Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Apple
Some thoughts on the new Microsoft ads
Well, the new ad blitz from Microsoft has begun. Advertising agency Crispin Porter + Boguksy is back at it with a new web video and click through banners that tell the story of Lauren, a Los Angeles woman (and member of the Screen Actors Guild) who was recruited from Craigslist. She supposedly didn't know she was in a Microsoft ad, but instead thought she was in a laptop marketing test.She was given a thousand dollars after saying she wanted a 17-inch laptop with a good keyboard. She tried an Apple Store, but couldn't find anything at the price she wanted. She wound up with an HP Pavilion (here are the specs) running Windows Home Premium and a pretty slow AMD processor. She has minimal screen resolution and about 2 1/2 hours of battery life if she's lucky. All in all, not a bad machine, but certainly not a 17" Mac which would have been a lot more money.
Of course the laptops were not comparably equipped, so the cards were stacked in Microsoft's favor. That's what commercials do. Microsoft has been pummeled for more than 3 years by the extremely popular Mac vs. PC guys. Microsoft responded last summer with the Mojave ads, where people were tricked into believing they were seeing a brand new OS from MS, when in fact they were just seeing Vista. They were told about the features, and loved them. What they weren't allowed to do, however, was actually use Vista, or try to install it on their own PCs. Those were telling omissions.
Microsoft followed up with the Jerry Seinfeld-Bill Gates ads. They were fun to watch, but had no discernible message. Interestingly, Vista was never mentioned.
Now we come to the new ads, which doubtless will be followed by more shopping trips. In the first ad, Vista is never mentioned, just like in the Seinfeld commercials. Interesting. MS does not make computer hardware. Instead, their main product is an OS which is currently Vista. Yet in 2 out of 3 'expensive' ads, not a word about the flagship operating system.
I suppose Microsoft has written Vista off as a bad investment, and is moving on to Windows 7. But no matter what you think of Macs or PCs, these ads all reek of desperation. Two out of the three series of promotions are based on Microsoft trying to trick their customers. The Mojave spot admits all the participants in the focus group were being tricked. In the latest ad, Microsoft admits the actress wasn't told she was in a company ad, but was going out to compare laptops in a marketing experiment. I really don't think any commercial that is trying to change customers attitudes should involve conning them or trying to mislead them.
You can buy some nice machines running Windows, of course, but when you try to match spec for spec, the Macs and PCs come quite a bit closer in price. Often the warranty and build quality are better on the Mac, and the Mac is not filled with bloatware that has to be removed.
So what is the message exactly? You can install Vista on some really cheap hardware? If so, what will PC vendors say when they try to sell a top of the line product? Or is the message that the economy is bad, so don't invest in expensive equipment? Don't forget that Windows PCs will need a lifetime subscription to anti-spyware software and virus killers; if you don't buy protect yourself, the OS will nag you each and every time you log in. You could try the free versions, and hope they will do the job. And hey, Microsoft, if Vista is so great, why can't you even mention it in your most recent ads?
Oh, by the way Lauren, you scored a good deal at the Best Buy with your new HP laptop. But from the ad it doesn't look like you paid any sales tax. Tsk tsk.
P.S. For some fun, read the hundreds of comments on our sister site, Engadget.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
Rowdehaj said 8:12AM on 3-30-2009
I haven't seen the other two, but do all the ads make frantic attempts to get people to jump onto the 'Macs are too expensive' bandwagon? I mean, *one* is pushing it, but I can get that. What about the other two? It would just be so ... tacky.
Yet again, Microsoft fails miserably in its marketing strategies... Almost as bad as 'The Wow is Now' ads from that black day when Vista launched.
Microsoft shouldn't be adhering to the Apple Mac/PC dichotomy. They should make ads that are completely unaffected by their (relatively smaller) competitors' parlance.
Still, anything they themselves do that inadvertently furthers the Apple agenda, hey, I'm fine with that!
Reply
harveylubin said 9:17AM on 3-30-2009
It used to be that Mac hardware was as different from PC hardware as the Mac OS was different from Windows, but things have changed.
Today, everything except the motherboard and the computer case is the same in Macs as it is in other PCs. All of the CPUs, GPUs, hard drives, RAM, optical drives, etc. come from the same suppliers, and can be bought "off-the-shelf" by anyone.
The only thing that really differs anymore is the OS. And for us Mac users, that makes all the difference in the world. But Mac OS X can now be run on almost any PC made by other manufacturers.
Once users got access to software or hardware (EFI-X) boot loaders, they were able to install and run Mac OS X on computers made by other manufacturers, or even their own custom-built PCs.
The recent Microsoft ad showing a woman buying a less expensive PC misses the point. The ad doesn't even advertise Microsoft's operating system (almost as if they know that they can't compete in this arena), but oddly the ad promotes other PC hardware over Apple's computers by talking about the price advantage.
The big problem being missed by both Apple and Microsoft.
For Microsoft: They are advertising PC hardware made by other companies, but more and more people are buying these other computers and installing Mac OS X or Linux.
For Apple: The point being missed is that many people would like to run Mac OS X, but either find Apple's computers over-priced (which is undeniable considering everyone is using the same hardware components) or the large hole in Apple's product line (there is only one expandable computer and it starts off at about $3,000 configured and goes up from there).
Many people don't want an iMac or a Mac mini. They want a computer that can hold more that one SATA hard drive, has more than 2 RAM slots, is not limited to only a 2-core processor, and has PCI slots to expand it's uses.
Apple computers are better designed and built than the average PC, but the price premium you must pay to get that better design and build, and the lack of a reasonably priced expandable Mac, makes buying other companies' tower PCs a no-brainer for many people.
Personally, I was ready to buy a Mac Pro and was holding out for the new ones that were recently introduced. I was hoping the new Mac Pros would become more affordable, since computers and component prices in general have dropped greatly in the past year, but the price of the Mac Pro is still stratospheric.
Like many other people I need an expandable computer, but the Mac Pro is just too expensive to consider.
After pricing out a Mac OS X compatible computer that has an Intel 3.0GHz Quad-core CPU, nVidia GeForce 9800 GT, 8GB of DDR3 RAM, 1TB hard drive, 5 optical drive bays, 5 hard drive bays, 7 PCI-X slots, DVD burner, Gigabit Ethernet, etc., it was less than half the price of the low-end 4-core Mac Pro. The computer case isn't as "pretty" as the aluminum Mac Pro case, but considering that they would both be hidden under my desk it really doesn't make any difference.
Given the choice of buying this expandable "Mac" for less than $1,500 or paying an additional $2,000 to get a similarly configured low-end 4-core Mac Pro (almost $3,500)... there is no problem choosing.
Honestly, I'd rather buy the Mac Pro but it's not worth an additional $2,000 for the privilege of having it. In the end, it's really about getting an expandable computer that runs Mac OS X, at an affordable price.
If only Apple gave up this stupid reluctance to sell a mid-priced tower computer, as they did in the past. But for more than 10 years now you either have to buy a Power Mac/Mac Pro or nothing at all.
Brian said 12:44PM on 3-30-2009
Yet another exhaustive bout of virtual diarrhea on Mr. Lubin's part. Give it up, Harv. Nobody cares about your "We should be able to run Mac OS on any hardware we want" screed. Your little rant is tangential at best to the point of the article, which discusses another poor attempt on the part of Microsoft ad agency CP+B to out-advertise the marketing savvy Macs.
Mike said 2:41PM on 3-30-2009
In addition to my iMac, I have an Atom-based media server and an EeePC running OS X. They have their problems (the server sends too much power to USB devices and the EeePC crashes whenever I connect an external display), but they work okay to use. I will be replacing them with a Mac mini and Macbook soon, however, as Hackintoshes aren't nearly as good as the real McCoy.
Secondly, I've also price-built computers equivalent to Mac Pro and they always came out *more* expensive. You should also do a fair comparison: the low-end start at $2500, NOT $3500, and feature Nehalem processors which support triple-channel memory (ie, multiple's of 3, 8 GB is not a triple-channel standard, 3/6/12 GB is).
Also: don't forget to add in Vista Ultimate for another $400, and various software suites to get the value of iLife ($500-$1000), and most people use office suites so another $420 for Office ($500 minus the $80 that iWork costs).
glad said 3:53PM on 3-30-2009
I too am sick of this guys rantings can't we drive him out into the desert with a couple of shovels and his hackintosh pc and bury them both.
*Just some girl said 7:13PM on 3-30-2009
I think it's pretty good compared to their other commercials, that's not saying a lot though lol .
Their best commercial so far IMO =)
George said 11:16PM on 3-30-2009
Oh my. It must be one helluva pleasent place, this Appleland. Where to start...First, in all of those Mac ads, you never actually SEE the operating system (and, no, I don't mean Justin Long) and, for the most part, Mac OS X's abilities are not discussed. No, most of them were spent putting down Vista. They pointed out so called problems, most of which were invented by bloggers and those who just hate anything from Microsoft.
Now, hardware wise, there are few differences between the two platforms. The little fruity logo and higher price are the basic differences. Build quality? Why is it that when a new Mac comes out, some of Apple's biggest cheerleaders say they will wait for the second revision or, if they do buy the first, they have to, at some point, take it back for repair? Leo Laport, Scott Borne and Alex Lindsay all come to mind. Three of the loudest cheerleaders for all things Apple. Laporte is always talking about how the first version of an Apple computer always has problems. Why do I seem to regularly see, right here on TUAW, people bitching about some aspect of an Apple compter having a problem. So, there goes your build quality. Next, price. I have an HP Pavilion, quad core FAST AMD processor, 8gb of RAM and 750gb HDD...cost me under $700 new. The closest thing I saw on Apple's store: a $2499 MacPro.
As for Windows...Vista Home Premium 64bit is fast, stable, reliable. I do run AVG only because it is prudent-and you guys should too-but I don't worry about malware. My copy of Office cost $79 (Home and Student Edition) and I use Adobe Photoshop Elements ($59 on sale) but I could very easily use the Windows Live Suite for photo management, movie making and blogging. I'm not nickel and dimed to death either.
While I don't get this whole Apple thing-the unending love for this company and the adulation for its CEO-I will admit that most Apple products (except for the butt-ugly aforementioned MacPro) are pretty and shiny. Well, they are pretty shiny.
Brian said 9:15AM on 3-31-2009
George, a wise man once said, "Don't feed the trolls". You're either sadly misinformed or trying to unnecessarily stir the pot.
First, Apple is is a computer company. They make the hardware AND, wait for it, the software. So their ads reflect the ecosystem of the market they inhabit. Microsoft is only a software company, so it's funny that they send someone out to buy a computer made by a third-party and loaded with their OS and never show said OS. I admit that it's a clever piece of marketing, at least to the Wal-Mart demographic.
Have you actually looked at reliability ratings? Apple is pretty close to the top there. Unscientific and anecdotal evidence culled from your limited observations fly like a lead zeppelin here, bud. In the computer industry, Apple's build quality is probably second-to-none, especially with the new line of notebooks.
So you're comparing your HP Pavilion with an AMD processor to the latest and greatest Mac featuring a Nehalem chip from Intel? I'd love to see the side-to-side benchmarks on that one. I'm thinking the numbers would look something like the score of the 1986 Super Bowl, and your computer would be on the Patriots side of that score.
You qualify for a reduced price Office suite? Good for you. What about the people who can't get their hands on a Student edition Office disk? They're out hundreds of dollars. You had to buy a photo editing tool? iPhoto comes bundled with a Mac. And I've not tried Windows Live Suite, but it's nice to see that Microsoft has finally developed a competitor for iLife. I wonder if it works as seamlessly as iLife?
tom said 8:22AM on 3-30-2009
I feel like you guys are really reaching here.
Macs are expensive. I love OS X, so I pay the Apple tax, but you can't deny its existence (most laptops with similar specs cost less).
Obviously I expect people on an Apple fan site to be fan of Macs, but there comes a point where bias obscures any sort of reasonable dialogue. Throwing in the "PCs get more viruses!!" argument seemed petty and random at the end, too.
I'm pretty sure iWork '09 comes pre-installed on laptops with a 30-day free trial (aka bloatware). There's also the 60-day free trial for MS Office, too.
Reply
-TD- said 8:36AM on 3-30-2009
They used to have this trial versions, but recently they have been taken out.
Yazdgerd said 8:39AM on 3-30-2009
Macs are expensive, but it doesn't change Balmer's ugly operating system.
Quix said 9:32AM on 3-30-2009
Yes Tom, Macs *are* expensive. But let's do an actual *side by side comparison* of that HP laptop Lauren bought for $699 and the 17" MacBook Pro, shall we? And people say Apple's ads are misleading...
Perhaps Top Ramen should do an ad where someone goes out looking for lunch for under a dollar and can't find anything better than a microwaved styrofoam cup of noodles with powdered flavoring.
Good grief.
Schorsch said 9:41AM on 3-30-2009
"most laptops with similar specs cost less"
And?
What about those laptops "with similar specs" that cost the same or more but run the same operating system as the cheaper laptops?
Ever thought about that?
ksmith said 9:54AM on 3-30-2009
Exactly. Apple doesn't make an affordable 17" laptop for people who just want a large screen and the abbility to check email and surf the web. A similar spec'ed wintel machine would approach the price of a MacBook Pro, but most people don't need to edit HD video on the road.
The point of the add? There are PC's in niches where Apple doesn't exsist. If you want to blame someone, blame Apple for not making products to fill that need. But then again, Apple has said time and time again it won't play that game. So really the whole point is moot.
Mel sounds like the stereotypical elitist in this post.
DiezelUnderwood said 11:12AM on 3-30-2009
No, iWork doesn't come pre-installed. There is no trial software from Apple that comes pre-installed on a mac.
GlennAC said 2:33PM on 3-30-2009
@DiezelUnderwood,
True, "iWork doesn't come pre-installed." However, the last couple of MacBook Pros I bought came with a CD with the trial version on it. I'm just saying....
JKT said 11:57PM on 3-30-2009
@harveylubin: "Many people don't want an iMac or a Mac mini. They want a computer that can hold more that one SATA hard drive"
No, about 5 people want that. Please learn the difference between "niche" and "mainstream" before you start talking for the rest of us.
Aaron said 8:22AM on 3-30-2009
The issue for Apple isn't that Windows-based PCs are cheaper. If you compare like-for-like then the price difference is minimal.
The real issue is that Windows gives you choices. Choices that don't exist legally with OSX - netbooks, mid-range towers, low cost 17" laptops, etc. There's so many niches where Apple simply doesn't compete. Choice is the real differentiating factor between Windows and OSX.
Reply
Yazdgerd said 8:56AM on 3-30-2009
These choices are sadly bundled with hundreds of Windows-care hours, some viruses and if you're not professional enough, kilograms of headache to just understand why you suddenly can't login to your own system.
samu said 9:06AM on 3-30-2009
Exactly.
"Of course the laptops were not comparably equipped, so the cards were stacked in Microsoft's favor. That's what commercials do."
That's what, in a lot of cases, reality does. There are a lot of people who want a laptop with a big screen who just don't need a machine of the MacBook Pro's calibre. For them, a Mac would represent really appalling value for money.
I've found Apple's policy of linking screen size so tightly to computing power frustrating before now. In 2005, Apple wouldn't sell a reasonably powerful (for my purposes) laptop smaller than 15", so I got a 13" VAIO, which was great. Now, they won't sell you a laptop larger than 13" that isn't (for many people) pointlessly powerful. This probably alienates even more otherwise potential customers.