Apple demanded Microsoft to stop its Laptop Hunters ads

PhreePhly said:

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".

john3347 said:

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.

saverio said:

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.

phreephly said:

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!

Joshatdot said:

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

If only they could afford to advertise on television.

john3347 said:

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?)

john3347 said:

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.