Apple demanded Microsoft to stop its Laptop Hunters ads

[Joshatdot]

I remember the old Mac comercials from early 2000's, and then this came out...loved it

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxPXFptzQRY"]YouTube - Mac Gamer Spoof[/ame]

 

[Lordbob75]

Mmm, I just can't agree with you for that. OS X isn't supposed to run on anything other than Apple hardware. In fact, it's part of their EULA (non-Apple PCs running Mac OS are called "Hackint0sh"s for a reason). It's almost like saying a Civic engine didn't work so well in an F-150.

Thats the point exactly. That is the reason that Macs work so well. They only want it to work on their specific hardware. Which is also why they are so expensive. The difference is that you can never balance price you want, with performance you want. You get high-price with medium to high performance. There is no economy option.

That doesn't make sense at all. So if Apple does it, there's nothing wrong. But when Microsoft does it, they are nasty? That's simply illogical. In case you don't know, Laptop Hunter ads do not criticize Apple. They simply show consumers others opinions of different products. There's nothing in the ads that Mac Fanatics can disagree with.

Of course it doesn't make sense. It's Apple.

(no offense.... lol)

~Lordbob

 

[darkassain]

I remember the old Mac comercials from early 2000's, and then this came out...loved it

YouTube - Mac Gamer Spoof

the one that caught my attention the most (and made laugh so hard when i first saw it) was this ad (which is part of the old Mac switch commercials..)

 

[DJG]

Thats the point exactly. That is the reason that Macs work so well. They only want it to work on their specific hardware. Which is also why they are so expensive. The difference is that you can never balance price you want, with performance you want. You get high-price with medium to high performance. There is no economy option.


Of course it doesn't make sense. It's Apple.

(no offense.... lol)

~Lordbob

You CAN get high-performance at low price - you just need to be a PC geek to do so ...

Edit: I just realized you were probably refering to Apple ...

 

[Joshatdot]

the one that caught my attention the most (and made laugh so hard when i first saw it) was this ad (which is part of the old Mac switch commercials..)

HAHA! I forgot where that audio clip came from. I've seen it so many time on AMV Hell, I forgot it was a real apple/switch commercial

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdqOIju4lL4"]YouTube - AMV Hell Think Different Clip[/ame]

 

[saverio]

Mmm, I just can't agree with you for that. OS X isn't supposed to run on anything other than Apple hardware. In fact, it's part of their EULA (non-Apple PCs running Mac OS are called "Hackint0sh"s for a reason). It's almost like saying a Civic engine didn't work so well in an F-150.

I know, but needless to say it was just an experiment to see for myself if I still missed the mac OS, and now i'm back to a raid set of W7.

My point was, as Lord Bob has understood, was to make my Mac owning pal understand why he and I both preached the 'it just works' mantra but now I say, it's not so. It took a load of effort to make it run on my machine which is a quarter of the cost of his apple store spec'd unit.

The cheapest they do now is the mac mini, which in itself still needs monitor and KB and mouse, so ultimately never really works out that cheap.

 

[schmoey]

I know, but needless to say it was just an experiment to see for myself if I still missed the mac OS, and now i'm back to a raid set of W7.

My point was, as Lord Bob has understood, was to make my Mac owning pal understand why he and I both preached the 'it just works' mantra but now I say, it's not so. It took a load of effort to make it run on my machine which is a quarter of the cost of his apple store spec'd unit.

The cheapest they do now is the mac mini, which in itself still needs monitor and KB and mouse, so ultimately never really works out that cheap.

It just works.

And it costs you an arm and leg.

Lol.

 

[saverio]

you're not wrong lol

 

[PhreePhly]

I used to be a real Apple fanboy till I started playing with W7 beta.

And, my battlecry was always "it just works, well you pay more, but they last longer - don't date as quickly"

I recently tried to install a copy of OS X on my PC, and finally did it - I can honestly say no, your stuff doesn't 'just works' ... well it does, but the sentence isn't complete - it should be "it just works - on apple stuff"

It dawned on me, I needed a cooked bios, new driver kexts, and loads of messing around in order to get a retail paid for version of os x to run on my collection of bits in a case. Whatever jumble of junk I have in that case, I load W7, and it... just works!

I was discussing this with a friend of mine who still has his mac, and he preached to me like I preached to others in the past, it was a real deja-vu wierd moment.

I said look, I can build a really good powerful machine for under 700 gbp - I really want a mac pro but at over 2k, have you any idea what I could build for that money !!

The mac mini just doesn't cut it, and the imac- yep , i've had two, but i'm damned if i'm paying premium dollar for essentially a static laptop, however nice the screen is - and then Sony and HP offer the same form factor but with bigger screens and specs.

Don't get me wrong, I still love the mac OS X, I really think that there is nothing in W7 to beat coverflow for browsing folder contents or expose , or the disc utility, but their hardware comes at a real premium.

Said friend, bought a mac mini (600) with BT keyboard and mouse (100) and the new LED display (650) . . sure, it all looks lovely... but video editing? photoshop? Maya? nah.

I'm drifting, the Microsoft ads never confront apple head on, and in this case, the customer makes the observation, not MS - i'm sure it's scripted, but you get the gist.

How can apple say this, when their advertising campaing was a direct assault on the deficiencies of their competitor? If anything one could say that they,with the uneducated sensationalist media contributed to the failure that was Vista. I know lots of people who wont touch vista with a pole, but don't really know why.

I can see the next legal threat will be when Apple informers see Microsoft staff wearing a black roll neck in an ad. - Why pay 20 for a rollneck when you can charge 200? but hey, it just works.

I just wanted to say, I really appreciate this post. It's nice to see a Mac user actually use logical reasoning.

I'll start off saying (and you can search my old posts) that I am not a Mac Fanatic, but I'm having a hard time believing this story regarding the ads. Apple's legal department is not going to call MS's marketing group and complain about an ad, this just doesn't make sense.

Now for my commentary.

Many people make the mistake of looking at Apple as a software company, but they are not. Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. They happen to make an OS to run on their hardware, but it isn't really their main product. This OS is visually very nice, and even the most die-hard MS supporter should recognize the attention to detail that Apple puts into OSX. Apple also has some very highly regarded UX folks that know how to make even complicated apps easy to understand.

The problem is that the Mac User base is mistaking pretty with bullet-proof. While OSX is built on Unix, Apple made a few decisions that have made OSX less than secure. Apple seems to think they are immune, and there will be a day that some blackhat org is going to lay waste to OSX, just to prove a point.

The point you are making about Windows and hardware is huge. Apple has to only support a very small configuration set, and they are more than willing to obsolete an entire line to move forward. Their userbase is so small, relative to MS, that they really don't care who they screw.

MS, on the other hand, has made a business decision to support backwards compatability. Many suggest this stunts Window's growth, but is why MS has about a 93% Userbase worldwide. On top of that, MS supports basically an infinite configuration set of hardware. Linux comes pretty close to supporting the same set, and includes completely different architectures that Windows doesn't.

What Windows has is a standard. Everyone knows Windows and Windows programs. And while the GUI between Vista and XP is visually different, the basic functions are the same. The number of mouse-clicks hasn't really changed.

PhreePhly

 

[john3347]

Linux??

"I wonder how Apple & MS would react to a commercial for Linux OS PC's "


They would just laugh it off like everybody else does.

 

[Lordbob75]

You CAN get high-performance at low price - you just need to be a PC geek to do so ...

Edit: I just realized you were probably refering to Apple ...

LOL. Yeah, I was.

~Lordbob

 

[darkassain]

"I wonder how Apple & MS would react to a commercial for Linux OS PC's "


They would just laugh it off like everybody else does.

you may never know...
just so you know Chrome OS *is* based on a linux core and you know how much press that got...

 

[john3347]

MS, on the other hand, has made a business decision to support backwards compatability.

PhreePhly

WHAAAAAAATTTTTT????? This statement might have been true more than 10 years ago, but how could you make such a statement today? Do you not remember how everybody had to buy all new equipment and buy all new software when Windows XP was introduced? Do you not remember how everybody had to buy all new equipment and buy all new software again when Vista was introduced? This is called "planned obsolence", not "backwards compatability".

 

[PhreePhly]

WHAAAAAAATTTTTT????? This statement might have been true more than 10 years ago, but how could you make such a statement today? Do you not remember how everybody had to buy all new equipment and buy all new software when Windows XP was introduced? Do you not remember how everybody had to buy all new equipment and buy all new software again when Vista was introduced? This is called "planned obsolence", not "backwards compatability".

No. Honestly, I never had a piece of software not work on Vista that worked on XP. There were a few drivers, but that is to be expected.

I never made the move from Win9x to XP. I ran NT from the initial beta. I have softeware I wrote on Win 3.11 for Workgroups that still runs on 32-bit Win 7. That is backward compatability. This software was written in 1992. You bet that MS is very concerned about backwards compatability and they have done an excellent job of it.

As far as hardware goes, older hardware will always have a hard time with new OS's. Vista was a major update from XP and almost 6 years in the making and in the hardware world, an eon.

PhreePhly

 

[nix21]

WHAAAAAAATTTTTT????? This statement might have been true more than 10 years ago, but how could you make such a statement today? Do you not remember how everybody had to buy all new equipment and buy all new software when Windows XP was introduced? Do you not remember how everybody had to buy all new equipment and buy all new software again when Vista was introduced? This is called "planned obsolence", not "backwards compatability".

Really? Kinda of broad statement. I had no problem when I went to XP at all. Maybe a driver or two, but that was an easy fix. As for going to vista, didn't have to buy all new hardware. MS released it too early and there were no drivers available. I stuck with XP, until more drivers were released and Vista was fine after that. Win7 was even easier.

 

[BCXtreme]

I used to be a real Apple fanboy till I started playing with W7 beta.

And, my battlecry was always "it just works, well you pay more, but they last longer - don't date as quickly"

I recently tried to install a copy of OS X on my PC, and finally did it - I can honestly say no, your stuff doesn't 'just works' ... well it does, but the sentence isn't complete - it should be "it just works - on apple stuff"

It dawned on me, I needed a cooked bios, new driver kexts, and loads of messing around in order to get a retail paid for version of os x to run on my collection of bits in a case. Whatever jumble of junk I have in that case, I load W7, and it... just works!

I was discussing this with a friend of mine who still has his mac, and he preached to me like I preached to others in the past, it was a real deja-vu wierd moment.

I said look, I can build a really good powerful machine for under 700 gbp - I really want a mac pro but at over 2k, have you any idea what I could build for that money !!

The mac mini just doesn't cut it, and the imac- yep , i've had two, but i'm damned if i'm paying premium dollar for essentially a static laptop, however nice the screen is - and then Sony and HP offer the same form factor but with bigger screens and specs.

Don't get me wrong, I still love the mac OS X, I really think that there is nothing in W7 to beat coverflow for browsing folder contents or expose , or the disc utility, but their hardware comes at a real premium.

Said friend, bought a mac mini (600) with BT keyboard and mouse (100) and the new LED display (650) . . sure, it all looks lovely... but video editing? photoshop? Maya? nah.

I'm drifting, the Microsoft ads never confront apple head on, and in this case, the customer makes the observation, not MS - i'm sure it's scripted, but you get the gist.

How can apple say this, when their advertising campaing was a direct assault on the deficiencies of their competitor? If anything one could say that they,with the uneducated sensationalist media contributed to the failure that was Vista. I know lots of people who wont touch vista with a pole, but don't really know why.

I can see the next legal threat will be when Apple informers see Microsoft staff wearing a black roll neck in an ad. - Why pay 20 for a rollneck when you can charge 200? but hey, it just works.

I agree with your main point very strongly. Apple's main problem here is arrogance.

After one of the first Laptop Hunter ads, Apple actually responded by saying that saving money doesn't help if the computer doesn't work. They actually claimed that a Vaio FW laptop "doesn't work."

Then at WWDC 09 they made a slew of derogatory comments about Windows 7, all of which were outright lies. We all know that Apple didn't have someone test Windows 7 before making those remarks.

I find it so strange that Apple can get away with whatever bad business practices they want, with ZERO consequences. The EU is getting on Microsoft's case for bundling Internet Explorer with Windows; why not attack Apple for bundling Safari with OS X? Microsoft is accused of maintaining a monopoly in the PC market; Apple's legal department considers it a crime to install OS X on a computer they didn't build. People like us run hundreds of programs on our computers that have not been certified by MS; Apple has a killswitch in place on the iPhone that can let them deactivate any app on the device if they suddenly decide they don't like it.

The ultimate example of Apple arrogance is Snow Leopard's tagline: "The world's most advanced operating system." It's not. Windows can do more than Mac. Linux can do more than Mac. The only thing exceptionally advanced about Mac is the fancy graphics and special effects (cover flow, etc). And guess what? Last time I checked, you can get a lot of those fancy effects and UI in Windows, through the use of customization programs. So there goes the Snow Leopard tagline!

C'mon Apple, you whine and complain about MS criticizing your high prices in a commercial? The next commercial on the air had your Steve Jobs lookalike insinuating that PC users are stupid clumsy nerds. It doesn't take one of your "Geniuses" to figure out which insult is worse.

Many people make the mistake of looking at Apple as a software company, but they are not. Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. They happen to make an OS to run on their hardware, but it isn't really their main product. This OS is visually very nice, and even the most die-hard MS supporter should recognize the attention to detail that Apple puts into OSX. Apple also has some very highly regarded UX folks that know how to make even complicated apps easy to understand.

The problem is that the Mac User base is mistaking pretty with bullet-proof. While OSX is built on Unix, Apple made a few decisions that have made OSX less than secure. Apple seems to think they are immune, and there will be a day that some blackhat org is going to lay waste to OSX, just to prove a point.

The point you are making about Windows and hardware is huge. Apple has to only support a very small configuration set, and they are more than willing to obsolete an entire line to move forward. Their userbase is so small, relative to MS, that they really don't care who they screw.

MS, on the other hand, has made a business decision to support backwards compatability. Many suggest this stunts Window's growth, but is why MS has about a 93% Userbase worldwide. On top of that, MS supports basically an infinite configuration set of hardware. Linux comes pretty close to supporting the same set, and includes completely different architectures that Windows doesn't.

What Windows has is a standard. Everyone knows Windows and Windows programs. And while the GUI between Vista and XP is visually different, the basic functions are the same. The number of mouse-clicks hasn't really changed.

Hear hear!

 

[BuzWeaver]

I wonder how Apple & MS would react to a commercial for Linux OS PC's

If only they could afford to advertise on television.

 

[BCXtreme]

WHAAAAAAATTTTTT????? This statement might have been true more than 10 years ago, but how could you make such a statement today? Do you not remember how everybody had to buy all new equipment and buy all new software when Windows XP was introduced? Do you not remember how everybody had to buy all new equipment and buy all new software again when Vista was introduced? This is called "planned obsolence", not "backwards compatability".

Actually it's called "get with the 21st century". I can personally attest that I did not need all new equipment, nor all new software, to upgrade from Windows 98 to ME, and then to XP. I bought a new computer for Vista, but only because my XP rig only had 384MB of RAM, which is barely enough to run Linux. Not to mention, the XP rig was ready to replaced for other reasons. Windows 7 runs like a dream on my Vista rig.

And hardware aside, you really can't complain if a program written for Windows 95 doesn't work on XP or newer. It is the developer's responsibility to update the program to the 21st century. If they refuse, then the users need to find a newer, better program that is being actively maintained.

(And Apple just ditched OS X support for all Macs older than 2006. So who's got the real problem with backwards compatibility?)

 

[Klaw117]

WHAAAAAAATTTTTT????? This statement might have been true more than 10 years ago, but how could you make such a statement today? Do you not remember how everybody had to buy all new equipment and buy all new software when Windows XP was introduced? Do you not remember how everybody had to buy all new equipment and buy all new software again when Vista was introduced? This is called "planned obsolence", not "backwards compatability".

Backwards compatibility deals primarily with software, not hardware. For example, many businesses use Windows because they still support business programs made 30 (yes, 30) years ago. However, Macs cannot support software made more than around 5 to 10 years ago.

However, if you think about it, the hardware is somewhat backwards compatible also because some people up in Microsoft HQ have gotten Windows 7 to work on a computer with a Pentium II processor and 96 MB of RAM (I have no screenshot to prove this, but my brother works at Microsoft, so I get all my info from him). However, Max OS X v10.5 only works on Macs using Intel processors and not older Macs using the PowerPC processors. Also, you can upgrade PCs by yourself. However, with Macs, you have to take it to the Apple Store and have them upgrade it for you or just buy a whole new computer.

 

[Muad Dib]

Apple's strategy from the start was to create and sell Ferrari's to an elite group of well-to-do snobs and make owning a PC a symbol of "having made it" in the world. They wanted absolute control and a VERY large % if not 100% of the profits from all Apple related products and services. My first PC was an Apple IIe. Nice machine in its day.

IBM wanted absolute control and 100% of the profits from IBM DOS and any hardware they licensed the IBM BIOS to.

Bill Gates, like Henry Ford, created and marketed a Model T (MS-DOS) that even the lowliest of the population could afford. If not for themselves then for their children. His strategy changed PCs from a $$$ status symbol to a generic toaster found in every kitchen (Ok - maybe a washing machine, price wise, found in every laundry room). To the 3rd party hardware and software vendors he said - "Have at it, may the best products/services win!", and prices for all plummeted from OPEN market competition. And the population benefited.

Did he become the richest man in the world as a result? YES. Did MS come to dominate the market? YES. Do I resent their success? NO!

I, for one, am grateful, Bill Gates and MS are an example of entrepreneurial "Carpe Diem". They "seized the day" at a critical point in the history of technology.

But they did not grip the reins tightly as Apple and IBM attempted to do. They gave a wild horse a loose rein and held on for the ride. Many other industries simply grabbed the horses tail and did the same.

The existence of this forum is only one example of the consequences of the Apple versus MS strategies.

And I think the best horse won! That is the way of the free market.