One last look at the 'Lauren' I'm a PC ad

Paul, That's not quite fair. Four of those HP laptops would have been 96 cents more expensive than one 17" Mac Book Pro. :-)

I think the Lauren ad is as much about the coolness factor of the Apple as it is about the tax. I have yet to run across an Apple owner (not author or tester) that simply thinks his/her machine is better because its an Apple. Same with iPhone users - they find immense value in applications that fart or tell you how much to tip Of course if I spent that much monet on a device that told me how much to tip on a $15.31 meal at Buffalo Wild Wings would talk the thing up until I was blue in the face.

I like that Microsoft is finally hitting back with this ad, but the HP leaves a lot to be desired. There is no way I would recommend anyone pick up a notebook based on the AMD Turion processor. Additionally, the gimped screen resolution and poor battery life should be key factors to an "average" consumer. In my opinion, Microsoft should have used something more in the $1500 price range that could have competed spec for spec with the 17" MacBook Pro. Such a pick wouldn't have been as dramatic as the $700 HP, but at least it would have been more accurate and fair --- and they still would have won the price war.

On the comparison chart, what is the actual battery life time in reality? I know the HP is very likely wrong, but I can't believe that Apple one is anywhere near accurate either. Nonetheless, it also goes towards the idea how much power does the typical human being need? Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of the Turion as I have one myself, but still, the difference in price there is stunning. People aren't made of money, especially this day in age, so there's no reason they wouldn't look at that HP one more than the Apple.

Comparing a Sony device might be a little bit better in this area, since they do offer machines of equivalent specs. For $1429, you can get a fully loaded AW series Vaio, with BluRay and HDMI, but a smaller screen (16.4 vs 17) and slightly lower resolution (1080 vs 1200). So you could still buy nearly two. Either way, it is all about the value proposition, which the MBP just can't compete on. That doesn't invalidate the choice, but once again, this is just ONE ad of many. I've got the popcorn ready for all day eating, so let's flame on! ;)

"Just so we're clear: For the price of a single 17-inch MacBook Pro laptop, Lauren could have bought FOUR HP laptops." For the price of a MacBook Pro, you can buy one of the HP Laptops and a Tata Nano.

You know, this is a very stupid argument and is unlikely to change anyone's mind. The people who were going to buy Macs are still going to buy Macs. The folks who would never have bought a Mac, still won't buy a Mac. I can't believe there's enough overlap in the two groups to warrant all this discussion.

In the other thread on this topic, go read John Papola's final post. He said everything that needed to be said, and he said it very well. http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2009/03/27/is-pc-wo... I'll only add one point: A tax is something paid INVOLUNTARILY. No one is "taxed" by Apple; people pay for the products because they are perceived as worth the price. The ad is a major strategic blunder for all the reasons that John already stated.

Todd Bishop, who Paul quoted, seems very critical of the ads: http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/Next_up_for_Microsofts_real-life_Wind... http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/How_real_is_real_life_Windows_ad_Appl... http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/Microsoft_keeps_Lauren_incognito_4199...

And the Apple troll links fly!!!!!! chuckb84, DavidR91, and perennial favorite Ocean, start out nicely with a throwback to an old thread, and slam at the HP computer and some links of some guy that sees a grand conspiracy from MS, and must rush in to protect Apple from this scurrilous assault! So far, an 8.5 out of 10!

I went to HP and chose a HDX16t since it could option the same video card as the Macbook Pro. Configuring it the same (RAM, HD, CPU, Network, Photo software, etc) its 2030.99. So it has a 1inch smaller screen but comes with a freed BD upgrade right now. Oh and that included 15 months of AV software. Not quite the same, but still less than Apple.

"Master, I quoted the same guy Paul did. Anything weird about that?" Ocean's right. Todd does seem critical of the ads. He was among the people that floated conspiracy theories about them last week.

As I said before, this ad makes me wanna buy a Mac and Microsoft could as well have said: "If you can afford a Mac, get one!" I'd happily pay 1000$ more for 8 (!!!) hours of battery life instead of 2.5 hours and another 1000$ for the better processor, reduced size and weight, better design and the ability to run Mac OS X. So what's left of the so-called 'Apple-tax'? Nothing. You always get what you pay for.

Ed Bott says she should have went with a Dell: >>Of course, if Lauren had asked me I probably would have suggested she visit Dell’s website and look at the Studio 15 notebook, which is available with nearly identical specs to the HP model above but can be upgraded to an Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 CPU that will run rings around the P7350. When I configured that model at Dell’s website a few minutes ago, it cost a mere $874.<< http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=2449

Ocean: "The people who were going to buy Macs are still going to buy Macs. The folks who would never have bought a Mac, still won't buy a Mac." I think that was absolutely the case a few years ago. However, I'm not so sure that line of reasoning holds as true anymore. The advent of cloud computing means that the browser is increasingly becoming the default interface for users. The operating system and the hardware specs are not as important as they used to be because people are spending the majority of their computing time these days browsing online content. So, the average user who is buying a new computer is simply interested in getting something that is good enough to get online and in this economy why should they pay $1000-2000 when they can get a decent laptop that does the job for $500-$700? I also think the distinction between Mac and PC is far less significant than it used to be. Sure you have your diehards on both sides who will never buy anything from the opposing side but 90% of people just want to pay as little as possible for a machine that does what they want with acceptable performance. A year or two ago, I think many more people were buying Macs because they are very cool and more people could afford them. However, with this economy and how much PCs have come down in price, I still think highlighting the cost difference between Macs and PCs is a perfectly sound argument make.

"Why doesn't MS just let her speak freely? Why did they make her sign a confidentiality agreement? Why wouldn't they release her name to the press or make her available for interviews? It just makes it *seem* underhanded." Because they know idiots like you, and similar idiots in the tech press, have been on a warpath trying to discredit her and MS over this spot. MS took a swipe at Apple, so the tech media desperately wants to take her out for participating in this "evil" ad. MS knows how dishonest and biased the tech media is, so let them choke. They are making complete fools out of themselves, and bringing more attention to this ad at the same time. Maybe Microsoft understands what makes these Apple flunkies, and their press allies, tick, and are now harvesting their derangement for their benefit?

Good point, Master. People, including tech journalists, seem to have the basic premise of the ad wrong. The idea of the ads is to show that "one size fits all" is not for everyone.

I will say that I don't particularly like the execution of the ad. I agree with its premise and the argument it is trying to make but there is something off-putting about the actress and the reality TV-style camera work. I think a similar but more professionally styled commercial could have been done far, far better and thus been more effective.

>>So, the average user who is buying a new computer is simply interested in getting something that is good enough to get online and in this economy why should they pay $1000-2000 when they can get a decent laptop that does the job for $500-$700?<< How far do you go? Linux users could legitimately argue (and some have) that there is a MS tax on hardware that Linux doesn't incur. The big secret is: Most people are going to buy PC's that the majority of their knowledgable friends have. There was a blog entry this weekend where a guy talked about having to drive 50 miles from where he lived just to see Macsbefore buying one, whereas the electronic stores in his little town all had PC's. He'd have to drive 50 miles back to see a 'Genius' if it broke, but he wouldn't for a PC. >>with this economy and how much PCs have come down in price, I still think highlighting the cost difference between Macs and PCs is a perfectly sound argument make.<< I think its a sound argument to make as well. I just think it's dumb for techies to argue about price when we can argue the technical merits. Ed Bott really rips it here. He's such a Windows ideologue. :) http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=2449

For the price of a 17″ mac book pro I can purchase a 17″ windows laptop, a core i7 Windows desktop, and three 22″ monitors. Insert Apple Fan boy reponse below:

"Last month was a the [sic] first downturn for Mac" And you base this on....? http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/03/24/npd-macs-february

bettieblu: Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that "coolness" was the only factor in causing people to choose Macs over PCs a year or so ago - although I do know a few people for whom coolness was the deciding factor. The perception (right or wrong) was that Vista sucked, Macs were of better quality and that the Mac cache was worth paying the premium. For those reasons, and also because people simply had more disposable income, Macs were making modest gains in market share. The situation is a little different now. Vista still doesn't have the greatest reputation but the hardware driver makers finally got their act together and the combination of stable drivers with Vista SP1 has quieted much of the bad press Vista was getting. The mostly glowing press that Windows 7 has received is probably also helping to change the perception of PCs in the media and in the public. Macs are still seen as being of better quality but how much is that quality worth when all you need to do is get online, check your email, and watch funny videos on YouTube of kittens and babies?

Know what would make the "Lauren" spot complete? Howie Long ridiculing the dude at the Genius Bar for leaving his "man-step" down. Or the guys who disavow their self imposed faux-hipsterism when they switch from Starbucks to McDonalds coffee. Or The Slowski's. Have I just not been that observant of advertising before, or is this a new trend, these obvious attacks on the image leader's *customers*, not just the company?

LOL. What exactly did Microsoft contribute to that HP bargain, Microsoft Works? Ugh. I also love how the HP's included software lists Adobe Reader as a value-add... wow, what an incredible freebie, eh? Truth is, the only reason Microsoft can perpetuate this dogma is why their OEM's have chewed each others' margins down to next to nothing. Dell's now struggling after hollowing out their suppliers fighting a margins war with HP. Cripes, why do you think IBM sold their PC division to Lenovo? This ad reeks of desperation on Microsoft's part. Chasing Google, chasing Apple, or chasing the boogieman du jour ... I'd rather they spent their ad dollars convincing me why their software is better than the other guy's. I mean, that's primarily what make isn't it?

Apple took the hit of rewriting its operating system for the modern era. Microsoft is taking the hit of NOT rewriting its operating system for the modern era. There is a Microsoft tax. It's the time and satisfaction that using Windows burns out of you. I'll happily spend a lot to avoid that.