever having an interest in selling to people who want a $700 laptop.

I can't imagine this commercial is hurting them one whit.

Most people, even Mac buyers, have a budget with an upper limit. Apple prices their computers in such a way that there's only one choice at a given price point. For a lot of people that's simply not good enough.

Macs are frequently called BMWs. I think Macs are more like the Smart Fortwo and Mini Cooper, cars optimized for size and style. They cost more than other small cars and even more than most compacts. Most of the world is better served by the Toyota Yaris, Honda Accord, Ford Fusion, Pontiac Vibe, etc. and are frustrated that Apple doesn't make anything for them.

I think Apple is happy as a niche player and doesn't even want all the people who prefer their OS as customers. If they wanted me to buy a new Mac they'd either offer a consumer tower or at least design the iMac so I could swap the hard drive myself. I think Apple is foolish to reject me, a Mac user for 17 years, but it's their choice. Fortunately I have a choice too. I can buy used Macs and hack PCs to run OS X.

When the ad first came out, I read that MS GAVE lauren the requirements, and the money, telling her that she could keep whatever cash she didn't spend.

These requirements aren't hers.

With this in mind, she went to the Apple store first, presumably willing to give up any extra cash if she could afford a Mac.
When she couldn't get a Mac for the price, she opted for the lowest cost contender that didn't offend her sense of style.

It's kind of like telling someone that they can have $30,000 to go buy a car. The car must have a six cylinder engine, AC and side airbags.

First you look at a Lexus (or whatever high end brand you like), then you go to the GM store and get something that meets the requirements for a low cost.

Why not, it isn't your money, you take the left over cash, and start saving for your dream car in a couple of years.

Doesn't mean you wouldn't rather have a Lexus.

As usual, Mac folks will jump and retort on anything that attacks Mac. Face reality dudes. Microsoft owns more than 7/8 times market share of what apple does. They did not get the share for no reason. Most of the people believe Windows machines are better considering overall facts. It's no doubt Mac is good. There are many more Toyota cars than BMW cars. Nobody denies BMW is superior to most of Toyota cars. But if you want luxury cars from Toyota, they still have some brands to offer.

The reality is the following:
Most people know Windows because that's what they see at work or have to work with.
Most people are lazy and don't bother to look around for other options, and think wasting 2 hours scanning for viruses and malware is normal.
Most people don't care about better things and want the cheapest so the salesperson at Best Buy gives them a Windows laptop and 6 months later they understand the saying "you get what you pay for".
It's mainly about not knowing the options.

"They did not get the share for no reason."

You must be 10 years old. I'll sum it up for you.

IBM owned almost 100% of the PC market in the early days. MS duped them into using MS-DOS as the OS. Instant MarketShare Leader. Do some research next time kid.

The problem with this ad is that Microsoft misdiagnosed its own position. They cannot attack Apple without facing problems.

Apple and Microsoft are not competitors. Apple makes hardware, Microsoft makes software, which, incidentally, runs on Apple's hardware. Apple does not play in Microsoft's market (they don't allow their Mac OS X to be installed on computers that typically ship with Windows); they allow Microsoft to play in theirs (they advertise and allow the installation of Windows on their computers). Apple is the one great innovator in the IT world; most of the impressive features on PCs or in Windows have been first introduced on a Mac or marketed by Apple.

In such a situation, attacking Apple makes little sense for Microsoft, and reveals only two things:

1) Microsoft has a severe case of Apple-envy; they want to be as cool and innovative, even though don't even need to be (since Apple does not play in Microsoft's market, and does not play in the low-end of computers, and is pretty happy in the high-end niche).

2) Microsoft admits that Apple is a threat to them, because Microsoft's business model works best with a quasi-monopoly and less-than-stellar products (for continuous revenue, Microsoft's customers need to want the next update -- which means that the current release needs to lack something. Apple does not need to do that -- they sell hardware that becomes outdated and breaks down just by itself; but for them good products mean their customer stay loyal to the brand), by Apple's recent rise in market share and its presence of better alternatives to Microsoft's.

So releasing this ad which directly attacks Apple is the wrong thing to do; what they should have done, is showing that their products are not as bad as it seems (their kids-do-cool-stuff-easy are good for that), and sneak in a Mac with a Windows screen shot every once in a while.

I suspect that continuing with this style of campaigning will do more bad than good for Microsoft.

@slappy

"IBM owned almost 100% of the PC market in the early days. MS duped them into using MS-DOS as the OS. Instant MarketShare Leader. Do some research next time kid."

lol...this is completely wrong. The Apple ][ computer predates the IBM PC and MS-DOS. The Apple ][ had tremendous market share prior to the PC, but the market was not entirely Apple's either. There were a host of other PCs with different operating systems on the market at the time from the Sinclair, TRS-80, Atari 800, Commodore 64, Amiga, etc. (well, if you want to call them operating systems).

You probably want to do some research too...lol...

Here, I'll help you....

http://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/?category=cmptr

To get a sense of how creepy the Microsoft ads are for a market leader, consider this alternative:

- For two years, Microsoft (with a tiny music-player market share) runs ads poking fun at the iPod and pointing out that the (more expensive) Zune is a better music player. In two years, Zune goes from 3% to 6% market share.

- Apple, the music-player market share leader, then counters with an ad in which Apple gives a "real" person an amount of money (slightly less than the cost of a Zune) and then tells her to pick out any music player she wants. The person then chooses the iPod over the Zune because it was cheaper, exclaiming "I got just what I wanted."

After reading your headline I went to the Dell Australia Store and configured a desktop as close as possible to the current base model MacPro.
The Dell Precision T5400 did come with a 17' monitor worth about $300 Australian.
The price of the Dell was $5956.50. The MacPro $4499 Australian.
Allowing for the monitor, the MacPro was TWELVE HUNDRED DOLLARS LOWER.
Other differences were also significant.
Mac memory is 1066 Mhz memory, Dell 667 Mhz. I selected the base video card on each. The Mac base model has 3gb of memory but the Dell has 4. The Mac has a 640 gb HD, the Dell only 500
The photo of the interior of the Dell looked like a rats nest. A nightmare to upgrade or service.
As I am only interested in Desktops, other comparisons are meaningless to me. I also understand that, if I was a Windows or Linux user, I could probably build a computer for much less than either of these options. But I want to use my computer for work and therefore want a computer that is both reliable and easy to use and choose to use a Mac and Apple software

It strikes me that Apple fans are willing to pay over-the-odds prices for their hardware purely for the pleasure of dicking around with its asthetics, rather than actually getting any serious work done.

Windows 7, even at Beta, already makes the PC the strongest platform of the two by a clear run.

Apple is a monopoly - in as much as they make both the software and hardware and only sell them integrated together. The day that Apple allows other hardware vendors to sell OEM-preloaded OSX on say a Dell or HP box will the the day that parity is reached, and real comparison can be made. But they won't ever do that, because then they will have to deal with all the hw driver problems and third-party sw issues that Microsoft has had to deal with for 2 decades. I.e. MS sw is more versatile, but conversely more buggy as it has to run on 1000's of hw platforms with 1000's more multiple vendor peripherals with 1000's more sw drivers - a lot of which is outside of Microsoft's control. Apples offerings are less buggy because they only have themselves to deal with, and thus can charge a premium - in fact probably HAVE to charge a premium since their volume is an order of magnitude less. As my pappy used to say: You gets what you pay for - and sometimes less...

I'm a longtime Windows laptop and PC user, i'm also a corporate Dell reseller so you could say that i know what i´m talking about.

In the netherlands Apple laptop´s where always to pricy for my tase, 1,5 year ago i bought just for the fun of it a cheap mac mini, that was my fist contact with a mac. I still use this mac frequently.
Last oktober i bought a macbook (just for the fun of it and it was also a bargain) i liked it very much and put in an bigger harddrive and more memory . from that moment on my 2 other laptop's stayed at home, because i could run windows xp on my Macbook and did not need them any more. It's now march 2009 and i have bought a New Imac and a new Macbook alu. Oke they cost much more but the aggrivation of windows laptops i do not have anymore, i aso bouht extra wireless keyboards and mice, the saying is Once you taste MAC you nver go back

You pay for want you need, and try to get what you want. My family owns 3 different PC laptops. All were the best (personal choice) at the time for $599-$699 on sale. None were top of the vendor's line, but they all have good graphics (must be gaming capable), Core2Duo cpus, with 16-17" displays, 3-4 Gb memory and 250+ Gb disk; the latest have wireless-n and bluetooth. They get used for everything from homework to online games, family digital media, writing newspaper articles and running VM's for course work and technical training. Are they the lightest and most portable models, no; but they are acceptable. We just can't afford that with Mac's.

Here's a quote from Microsoft:

"As you start looking closer at mice on the shelf, you'll spot the
price tags. You might see a well-known mouse with a price of $79,
and a brand you've never heard of with a tag of $39. If the
lesser-known brand is Microsoft-compatible, why should you
fork out the extra $40 for a mouse you've seen before?

"Brooks says Microsoft uses high-quality components that raise
the price but make a Microsoft mouse worth the extra cash. ...

"Brooks say the costs of Microsoft's sophisticated product
testing and customer support systems are also passed on.

"Scott Schulte, a product line manager at Logitech, also says
you can't cut corners on price without giving up quality. You
can be sure the higher price of a popular mouse accompanies
higher quality."
-------
Interesting to hear what these industry people REALLY think.
Guess what, Mac users already knew this -- and long ago.

Sunny Guy

Kinda funny how the Mac users "delegitimize" the PC commercial on the basis of it using a paid actress. Gee, I wonder if the cameraman was paid, too?

This is why Mac users belong in Berkeley after the city has been quarrantined by 50 foot walls: they live in a bubble. I wonder if actor Justin Long was paid to appear in all of those Mac/MS-bashing commercials? Naw. That wasn't Justin Long THE ACTOR. That was really, like, the techno-guru dude from, like, "Live Free or Die Hard." Totally.

Attempting to invalidate the PC commercial on the basis of it being a commercial (i.e., paid for) only underscores that the Mac is more about religious passion and politics and "we are the world" than a computer product. This is the same disconnect from reality that got the "I am the savior of the world" socialist Obama "elected."

Give me the PC guy any day.

Hey Lalogos -

Not sure where you got that political connection from..

I own 3 Apple computers and I DID NOT vote for the "savior"

As a conservative in many ways I was looking for wise use of $$ for the long term.

Echoing a prior comment, 3 plus years of service so far on my computers - ZERO problems -

Well worth the money in my estimation, thank you very much Apple!

Sign me.
A very happy convert from the "PC"

Usher -

The problem with your argument with regards to Macbook Pro issues, is that you presented no real world numbers as to how often these "common" problems arise vs the number of Macs in use. Any 3rd grader can Google known Mac issues and come up with hits. These problems are not associated with every Mac. No one ever said that the Macs are flawless. You, my friend, are grasping for straws and the only thing you said worth noting is that no hardware is trouble free. Unfortunately when you buy cheap PC hardware, you not only have to deal with potential hardware problems, but you have to deal with software problems associated with running Windows. Have fun with that. I'll stick with OSX.

BTW..all Macs, except the new aluminum Macbook and Macbook Air come with firewire...this includes the iMac, Mac Mini, Macbook Pro, and Mac Pro. As far as screen glare, well any glossy screen laptop has glare, including the Mac laptops. Nice try...

Lol. I guess Al didn't like the taste of crow.

To expand on what has been alluded to previously, it seems that the computer in the add is the hp dv7t series. From the HP web site the base model is $799 however load up to a near compatible to a Macbook Pro, the price rockets to $1642.00. Even Hp cannot sell this level of technology at a sub $1000.00 price point.

Now you still have a lower resolution screen, as well as vastly inferior productivity software ILife vs Works 09 and you still have to buy at $10 off the Rixo back up software, your computer is near twice the thickness, and probably has a much shorter battery life.

Based on the technology you are buying, the top end Thinkpads in the w700 series are to my mind the models to compare to the Macbook pro. The w700 series is priced in a range from $2900 to $4600 on sale. So although expensive in terms of the low end of the market, the Macbook Pro's are not out of line in terms of the technology/software you are getting and are reasonably priced at the upper end.

As was said you get what you pay for.

If this Microsoft's add is a thorn in Apple's side it seems that a creative counter advertisement could handily put to rest the impression that the Macbook Pro is high cost/low value choice that Microsoft is trying to develop and exploit.

I have appreciated the insightful comments expressed here.

Cheers

RL

Ok, Not a mac person

Having spent conciderable time around both. I can say that I have had bad luck with both systems at one time or another, however this myth that Macs are somehow better is purely fantasy. Apple is as bad if not a worse company than MS. The apple way is to deny any problem exists with a piece of hardware UNTIL a new piece of crapple comes out. Then apple spends all of their time telling you why the old piece of sh** is a piece of sh**. If you look inside of the Mac you find the same failing components as everyone else. It's the same hard drives, memory, CD drives that are the main hardware failures in everyone elses machine. Apple freaks don't want to hear how the emperors clothes are the same clothes as everyone elses, just with a bigger sticker price. What people don't get is that the HP machine isn't a whole lot different than a Mac. I've had experience with Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, Lenovo and I can tell you that there isn't one that is a great machine, however I have to agree with the ad. For what I do with a laptop I don't need a mac just as I don't need a high end alienware or dell xps, and I don't know very many people that do. I mostly see college kids running around with macs because they percieve mac as somehow cooler, more avante garde. People somehow see macs as being more bohimian. A position that doesn't make sense if you know the history of the two companies. Steve Jobs has tried to control EVERYTHING about the mac and what you can do with it from the inside out. Mac people have gotten no feature before Big Steve decided you should get it, and quite a few have slipped quietly away instead of apple fixing them. If MS treated their customers as Apple has there would be a holy Sh** storm. Only in the apple world can it be ok to tell customers that you can't have the latest os because we don't want to support your hardware after a year. Vista might be crap, but I'm free to try it on any old piece of garbage I have lying around.

@ Joe Bama

Sorry to tell you but I installed Leopard, the latest OS X version, on two G4s, one from 2000 and another one from 2001. That's 9 and 8 years old. They are hardware-wise very old but the OS works on it.
So stop generalizing based on your experience.

Of course it's not only the hardware, but also the software that runs on it.

I've been running machines with many versions of Windows (even with still mainly DOS and one with versions of OS/2 as well), machines with versions of Linux and now OSX.

The latter has the advantage of the stability of Linux and the availability of programs that you really need (the missing of that being the one drawback of Linux).

In my experience Windows ALWAYS gets clogged up when you're running it for more than a year, no matter which version you take. And programs cease to function because some DLL is suddenly missing (accidentally removed by removing another program?). Spending time on these kind of failures from an operating system is tiring in the long run, and Windows, no matter what, will do that to you.

I'd love to see Lauren stumble upon her first frustrating and not-without-an-extensive-and-time-consuming-search-on-the-web to overcome Windows problem. How she wished she'd bought that 'mere' 13 inch screen Mac.

It's always entertaining to see the back-and-forth rants. Obama vs. McCain. Bush v. Gore.

Having gone through this process quite recently, I gave the MacBook Pro serious consideration. Both Apple and HP have employee purchase programs through my employer with similar discounts. The HP HDX 16 I ended up buying is pretty much their current notebook top-of-the-line with a non-Xeon chip, particularly the way I had it custom-built. In the end, even though I could certainly have afforded it, I could not justify the ~$1,400 difference a similarly configured MacBook Pro would have cost me. Since the Dell notebooks run the same OS, I thought the Dells were also overpriced for the same feature set, and often did not have the same options available (e.g., graphics cards) as HP.

Several commenters on both sides of the fence have reiterated that computers are TOOLS, dammit. Well, um, yeah... That applies to the OS. Since I am not a developer, the OS is not a tool for me, it's just a platform. I want tools (i.e., applications) to get some real work (and play) done in the real world, and so far I have not encountered any deal-breakers with Vista. Although I readily admit that there are some annoying things that I can do with XP Pro -- my office PC environment -- which I can't do with Vista. And yeah, Vista has too many flavors, which it looks like Win7 will needlessly continue. But in three months of ownership, I have not had a serious OS error with Vista.

It doesn't hurt either that I can get Microsoft Office 2007 EE, Visio Pro, and Project for $25 a pop through my employer's Microsoft Home Use Program. So I can get some work done. But if Apple had even been CLOSE -- say, less than $500 more -- it could have gone the other way.

The average home computer user (not business user, not designer, etc) only needs a computer to manage his/her iPod or other MP3 player, music, and a web browser to do pretty much else. A printer is handy, but not always necessary. When it comes down to it, a Mac or Windows computer can do either. The web browser is the most important part of a computer for most users (gmail, youtube, facebook, etc) so why would they want to pay hundreds or thousands more to use a web browser on a Mac... That is especially true of the average 16-25 year old. I work at a college and spend a lot of time with open source student advocates. We don't really worry too much about trying to convince people to try to use Linux instead Windows/Mac, since students do 95% of their computer tasks in a web browser. Firefox is so heavily used that we don't even really need to tell students about it. So, we are talking more about how to move open source forward for initiatives such as cloud computing and appliances (set top boxes, routers, etc) than for desktop computing. The desktop is starting to matter less and less to the average person....

Interesting to see such a heated debate - I have used computers for around 20 years now, until 4 years ago when I got my G4 Macbook, that was all on PCs, Dell, IBM, Acer, Viglen (remember them?).

In my experience there are many nice things about my Macbook, but reliability is not one of those things. I had a hard drive failure less than 12 months from new, a motherboard RAM SLOT failed 6 weeks out of warranty.There's far less choice with repairers for Apple and our local ones were arrogant, high handed and useless. Not only that but my purchase included only 3 months phone support. (Compare 3 years for the Dell I bought). And yes I had to phone that Apple support many times, wait for ages in their queue. To buy 3 years service contract was an extra $579 on top of the $3500 for the machine, outrageous. And Apple support is office hours 5 days a week - compare Dell's 24/7 help line and wonderfully well informed. But that service price contract price for Apple is very revealing - it shows their breakdowns are high.

And now I find there are many programs I cannot upgrade at all on my Mac (unless I pay out for more OS upgrades and RAM to run them) because the latest versions ONLY run on the newest version of Mac's OS (which my machine doesn't have enough RAM to run). At least my sturdy old Dell Dimension desktop I can upgrade whatever I want and run it on Windows XP which I have found really stable.

Oh and that myth about Macs never locking up/crashing is just that.

And Apple software - Safari crashes every other day, Apple Mail has many bugs, iPhoto "lost" 3 years of photos and trashed them. Some work to be done and Apple versions of PC apps seem to cost three times as much.

Now as a trained person in Computer Science I appreciate the many ways in which linking in the OS to the hardware and integrating both tightly is way the best way to go - but Apple sadly have exploited their customers and charged far over the odds for - the same hardware mostly as in PCs with the same unreliability. The queue of broken machines in my local Apple repairer is impressive. Let's face it they all source the same bits from the same multinationals - Apple put them together in a technically better design and a much better case, but they still break down just as often.

As for me I'll continue to use both platforms - Windows for its far wider and far cheaper software selection - and Mac for less hassle with viruses, security, and its ability to run legacy software inside older Windows environments that PCs don't support these days.

I would have to say that it is a hard call whether the doubling in price of my macbook over a similarly priced Dell laptop is actually worth it. I suppose I did get the free iPod ... hmm.

And Lauren can talk all she wants. My husband has had such a bad experience with his last Vista based PC that he would prefer to go buy a Mac tomorrow.

My first computer in 1983 was a Heathkit H89. Then to Atari ST in 1986. Then to Apple in 1997.

If your time is worth nothing, a PC might be the computer for you. Even if you are a techie you are going to spend a lot more time maintaining a PC on Windows than you will maintaining a Mac. A PC on Unix/Linux would be OK, if you are a techie.

If computers are not how you make a living, and if your time is worth anything over minimum wage, you will come out ahead within a year by paying for a Mac.

Microsoft makes no sense, even their advertising makes no sense.

I should have said.
If "repairing" computers are not how you make a living, and if your time is worth anything over minimum wage, you will come out ahead within a year by paying for a Mac.

A writer misspoke thusly:

"So, the main reason Macs are NOT overpriced, is because you can't buy another brand that integrates the software and the hardware, from anyone, anywhere. At any price.

In case anyone is missing this point, I'll say it another way: Apple is the only hardware maker that makes an operating system (Disputably the best OS around). The only one. Some people think (myself included) that's actually worth something."

Sun Microsystems beats Apple hands down in this category, and is correspondingly more expensive. They too make their own hardware (Sparcstations) and operating system (Solaris).

Recently I wanted to watch the New England Patriots, but I discovered that it was 75% cheaper to attend a Major League Soccer Game and watch the New England Revolution. I guess I'm not cool enough for the NFL.

What are most of you flagellating at? Microsoft Windows doesn't make most of the hardware for PC's. Sure you can get Microsoft keyboards and Microsoft mouses, but for the most part, it's either Dell, Toshiba, HP, etc. vs Mac.

Vista was horrible, however the new Windows 7 is awesome. Most people stick with Windows because of familiarity. I prefer Windows because there are things the Mac just cannot do or it would take me a while to figure out how to get it work.

I remember spending an hour with my friend trying to find the equivalent of regedit on mac, only to discover it didn't exist, then there are idiotic, uneducated comments from mac users on mac forums like this in regards to "tweaking" :

"A good part of that 'advancement' is because the system cannot be 'tweaked' as much. Quite frankly, there is little to no need for it anyway. Most things with the Mac OS were done right the first time"

Regedit is an extremely useful tool on windows for fixing things that go wrong, and things on Macs do go wrong all the time, a simple google search will prove it, from keyboard not working to bad installation. Regedit also provides people more technically apt a way of removing corrupted keys and replacing it, since it's a powerful tool it can be exploited, but not if you have protection.

Hahahaha, so now we need regedit to fix keyboards on a mac!
Priceless...

The writer talks about this Lauren as though she were a real person, not an actress with a script written by an ad agency.
She got just what she wanted, but she probably didn't get what she needed which she'll find out in a week or a month or two then she'll have to buy software and still won't have the blue tooth or other features she's going to find she needs so she'll sell the PC, take a loss and then have to buy a pricey PC that costs as much as a Mac, when she coulda had a Mac in the first place for less than what she will have spent by that time. Plus she'll have that fantastic Apple Mac service that no one else even comes close to and her friends with PC's whose laptops are down with some virus or bug that Macs never get will say Wow! I wish I'd gotten a Mac. I have been an Apple user from the get go, never had a bug or virus, never been without my computer for service. Bottom Line. The ad is Bogus, misleading and will backfire.

I'm loving the responses from the Mac camp. What amuses me the most is how you can literally count the stock replies.

1) Lauren was an actress hired to do the ad which was scripted.

Nope. Lauren is an office manager/actress (like a lot of people in LA, they're a something/actor or actress). She wasn't hired to BE an actress - in fact she wasn't hired at all. She volunteered to a Craigslist post for a marketing survey. Her pay? One $700 laptop. She wasn't even informed she was going to get to keep it until after the shoot.

2) Viruses.

Wow - I'm really starting to wonder if there's something mentally challenged about Mac users who come up with this one. "Too expensive." "Too difficult." Hi. I'd like to introduce you to Avast, AVG and many others. All free. Takes five minutes to do a Google search, download and install. And most PCs come with some kind of trial antivirus software to keep you safe until you get your own.

I've never had a virus on any of my PCs and two of them are on the internet 24/7 - and one of them is running an IIS web server (gasp).

3) Service.

Interestingly, I know many Mac owners who have had nightmares getting their Macs work. In two different cases, they had to have the motherboard on their MacBook Pros replaced five times before it worked - and they were without any laptop during that time.

On the other hand, I've never had a PC develop problems within its lifespan that required sending it back to the shop.

Clearly your milage may vary in terms of support and service.

In the end, it comes down to this: you can't argue by instance (well, you can - and everyone does - but it's kind of meaningless). You had a bad experience (or someone you know did) therefore everyone must have had bad experiences.

Thing is - the vast, vast majority of computer purchasers are buying PCs. Don't give me the 'but Windows marketshare is declining' - even if true (and it's arguable), Windows is still the OS of choice on 90 to 92 out of 100 computers. Last time I checked, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head forcing them to buy a PC - and all current Macs can run Windows - so even the 'compatibility' argument doesn't hold up.

So, if Macs are so inherently better - such a better deal - so much nicer and sexier and easier and safer... why isn't everyone buying them? "More people are..." Yes, but there's a TON of evidence to suggest they're actually buying iPods and iPhones and getting a Mac to make supporting those easier (the so called Halo Effect).

"More people know about PCs..." I'm sorry - you really are going to try and argue that most people don't know what a Mac is? Given the almost obsessive coverage it gets in the mainstream press? Please - on yer bike...

No.. the Lauren and Giacomo ads are dead on. They describe realistic purchasing patterns. You can argue that's not how people *should* by a computer - but that implies *you* know how everyone should buy a computer.. and clearly, most people in the world disagree.

Funny how none of the requirements for her laptop includes anything that Microsoft actually makes. Kinda makes sense though. What are they going to market? Vista? LOL!

Joe,

There's some fair & reasonable points to be made for the Ad, and it certainly has stirred up the Fan base (of both OS's), but that in of itself does not excuse any of us for falling short in our own debates.

To Whit:

"Mac Pricing Defenses Debunked" ...

a) "Macs are Comparatively Priced" The problem here is the crossing of two distinct issues, which is inappropriate and disingenuous. We've seen before that a comparison of hardware 'equals' that the Macs are generally adequately price-competitive, but the point really being made here was that Lauren bought a $700 17", which means that this is not a comparison of equals, but a comparison of non-equals (due to selectivity in objective measures to a very limited set of metrics): as such, what this really is is a criticism of Apple's lack of broad diversity of product choices.

b) "Price doesn't matter" The problem here is that the so-called classic argument defending Macs didn't say this: it actually said: "Price isn't the ONLY criteria" (sic). In general, what the pro-Mac philosophy generally intends by this is to examine a product's value, not just its initial purchase price. And while you claim that this is bogus, it is the buyer's prerogative to decide how they weigh factors, which can most certainly include total lifecycle costs.

c) "Macs are Better". The problem here is that this one is utterly missing from your 'defenses' list. It probably is alluding to the 'People get more when they pay more for a Mac' statement, which generally is intended to refer to non-hardware aspects of the product, but is generally oversimplified to only be hardware by Windows users, for the simple reason that since all Windows PCs run Windows, there effectively is no software-based product differentiation. Yes Virginia, there is an Apple Tax that has to be paid for Mac OS, and Microsoft's 20:1 advantage in sales volume to amortize OS development costs across is not an insignificant part of the reason why.

d) "Design matters more." Gosh, where did that "More" come from? Sure, its nice to have a nice-looking machine, but its pretty absurd to suggest that it trumps everything else with zero price sensitivity, particularly given the nearly constant comments from Mac fans for more utilitarian computers, such as the "Headless iMac" (aka 'xMac') and a Mac mini that performs better because it doesn't run off of a laptop hard drive. One doesn't have to look very far at all to see consumer dissent from the directions imposed by the Apple Design group, even though in many cases, the Design group does come quite close to hitting the target dead-on.

Summary:

a) Its not really price, but a limitation of product choices for which one can/should be critical of Apple.

b) Price isn't the same as Value.

c) Ignore the product differentiation in the OS at your own peril ... which is precisely what is being ignored when one only compares hardware.

d) Design exists at many levels, with varying levels of {real/perceived} value; See (a).

-hh

After reading so many comments on the Lauren Ad, I noticed that most Mac devotees try to "convince" Lauren that she should buy a Macbook White or fork up more money and get a 17" MBP. But the thing is: she WANTS a 17" screen for under one grand.

While I agree with the argument that Macs are competitively priced considering PCs with similar configuration, once there isn't a single Mac that fits your criteria, that argument is moot.

And yeah, I'm a Mac guy and pretty frustrated because I can't get a fully customizable Mac tower for under 2 grand. I paid $1500 for a Power Mac G4 years ago and it still works in tip top shape, thanks to a few upgrades along the way.

I really want to debunk that shit about Mac design and beauty being worth a premium.

What a load of crap. All the PC brands have premium designs at premium prices, if only u'd open your tunnel visions eyes.

Ever considered a Dell Adamo for premium design/price? A bamboo lappie by ASUS? I'd be grateful to you for locking up some carbon from the air I breathe. A leather ASUS? What about a carbon fibre Sony weighing 900g? Or a Toshiba Protege at 800g (with DVD burner). A Ferrari lappie, or Lamborgini? Or an ASUS gaming lappie with dual harddrives?