Another Harebrained Microsoft Ad: Lauren and Her Quest
Have you seen the ad yet? Lauren only has to find a laptop computer with a 17-inch screen for under a grand and she gets to keep it.
Lauren is a redhead. Long, thick, curly, lovely red hair. Did I mention redheads rule? Well, they do. Curse you, Microsoft, for using Lauren in this ad. Her engaging personality and infectious enthusiasm blinded me, and I eagerly sought the HP web site to pick up that great 17-inch laptop. After all, if it’s good enough for Lauren…
We don’t know exactly what laptop she got, but it’s an HP and has a 17-inch screen. It also rang up for $699, so that narrows the field quite a bit. On the HP notebook page we see the G70t series is listed as having 17-inch screens. Clicking for details, we see a “Quick Ship” model for $699, detailed here. I’m not saying this is the exact model Lauren got, but I think we can all agree it has to be darn close.
Let’s take a look:
- Screen resolution is 1440 x 900. This is only one step up from the MacBook Lauren admitted she wasn’t cool enough to own, yet comes at the cost of a huge and heavy notebook. I’m amazed at the marketing of screen sizes in the PC world, where the 13-, 14-, 15-, and even many 16-inch models come standard with WXGA resolution.
- Last year’s Intel 2.0 GHz processor on last year’s 800MHz front-end bus.
- 3GB of last year’s DDR2 memory.
- Claimed support of 4GB memory, but of course the 32-bit Vista OS can’t address that much, so it’s a bunch of baloney.
- Intel-integrated graphics, which will help suck the 3GB memory dry. Oh, and provide minimal performance.
- Don’t worry about the performance, though, because it’s not as if any worthwhile software comes with the thing. Certainly nothing like iLife.
- No Bluetooth, but then Lauren probably isn’t cool enough to own any BT devices, either.
- The battery? Much like screen sizes, this is another thing PC makers don’t talk a lot about. They keep it small so their already too-heavy notebooks don’t appear even more so. It’s a six-cell battery, which appears to be “up to” 3.5 hours battery life. That’s maybe 2.5 in the real world. Ouch!
- Oh well, as big and heavy as it is you won’t be taking it far from a power outlet anyway, so it doesn’t matter that you can’t.
So, is my point that the HP machine is crap? No. Seriously, it’s not. My point is it’s built to a price, and heavily compromised in the process. Nothing wrong with that; it is what it is.
But Microsoft’s (and HP’s) implication that PC vendors are charging cheap prices yet providing non-cheap components is a load of bull fecal matter. The vendors are — as they’ve always done — selling older CPUs and weak graphics, in a huge case, with little battery life, and festooned with stickers like it’s a trunk that just got back from an around-the-world cruise.
If that’s your thing, great! Add some software and knock yourself out. But don’t kid yourself into thinking you got anything more than you paid for, or found some sort of computer bargain, or know some secret the rest of us aren’t clued in on. You asked for little, and that’s exactly what you got. Of course, if low-ball is really what Lauren was after, she’d have looked into Linux, but this is a Microsoft ad so we’re only concerned with the price of hardware.
Next up, Lauren goes shopping for a car with eight speakers, power everything, and a navigation system. She gets a Kia after deciding she’s not cool enough for a BMW.
Clearly, Lauren doesn’t mind because she’s inexperienced and got the thing for free. Microsoft, please offer me that same deal. I’ll set even lower expectations than Lauren, get some $299 eWaste Linux PC, and save the remaining $700 for Apple’s new Mac mini touch tablet whatever machine due to be released any day now.
Meanwhile, I’m glad Microsoft doesn’t take the Lauren saga to its conclusion. She’ll wise up eventually, and I can honestly say it’d break my heart to see her pulling all that hair out.
Tweet This (18)
Gazoobee on March 27th, 2009 at 10:00 am
It’s worth pointing out that while Lauren is indeed hot, she’s also an actress and not a “real person.” I know a lot of people will say that the audience is more sophisticated nowadays and that most will see through it, but thousands of yokels in trailer parks below the mason-dixon line will believe she’s real.
Andy on March 27th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Would be cool to see Lauren arrive at home and pressing the power on button the first time and wasting her time deleting all the trial software and buying/installing a virus software for an extra yearly rate of $59 or more.
Btw. I like the stickers on the inside of the HP – wow.
Brian Hogg on March 27th, 2009 at 10:20 am
@1 I’ve heard she’s a real person, and an office manager of some sort (who knows if she’s real or not, of course, but there *are* attractive, charismatic people out there who aren’t actors, or who can give an honest appraisal of something without it being scripted).
As for the ad itself, I thought it was cool. I’m writing this on a MBP, though I have been put off more and more by the culture of cool of Apple as of late. It seems like the ad was attempting to point out to that vast majority of people out there who just want a computer that’s good enough to do extremely basic tasks that they can do that more cheaply with a PC than a Mac.
Now, sure, you can get into a strict performance comparison, and OBVIOUSLY a $699 computer isn’t going to compare to a $2000 computer, or even a $1000 computer. But so what? Isn’t the main thing that a person finds what’s comfortable for them? Many people aren’t computer enthusiasts, and just want it to complete a task.
I’m friends with a chef, and he’s got a collection of extremely expensive knives. Why? Because he’s expert, and he actually can tell the difference. Me? I’ve got regular old knives, because who cares? They cut things well enough, and the fact that I COULD spend a lot more money on a superior product — whose benefits I wouldn’t necessarily even notice — doesn’t mean that my less expensive gear sucks.
The anti-Microsoft anger is interesting, though. Why so angry, Tom?
CVBruce on March 27th, 2009 at 10:29 am
What really matters is the customer satisfaction after the sale, because that is what builds brand loyalty.
I would be surprised if Lauren is still as happy with her purchase a year from now.
Stuart Dootson on March 27th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Tom – if you look at the Microsoft page for that ad., there’s a link to the BestBuy page for the HP laptop Lauren ‘bought (it’s http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9166635&st=hp+dv7&lp=1&type=product&cp=1&id=1218041148373).
The specs show that the display resolution and battery life conform to your expectations, the processor is AMD, there’s 4GB RAM and the graphics are by ATI.
mogosh on March 27th, 2009 at 10:37 am
This is some spot on analysis. All I could think was does she have a Facebook page? Can we follow her on twitter? She can use my MacBook anytime.
Howie Isaacks on March 27th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I think a lot of people are seeing through this idiotic ad campaign. This is yet another illustration that Microsoft does not understand why there is a growing number of customers moving to the Mac. If price were the issue, Apple would be out of business, or be forced to move to a lower pricing scheme. When Microsoft claims that the only thing that is different is a “logo”, they show how arrogant they really are, and also how much they disrespect consumers for making a choice that is different from Microsoft.
David B on March 27th, 2009 at 10:53 am
I didn’t read any anger in this article, just incredulity. Really, why does Microsoft have such stupid ads? Is there a particular reason for it? They have enough money, they can hire an advertising agency that doesn’t suck.
As for customer satisfaction, you’re so right, CVB. I’ve had four family members/friends buy PC laptops in the past year, and it usually only takes a couple months before the frustrations rise to surface.
David B on March 27th, 2009 at 10:58 am
I love those Seinfield ads, though. I wish they had kept those coming.
rwahrens on March 27th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Stuart,
Go back and READ the article, windows cannot address more than 3 GB of RAM. Period, no matter how much is installed.
Ryan R on July 21st, 2009 at 1:10 am
Correction, Vista 32 can not address more then 3 GB of ram (which is what I assume is typically installed on PC’s). How ever Vista 64 can address alot more then 3 GB.
Dude on August 20th, 2009 at 11:59 am
My windows machine has 32 gb of RAM. But it has 8 quad core processors and 8 TB of storage running X64. Not your normal windows machine.
Scott L on March 27th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I agree that this Lauren gal is very attractive.
I found the ad to be very effective. Not personally, mind you, I’m a Mac user. The ad might well strike a chord with many people who have been put off by the sticker price of Apple laptops.
When we discuss all the horrors of the Windows world, we are just preaching to the choir. Most folks couldn’t care less about the Macintosh experience. I’m certain that most of us know at least one, if not many, intelligent and successful people who have never touched a Mac.
Staff Comment Tom Reestman, TheAppleBlog on March 27th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Gazoobee,
I don’t make anything of Lauren potentially being an actor, and specifically bypassed that issue altogether. If the premise of the ad was that they followed someone around buying a PC with their own money, it would matter. But the premise is that they’re footing the bill for someone buying a PC that meets specific requirements. Why can’t an actor get that offer?
Unless it’s proven that she didn’t actually buy that computer — and with Microsoft’s money — then the ad is as valid as any other, in my opinion.
Brian,
Anger? I’m at a loss where you got that. Reading your comment and my article it appears we agree on everything. Are you angry? I’m not.
“As for the ad itself, I thought it was cool.”
As did I. I specifically mentioned that Lauren is engaging and infectious. The ad is well done.
“…a $699 computer isn’t going to compare to a $2000 computer, or even a $1000 computer. But so what?” and “…doesn’t mean that my less expensive gear sucks.”
Correct. I went out of my way to explain that the $700 laptop she bought was exactly that: a $700 laptop. Cheap, but there’s “Nothing wrong with that; it is what it is.” I have no issue with that whatsoever, and specifically said as much.
In short, unlike a lot of what I’ve read about the ad, I’m not complaining that Lauren may be an actor, nor am I accusing the HP of being crap. But neither of those are the thrust of the ad anyway.
The thrust of the ad — it’s whole purpose — is to imply that for a lot less than the cheapest Mac you can get a PC that’s even better. In this case, simply having a 17″ display apparently trumps all. That’s nonsense. Cheap is cheap. Nothing more, nothing less. It has its place, it has its adherents, but as I said, “don’t kid yourself into thinking you got anything more than you paid for, or found some sort of computer bargain, or know some secret the rest of us aren’t clued in on.”
That’s not anger. Not even a little bit.
Stuart,
HP is better served using the PC I used; the other one is even worse. Even then, the one I picked was simply representative for a $700, 17″ HP laptop, and the points I made still hold.
adam Jackson on March 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
She also said, “double her budget” a 17″ is more like 2.5x her budget.
Isn’t the 17″ like $2799? She bought a computer for $699.
Champs on March 27th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
The proper conclusion is that she got a $700 computer, not a $1000 computer, and it’s up to you to decide whether the not-awesomely-specced white MacBook is worth another $300. It’s hard to jump up and down for joy over either system, and I’d personally gun for at least a unibody MacBook.
For her money, she got a desktop replacement with a roomy screen, full keyboard, and more than enough battery to sleep the computer from one destination to the next. Without Boot Camp, she’ll get 3.5GB of memory, less whatever is allocated to video. You can quibble about her well- or ill-considered specifications, but they are no more subjective/emotional than “is a Mac/isn’t a Mac.”
madpsychot on March 27th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
One thing to consider: The advert is a Microsoft advert. The only thing being advertised really is a HP laptop. Apple adverts push the Apple brand. They say “use a Mac” or “use iLife”. Shouldn’t a Microsoft advert push the benefits of using Microsoft software? I guess a company that talks about the Mac Tax should also consider the MS tax that almost all computer vendors have to pay for pre-loading Windows on it’s computers.
Aaron on March 27th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
HAHA….her first choice was going to the Apple store and she had to ’settle’ for a PC. My god, who is Microsoft’s advertising agency!
Brian Hogg on March 27th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Tom,
Fair enough, I acknowledge the pieces where you gave the ads props, and as you say, we’re in agreement about it. There’s still a sense in this article, and across the whole of the blog, where it invariably sucks, and it does so not because of any merit or lack of same in the commercial itself, but rather because it’s Microsoft.
Seems that no matter what Microsoft does, it will be knocked down a peg in most people’s estimations because they’re just not cool. If they don’t respond to Apple’s charges, they suck. If they respond with a direct response, they’re losers who are on the ropes because they had to respond in exactly the same way. If they try for something creative and unique it’s deemed a pathetic failure, because look at grandpa trying to be cool. If they succeed in doing something creative, well, there never seems to be much admission that they CAN do that. (Speaking of larger trends on this site and in the Apple fanboy community at large, here)
(I should say that I don’t think Microsoft is “cool,” but it has nothing to do with their ads; they’re the market leader, and the dominant force can’t be cool, by virtue of the fact that they’re the leader. “Cool” is the thing that’s in the minority, so only Apple can be cool, because they’re the thing that only some people are aware of. Cool is the minority, even if the majority is technically or creatively better.)
Also, Tom, it’s the bits where you say:
“But don’t kid yourself into thinking you got anything more than you paid for, or found some sort of computer bargain, or know some secret the rest of us aren’t clued in on. You asked for little, and that’s exactly what you got. Of course, if low-ball is really what Lauren was after, she’d have looked into Linux, but this is a Microsoft ad so we’re only concerned with the price of hardware.
Next up, Lauren goes shopping for a car with eight speakers, power everything, and a navigation system. She gets a Kia after deciding she’s not cool enough for a BMW.”
Why do you go past the critique of the ad to mention this? If the point of the ad is that you can get a computer for all budgets, and she got what she needed and is happy, why bring in the non-sequitor? Your mentioning it is a thing that makes me sense anger, though perhaps the better word is snark.
The Kia/BMW comparison (borrowed from Engadget, unless you’re the one who made that comment) adds to the snark a fair bit, in my opinion.
We agree that the commercial is fun, and that the woman in it does her job well; why should the commercial be doing more than it’s intended to do?
—-
Aaron, I think the point with the Apple store at the beginning was to get it out the way right off the bat, to say that for this woman, an Apple isn’t even in the ballpark.
madpsychot, you don’t think that the cost of a Mac includes the cost of OS X?
Brian Hogg on March 27th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Tom, you said “The thrust of the ad — it’s whole purpose — is to imply that for a lot less than the cheapest Mac you can get a PC that’s even better.”
I’d disagree; I took the point to be that you can get the PC you want for the price you need, and THAT’s better than having to pay more for a computer. Whether or not it’s a better computer is irrelevant, isn’t it? She wanted X+Y+Z, and it doesn’t exist on the Mac.
Stuart Dootson on March 27th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
@rwahrens
Ummmm – calm down, mate. I was just pointing out that the actual specs of the PC were linked to from the MS webpage. I know quite well that (unlike my MacBook Pro) 32-bit Windows can’t address all 4GB. My HP workstation at work does, however (like most WIndows machines), see more than 3GB, even though it’s running 32-bit XP – it can address 3.25GB.
@Tom
I am not (and was not) arguing with the points you made – just pointing out that the actual specs of the PC were linked to from the MS webpage.
Gazoobee on March 27th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I think “Brian Hogg” is an astroturfer. It’s well-known that MS hires people to post on sites just like this one when they put out a product or an add to subtlety talk it up.
I agree with Tom that it doesn’t really matter if Lauren is an actor or not, but for the record she is. She’s a member of the screen actors guild and it’s been discussed on other blogs.
What I’d like to add though, since no one here has mentioned it, is that this ad kind of violates a lot of good advertising practices. It positions the product (Windows laptop) as a cheaper, less “cool” version of a competitors product, which is something you are never supposed to do.
The message of this commercial is, “If you’re *no*t cool, and *not* rich, and possibly a dummy (she picks the computer on looks alone) …. buy our product.” WTF?
They might as well just say “PC’s: Computers for Losers.”
Staff Comment Tom Reestman, TheAppleBlog on March 27th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Brian,
Thanks for the additional comments. I do see your points.
You asked why I went past the critique of the ad to mention the whole Linux thing? Simple. A copy of Vista Home Premium sells for nearly 1/3 of the entire cost of her machine! Obviously, it’s cheaper than that bundled on the machine, but we know that a not insignificant amount of that $699 is for the MS license. The ad is about buying cheap hardware while taking it for granted you’ll use expensive software. It’s an MS ad, so that’s fine, but it was absolutely worth pointing out since the ad took great pains not to.
As for the Kia/BMW line, yeah, I suppose that could be chalked up to snark (or comic effect), since I won’t pretend it was needed to make my points. It’s hardly a new comparison. I didn’t invent it, but certainly neither did Engadget.
Finally, in my comment that the ad is about implying a cheap PC is “better” than a more expensive Mac, you said “I took the point to be that you can get the PC you want for the price you need, and THAT’s better than having to pay more for a computer.”
This is our first real disagreement, but it’s a big one.
To make the point you mention there was no need to include Apple AT ALL. They didn’t need to show the Apple logo and Apple Store (the “Mac Store”). They could simply have shown a $1K 13″ PC laptop right there at Best Buy. But they didn’t. Microsoft brought Apple into the ad as the expensive proposition. Come on, the ad is not about buying a $700 Windows PC instead of a $2,000 Windows PC, it’s about buying a $700 Windows PC instead of an overpriced (by implication) Mac. THAT is absolutely and unquestionably the thrust of the ad.
kyubifox on March 27th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I would love to have a MacBook Pro if Apple would run their own version of this ad and give it to me for free. But you must admit that $2.800 for a 17″ laptop is extremely steep. For $2,800, I can buy a 17″ laptop, OSX to install on it, and have enough left over to buy a smaller MacBook too.
Some other points to mention, the laptop she bought is http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9166635&type=product&id=1218041148373 / http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?docname=c01631353&lc=en&dlc=en&cc=us&product=3860630&lang=en which is a BestBuy retail exclusive and not as weak as the G70t.
The difference between DDR2 and DDR3 are so minuscule that there practically isnt one.
Its 64bit Vista.
Bluetooth adapters are like $20.
And its only 1 pound or so heavier. Hardly a difference, either way you will feel the weight.
The question is, is the MBP hardware worth the extra $2100?
kackler on March 27th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
According to the link on the ad to view the laptop at bestbuy, it’s got 64bit Vista, so she’ll get the 4gb of RAM + the video memory. But what Lauren doesn’t know, is she doesn’t have any of the software she’ll need for photos and videos and watching dvd’s or anti-virus, at least nothing premanent. I’m sure it’s loaded with all the trial software one could want for 30 days… You want to see a true PC to MAC comparison: http://duebles.blogspot.com/2009/03/first-week-with-imac.html
Count Pollen on March 27th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Come on. Life without walls? That must be the reason I used a good firewall when I used a pc ten years ago…
It’s a stupid pc slogan noone will buy…
I prefer linux things better like “Linux is like a wigwam: no windows, apache inside”
;)
Cheers!
Cindy on March 27th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
She’s also gonna turn on the computer and find a lot of crapware already installed on it… for $799, u get what u paid for
kyubifox on March 27th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
@kackler:
You cant compare iPhoto with Photoshop and iMovie with Pinnacle Studio. The only thing you can compare is buying the overpriced Dell installs a $20 wireless card for you service.
If anything, you could compare iMovie with Microsoft Movie Maker, iPhoto with Office’s image editor thing, and Nero with iPhoto and iMovie combined. Or Photoshop to PaintShopPro and Pinnacle Studio to Premier.
Chris on March 27th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
“The question is, is the MBP hardware worth the extra $2100?”
Yes it is, but not necessarily for her. One trouble with Macs is you have to take the limited offerings Apple has.
Of course does she really need a 17″? If she thought about it, would she have got a 13″, or was she now committed by the marketing company to spend the $1000 on a 17″ per the agreement?
Hard to say. The ad does make the point that Windows gives you choice. On the other hand I would have bought the Macbook.
JCdeR on March 28th, 2009 at 4:10 am
I’m a devoted Mac user but the only thing that bugs me about that is that I am part of a world inhabited by a bunch of brainless, shortsighted bunch of egocentric pricks ….
Justin V on March 28th, 2009 at 4:42 am
“Linux is like a wigwam: no windows, apache inside”
I love it!
I think another option is refurbished macs. Apple is selling a macbook air for $999. Still doesn’t have a 17 inch screen but I personally think a much better option.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB003LL/A?mco=MjE0NDk5Mw
Thanks for another great article Tom.
dontfeedthegaijin on March 29th, 2009 at 9:53 am
It’s an effective ad. Microsoft is saying, correctly, that in the PC world customers have a lot more choice, especially at the lower end. You do get more for your money, any way you slice it.
Adrian Woek on March 29th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Cute comment on the knives. However, when the cheaper ones get due or go missing (AKA crash). You’ll have to get another set and therefore in the end, pay twice of what you thought you would pay originally.
Alex on March 29th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Does anyone have a different version of the ad available so I can watch it without downloading Microsoft’s Silverlight?
Like, say, a H.264 encoded Quicktime?
The irony of having to download and install Silverlight on my MacBook to watch an ad about how a $700 HP laptop is somehow better than my MacBook is not lost on me.
Andrew White on March 29th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Here in Australia we get quite a few car adds on the theme “Like a swank european car, only affordable”. Which seems to be the same message from this add.
The difference is that these cars aren’t really competing with the swank euro cars. Instead, they’re trying to give a more budget model an advertising leg-up to make them more attractive. But Win PCs absolutely do compete with Apple PCs in the high end. This add basically completely cedes the high end to Apple; Win PCs are being positioned as “near enough is good enough”, with the implicit but blatant message that you’d buy Apple if you could afford it.
In the big picture, what does this add say? It says that MS is now worried about losing sales to Apple in the mid range too. The message to the mid-range consumer is buy a Win PC now, rather than save up for a Mac. What it means is that Macs are encroaching down, rather than Win PCs encroaching up on Apple.
James on March 29th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
I was in the same situation for my grandparents a month back, they were wanting something decent to upgrade from their Dell laptop, I suggested an iMac because they wouldnt have to purchase any virus software and all the software they need is on it up front for what they need, dont need to install drivers for their printer and its all self contained in one unit – rather than a desktop PC with case/monitor or a laptop with a battery that’ll fail after a while.
They were thinking of a laptop but I suggested the longevity of a Mac vs PC, if they opted for a PC/Laptop they’d likely need to upgrade to a newer one a lot sooner than a Mac, specially a laptop due to the batter life span.
My grandparents chose the iMac as said even though it cost them a good 800$ more than a Dell laptop, they wanted quality vs cheap and replaceable (their Dell laptop lasted about 2 years before the battery charger block failed and needed replacing after a year, and then the battery completely failed.
Took them about a week to get used to the slight differences in the UI but they love it.
Bas on March 30th, 2009 at 2:37 am
@ James
“grandparents”
“Took them about a week to get used to the slight differences in the UI”
yeah, right.
Lefty on March 30th, 2009 at 3:02 am
You don’t really address the points raised in the ad, but sidestep them. Example: “Screen resolution is 1440 x 900. This is only one step up from the MacBook Lauren admitted she wasn’t cool enough to own, yet comes at the cost of a huge and heavy notebook. I’m amazed at the marketing of screen sizes in the PC world, where the 13-, 14-, 15-, and even many 16-inch models come standard with WXGA resolution.”
She didn’t say she wanted “WXGA resolution”: she said she wanted a “17-inch screen”. You’re knocking down a strawman with your response. I’m interpreting all of the agita over this ad as a measure of its successful execution. The Mac partisans aren’t doing themselves any favors with the responses (or attempted responses) I’ve seen so far.
James on March 30th, 2009 at 7:17 am
@BAS,
Just because they’re old doesnt mean they’re stupid!
They’ve been using Windows XP for a couple of years prior, once I setup the iMac to put the icons of software they used regularly on the dock they could use it fine.
OSX and Windows are fairly similar in user interface with slight differences of where the quit and close program functions are.
Katarina on March 30th, 2009 at 7:35 am
I’am a Mac person, a recent happy swither (or switheress), but when I first saw that ad I completely fell in love with Lauren or whoever she may be. It’s impossible how hot and insanely sexy that girl is…
What was that ad for, again?:-))) Microsoft? Really?… OK well…who cares?!
EdSF on March 30th, 2009 at 9:28 am
I’m a Windows drone. I live and breath MS for all my development work – yeah, VStudio/.net.
I’m a new Mac fan. I now live and breath Mac for all my desggn work – yeah, Adobe CS, Quark, FCP, you name it.
The point? Pick the right tool for the job. More specifically, pick the right tool for your own capabilities and strengths. It’s not the other way around – who are we all kidding here?
Quit the Mac is better, or Windows is better cheerleading – if you’re a “sophisticated user” you’ll know this is a “load of bull fecal matter”.
The ad targets a specific type of user, and that’s it. Does it appeal to me? Yeah, she’s hot. The PC choice? Sure, when I need to get all purpose machines. Will it affect me in my preference for workstations? Ah – nope, workstations don’t qualify in this price range, and depending on what I need to do, I can choose either PC or Mac.
David B on March 30th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Am I only one who didn’t think she was hot? I even like redheads.
bv on March 30th, 2009 at 11:31 am
“Please install silverlight to watch this ad” = MS can’t even do viral videos correctly.
Anders Gjerløv on March 30th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Hi,
I didn’t see this myself the first time around, bur read it somewhere. The ad’s story is that she actually went into the “Mac Store” and did some research, and then found out that 17″ screen wasn’t possible for 1000$.
Please note the guy she passes going into the store is still in the picture going out of the store. He has walked what… 10 meters? She never went into the store, and she is probably an actor.
As for comparing the HP Pavillion with a 17″ Macbook Pro – it’s not an even match, so no surprise the price difference is so great. Mac’s are expensive. And right now with everybody thinking “Global financial meltdown” – it’s an easy jab to make this type of ad. I hope people do some research before spending $700 on a PC. It MIGHT be the right PC for you – but chances are, you’d want something better.
Simo on March 31st, 2009 at 6:55 am
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
nehalem on March 31st, 2009 at 2:56 pm
argue all you want, but the facts are the facts: she got a 17″ laptop for $699, that is at least as capable as the 13″ macbook that costs $300 more. Performance, it will take maybe half a second longer to open a doc or webpage, she can probably live with that.
out of the box , it will burn and play DVDs, run tens of thousands of open source or paid software. And yes, it will have crapware on it, that is easily removed.
Tom, I don’t think she got more than she paid for, she got what she paid for at a fair price.
Boze on March 31st, 2009 at 4:53 pm
There are quite a few comments being made here without any sort of facts thrown in.
People are claiming that “Lauren” is an actor, yet are providing no references to prove this. If you’re going to make a claim, please provide the reference that proves it, otherwise, its just your uninformed opinion.
I know this is an Apple web site, so the bias is obviously going to be towards Apple products, but the fact is, pound-for-pound of machine, she got more performance out of her $1000 by buying a Windows-based computer.
In fact, if you want to really do a fair comparision, then take this MSI computer, which has the same integrated graphics chipset as the $999 Macbook, twice as much RAM, the same processor, and 40 GB more hard disk space: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152101
If you’re truly ready to pull no punches, then look at this machine for $999 and compare it to your $999 Macbook: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220488
That machine’s specs run absolute circles around a $999 Macbook. And before the ridiculous 4 GB memory addressing comments come up again, you can request a 64-bit version of Windows Vista free of charge, directly from Microsoft, by contacting them.
Most people are approaching this completely incorrectly, by trying to debunk the quality of her laptop’s hardware. You won’t win that argument. You will fail and be disproven each and every time. The argument that you can win, and the argument that you should be making, is a subjective ease-of-use argument about Mac OS X. When you buy an Apple product – any Apple product – you are paying for the ease-of-use and quality of the software (although both can be debatable to an extent).
The sooner the PC camp and the Apple camp can see that, the sooner we can end these pointless arguments are try to get OS X as widely available as Windows Vista. I personally would love to try OS X on my custom-built machine. What I personally won’t do, is hand over literally three times the money to Apple to get the same thing I built myself.
Staff Comment Tom Reestman, TheAppleBlog on March 31st, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Boze,
The first machine you pointed out suffers from nearly everything that Lauren’s did. Older wireless technologies, older bus speed, older memory, HUGE size, heavy, bad battery life, and for all that the 17 inch screen is only 1440 x 900. No wonder it’s the same price as what Lauren chose, it made nearly all the same compromises!
And thanks for suggesting I buy a cheap machine and then have MS send me a new OS so I can blow it all away and reinstall to make use of all my memory. What’s your time worth?
Meanwhile, the other machine you mentioned is much more competitive with the MacBook, but then again it’s also the same price. By the way, that machine has a smaller screen than the one you mentioned above, and yet it’s more expensive. How can that be? Didn’t Lauren teach us that screen size trumps all? Wait a minute. Is it possible that better components, in a better-designed package, actually cost MORE? In fact, is it possible that by pointing out this machine you’re actually helping to prove the point I made in my article? Why yes, yes it is possible. Thank you.
Oh, and by the way, she’s an actor:
http://laurendelong.com/
Boze on April 1st, 2009 at 2:18 am
Actually Tom, I’m disproving your point… I kinda already have, but I’ll do it again, and this time I’ll be sure to elucidate for you.
Here’s a quote from your article:
But Microsoft’s (and HP’s) implication that PC vendors are charging cheap prices yet providing non-cheap components is a load of bull fecal matter. The vendors are — as they’ve always done — selling older CPUs and weak graphics, in a huge case, with little battery life, and festooned with stickers like it’s a trunk that just got back from an around-the-world cruise.
I would submit that a reasonable person would surmise the purpose of your article is to not only say that the new Microsoft commercials attempt to propose something that isn’t true.
Let’s break down the premise of the commercial. Microsoft gave someone $1000 to purchase a computer of their choice, with the caveat being that in order to keep the computer, it had to be $1000 or less total purchase price. I am assuming they’re including tax, but I can’t say for certain.
Since the laptops in my first post don’t seem to sit well with you for several reasons, I’ve done a little more research and found one that would meet the commercial’s criteria, and incidentally, yours as well (since you appear to be under the belief that quantity of features cannot coexist with quality).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834152086
This is the MSI GX620-001US. It has twice as much RAM as the current white Macbook, it has a slightly faster processor (2.26 gHz versus 2.00 gHz), nearly triple the hard disk space, a slightly larger screen, a slightly more powerful Nvidia chipset, and supports all current industry standards for wireless communications networks (802.11a,b,g, and n). It also comes preloaded with Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit edition – no need to contact Microsoft with this one, just turn it on, make a user account, and start computing.
Yet it costs $50 less both at Newegg and at Amazon.com. Is it possible that better components – and more of them actually cost less? Why yes, yes it is possible.
You are paying for a name and an operating system. Nearly all the components used in Apple desktops, laptops, portable media players, phones, and yes, even servers, are produced by third-party OEMs… exactly the same way that Hewlett-Packard, Dell, MSI, and dozens of other Windows-based system.
I have nothing at all against someone who says they like a Mac because they believe its easier to use (a function of the operating system). My older brother designs websites and has used Windows-based machines for decades, about three ago, he switched to a Macbook Pro. I don’t begrudge him that, nor do I make fun of him or browbeat him – all for one simple reason. He was honest enough to admit to me that you pay a significant premium for the Apple name and the Mac OS X software. That reason, I can, nay, I must accept, because you cannot argue with someone over a belief; its pointless, and moreover, mutually frustrating.
You can, however, argue over facts… and you would have readers believe that a Windows-based machine is somehow inferior with inferior internal components (your words… not mine) than an Apple machine, and that sir, is simply not true.
Staff Comment Tom Reestman, TheAppleBlog on April 1st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Boze,
I still just see this proving my point. My point was that a cheap price means cheap components, and Microsoft’s implication otherwise is BS.
The $699 PC Lauren bought, the $699 PC I mentioned in the article, and the $649 PC you specified in your first comment (all of them 17 inch) share old processors, bus speeds, memory, weak batterys, while also being huge, heavy, and offering only 1440 x 900 resolution. They are what they are, but all you’re getting for your roughly 700 bucks is a cheap PC that’s big and heavy. Still, that’s enough to please Lauren, which is fine.
When you step up to ~$999 with the MacBook and MSIs you mentioned, you get more respectable components, yet the screen is considerably smaller than 17 inches. It’s worth pointing out that NONE of these PCs would be good enough for Lauren; THEY ARE TOO EXPENSIVE.
They all have the same resolution (1280 x 800). Sure, I acknowledge the slightly faster processor, more memory, etc. But I’m buying a complete laptop, not a spec sheet, so I also acknowledge the smaller size, weight, and better battery life of the MacBook. Trade-offs, all. Whether you prefer the PC or the Mac was never my point. My POINT was that better components cost more money, and that’s just what we’re seeing.
Microsoft could easily have used the very PCs you’re touting as example of ones too expensive (and even “inferior”, since they have much smaller screens) for Lauren. They used the Mac simply as a marketing tactic, as if PC vendors can use quality components and still only charge 700 bucks. THAT is what I called BS on.
Ian on April 2nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww152/im3ngs/lauren_microsoft_mac.jpg
Brian Hogg on April 6th, 2009 at 10:04 am
What’s with the continued comments about the Mac needing a lot less replacing than a PC? I’ve owned PCs for most of my computer life, and they’ve all survived a good long time. Why is it accepted as factual that the correct math is 2 PCs for the lifespan of 1 Mac? Are there numbers to back that up?
Seems to me that some people swear up and down that Macs die quickly, based on personal experience. Some swear that Macs last a long time, based on personal experience. Some insist that PCs die quickly, based on personal experience, and some insist that they last a long time, again based on personal experience. It seems to me that based on the quality of the individual computer you buy, not the product line, you’ll get a vastly different view of the computer, and extend it in to an assumption about the brand as a whole.
Also, re a response to my knives comment: You’d have to replace the expensive knives eventually, and if the cheap ones work for you, and unless the numbers sync up EXACTLY (unless a knife half the price of the big guy dies exactly half way through the life of the expensive), the expensive will still end up costing you more.
Also, to the accusation of me being an astroturfer, I suppose that the implication there is that the only way I can be a Mac user is if I’ve drunk the Kool-aid? Hmm. That’s a rather weird line of logic, and not at all true; I like my Mac quite a bit, but I’m not so attached to the brand that I view an add pointing out a lack of value to it as an attack on me personally.
Brian Hogg on April 6th, 2009 at 10:06 am
@Ian I agree that that’s an interesting picture, and it may indeed be that they faked that part of the commercial; there’s not enough information to tell. However, given the fact that when Lauren walks into the Apple store, the guy is himself looking at the store, and when she comes out of it he’s walking away, wouldn’t it seem just as likely that the photographer (who, golly, would be the target audience for the Mac) went in to look at the computers himself?
free microsoft point on September 1st, 2009 at 6:06 am
I suggested the longevity of a Mac vs PC, if they opted for a PC/Laptop they’d likely need to upgrade to a newer one a lot sooner than a Mac, specially a laptop due to the batter life span.