Most people buy vendor PC's which 99% of the time have a Microsoft OS pre-installed, so they're advertising what people will see as the bottom line. Advertising just their OS would take away the point of the whole Mac vs PC debate. This way Microsoft is associating themselves with a variety of hardware makers which can be considered an advantage.
- Status
grieve
Distinguished
- Apr 19, 2004
- 2,709
- 0
- 20,790
[citation][nom]badaxe2[/nom]Most people buy vendor PC's which 99% of the time have a Microsoft OS pre-installed, so they're advertising what people will see as the bottom line. Advertising just their OS would take away the point of the whole Mac vs PC debate. This way Microsoft is associating themselves with a variety of hardware makers which can be considered an advantage.[/citation]
Exactly.
Exactly.
keither5150
Distinguished
- Sep 7, 2008
- 369
- 0
- 18,780
I think that MS is wasting money and here's why.
Although misguided, the public's perception of Vista is that it is a failure. Over the past 2 years of this so-called failure, Apple has very minor gains in the PC market.... about 2% market gain over 2 years.
Microsoft should be conserving advertising dollars at this time. I would just sit on my big pile of money and wait for Windows 7 to arrive. The money would have been better spent on Zune.
Windows 7 will most surely stop the minimal growth that Apple has enjoyed over the past 2 years.
I've tried windows 7 and think that many Apple users will find it appealing. No pun intended.
Seinfeld was clearly a waste of money.
BTW, I won't be buying windows 7. The only way I will buy win 7 is if they offer H264 support on win 7 media center but not on Vista media center. I hope that this won't be the case.
Good article.
Although misguided, the public's perception of Vista is that it is a failure. Over the past 2 years of this so-called failure, Apple has very minor gains in the PC market.... about 2% market gain over 2 years.
Microsoft should be conserving advertising dollars at this time. I would just sit on my big pile of money and wait for Windows 7 to arrive. The money would have been better spent on Zune.
Windows 7 will most surely stop the minimal growth that Apple has enjoyed over the past 2 years.
I've tried windows 7 and think that many Apple users will find it appealing. No pun intended.
Seinfeld was clearly a waste of money.
BTW, I won't be buying windows 7. The only way I will buy win 7 is if they offer H264 support on win 7 media center but not on Vista media center. I hope that this won't be the case.
Good article.
g-thor
Distinguished
- Nov 7, 2008
- 227
- 0
- 18,680
I don't think MS is concerned about advertising their OS - they're advertising computers that run their OS. That still generates sales for them. Once Windows 7 hits, I'm sure they'll have some advertising for it as well, to get users to upgrade, but most new computers sold will come with it anyway.
MacPCLover mentioned that Macs "come preloaded with a bunch of software" - an they do and it's great. Of course, when MS does this, they get accussed of cutting out third party companies, forcing people to use their programs and monopolizing the market. So now they have to be very cautious about what they include.
Funny - if Apple includes it, it's a feature. If MS includes it, it's to control the market.
In our home, we use Mac OS X on 1 laptop (and also Windows under Fusion) and Windows on 1 laptop and 3 desktops, and we like each of them for different reasons. Well, most of the time, because any piece of equipment or software will frustrate you at some point.
MacPCLover mentioned that Macs "come preloaded with a bunch of software" - an they do and it's great. Of course, when MS does this, they get accussed of cutting out third party companies, forcing people to use their programs and monopolizing the market. So now they have to be very cautious about what they include.
Funny - if Apple includes it, it's a feature. If MS includes it, it's to control the market.
In our home, we use Mac OS X on 1 laptop (and also Windows under Fusion) and Windows on 1 laptop and 3 desktops, and we like each of them for different reasons. Well, most of the time, because any piece of equipment or software will frustrate you at some point.
solymnar
Distinguished
- Jun 26, 2006
- 215
- 0
- 18,680
Overall its probably the most reasonable advertising approach.
It focuses on a user meeting their criteria under x price cap. As mentioned that is the "big advantage" of windows. Flexability in hardware and software. You don't get windows because it has killer built in apps. Nor because of its interface etc.
You get windows because it allows you to run effectively whatever hardware and software you desire. That's its no1 selling point. This comercial captures an aspect of that, so to me its a good ad.
Arguing about how user friendly a PC vs. a Mac is becomes trivial, so does discussing built in apps for the most part. The amount of time a user spends interacting it minute and meaningless compared to the time spent using the apps loaded on your computer.
While certainly there has been improvements to many aspects of computer OSes over time, the core usability (loading, and launching programs) hasn't (to me) changed significantly from Win95. The main thing the successors bring is (in general) more compatability, security and stability.
Sure you navigate to things a little faster etc. but its not that big of a difference.
The main way win7 could be mindblowingly different is if it:
1) Runs fast and lean on hardware that is 2+years old.
2) Is increadibly stable without needing sp1 first.
Other than that there is only so much you can do to tweak the UI. /shrug
What will win7 do garunteed?
Increase hardware and software compatability to encompass newer things. So yeah...advertising the hardware options makes sense.
It focuses on a user meeting their criteria under x price cap. As mentioned that is the "big advantage" of windows. Flexability in hardware and software. You don't get windows because it has killer built in apps. Nor because of its interface etc.
You get windows because it allows you to run effectively whatever hardware and software you desire. That's its no1 selling point. This comercial captures an aspect of that, so to me its a good ad.
Arguing about how user friendly a PC vs. a Mac is becomes trivial, so does discussing built in apps for the most part. The amount of time a user spends interacting it minute and meaningless compared to the time spent using the apps loaded on your computer.
While certainly there has been improvements to many aspects of computer OSes over time, the core usability (loading, and launching programs) hasn't (to me) changed significantly from Win95. The main thing the successors bring is (in general) more compatability, security and stability.
Sure you navigate to things a little faster etc. but its not that big of a difference.
The main way win7 could be mindblowingly different is if it:
1) Runs fast and lean on hardware that is 2+years old.
2) Is increadibly stable without needing sp1 first.
Other than that there is only so much you can do to tweak the UI. /shrug
What will win7 do garunteed?
Increase hardware and software compatability to encompass newer things. So yeah...advertising the hardware options makes sense.
I think this ad is smart. Although I've got no experience with this, most people who do buy Macs or are considering buying a Mac aren't going to differentiate the fact that PC = hardware company + Windows. While showing the new features of Windows 7 would promote only their product, I don't believe it does much, if anything, to combat the mac vs pc front where these ads do a great amount of that.
Yoder54
Distinguished
- Dec 16, 2008
- 398
- 0
- 18,810
I really do not understand why MS is "going after" Apple. We all know that MS is all about software, and Apple is all about hardware. MS would be better served if they tried to sell Apple users on the potential for increased productivity by running MS software on their Apple devices...maybe they should go after a seamless integration of applications across hardware platforms.
To go after Apple when they have so little of the market share is ridiculous and a waste of money. MS needs to convince potential users that MS products are the way to go, and they need to do that by showing people how the applications look when being used...not on some lame idea that a person "is not cool enough for Mac's" or whatever. Instead of wasting $300 million on bad ads, MS should use it go give consumers rebates or reduce the cost of buying the OS.
The most tiring thing of all about this whole thing is the fact that a company founded by the likes of Balmer and Gates are even introducing the term "sexiness."
To go after Apple when they have so little of the market share is ridiculous and a waste of money. MS needs to convince potential users that MS products are the way to go, and they need to do that by showing people how the applications look when being used...not on some lame idea that a person "is not cool enough for Mac's" or whatever. Instead of wasting $300 million on bad ads, MS should use it go give consumers rebates or reduce the cost of buying the OS.
The most tiring thing of all about this whole thing is the fact that a company founded by the likes of Balmer and Gates are even introducing the term "sexiness."
[citation][nom]LuxZg[/nom]Why? I guess you would like Vista Ultimate to be the only edition and cost the same amount as Vista Starter?Do you complain when they tell you that BMW has 4 or 5 different engine options, and 3 different packages of equipment? Nope. So why being annoyed by Microsoft decision to have several different OSs?Only way around it would be that you can purchase OS in "components", meaning 5$ for IE, 5$ for MS Paint, 30$ for Backup, 15$ for Windows Update, 1$ for Notepad etc. Now that would make some cheap but usefull builds ;D[/citation]
I still think it is bad, look at Mac users: one O/S period. Also you guys Microsoft is trying to sell the PC because you generally have to buy a licensed copy of XP or Vista to walk out of the store, whereas with a Mac you can walk out with no microsoft software installed on it. That is why they make the ad target PC's. Anyone want to rebuttle that, try finding a PC in best buy or costco that comes with linux or freebsd.
I still think it is bad, look at Mac users: one O/S period. Also you guys Microsoft is trying to sell the PC because you generally have to buy a licensed copy of XP or Vista to walk out of the store, whereas with a Mac you can walk out with no microsoft software installed on it. That is why they make the ad target PC's. Anyone want to rebuttle that, try finding a PC in best buy or costco that comes with linux or freebsd.
belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,540
- 2
- 22,795
Just saw the ad with the male actor now. Looks more like a retard. If he was tech savy, why'd he buy an HP? At least this time, its not Best Buy, but a Fry's store. Oh, at this point - expect that HP is paying a big chunk of change for this.
Here's the other odd thing, the current HP silver notebooks are very nice looking... whats inside is so-so, but they look very cool.
And... WHO cares? If someone wants to spend $500+ for an Apple product, so what? Apples top end Power Macs are prices about the same as top-end Dells XPS, I know I checked myself.
It doesn't HURT you (unless you're a MS stock holder)... Apple has about 3.5% of the world market. PC gaming is dying (thank you xbox and PS3) so the OS/computer is a support system for a web browser.
Here's the other odd thing, the current HP silver notebooks are very nice looking... whats inside is so-so, but they look very cool.
And... WHO cares? If someone wants to spend $500+ for an Apple product, so what? Apples top end Power Macs are prices about the same as top-end Dells XPS, I know I checked myself.
It doesn't HURT you (unless you're a MS stock holder)... Apple has about 3.5% of the world market. PC gaming is dying (thank you xbox and PS3) so the OS/computer is a support system for a web browser.
Yeah I agree. HP's seem to be fine for those who buy them but I wouldn't buy one. They own Compaq and most Compaqs I've used are either horribly slow or prone to erratic behavior. I'm just not sure if the HP is made in a different facility than the Compaq stuff. Dell is a shot in the dark, same with Sony. I really don't know what is the best brand for laptop to be honest. Even Apple has their share of problems.
belardo
Splendid
- Nov 23, 2008
- 3,540
- 2
- 22,795
ThinkPad. Good support, a bit pricey. Their SL series start at about $600. About one of the few notebooks you can buy that (A) have matte screens (NOT that glossy crap) (B) WinXP option (C) No bloat ware included. (D) Sturdy, spill-protection keyboards (E) Keyboard light *Not on SL.
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
[citation][nom]thej[/nom]Eh, i'm up for any ad that stops the Apple brainwashing.[/citation]
Same here.
In essence, it doesn't matter who makes the anti apple ad, I'm just glad someone does.
In fact it might be good that microsoft does the advertising, and not hp, cause hp is just 'some oem' advertising its laptops and microsoft is 'the os provider' for all things not associated with rotten fruit or the cheapest of the cheap netbooks.
@ Jane: I'd guess they're willing to offer this amount of money, because they want to make sure the average buyer knows/thinks anything that isn't apple branded is better value. People like my millenia old grandma doesn't know what apple is, but she likes shiny. So if it wasn't for the fact that coop had hp computers on discount when she bought hers, there's no telling what she'd have brought home. If she'd see that ad, there's at least a chance she'd buy something with a microsoft os, cause she might remember having seen the white apple thing not being better despite being more expensive.
I don't think microsoft is targetting those people who actually know what vista or windows 7 is. They're showing one that does, in order to give the impression that any in-the-know person would choose a brand name non apple product over a similar apple product. "What the expert chooses must be the right choice, and he chooses to ignore apple." I think is their message.
Same here.
In essence, it doesn't matter who makes the anti apple ad, I'm just glad someone does.
In fact it might be good that microsoft does the advertising, and not hp, cause hp is just 'some oem' advertising its laptops and microsoft is 'the os provider' for all things not associated with rotten fruit or the cheapest of the cheap netbooks.
@ Jane: I'd guess they're willing to offer this amount of money, because they want to make sure the average buyer knows/thinks anything that isn't apple branded is better value. People like my millenia old grandma doesn't know what apple is, but she likes shiny. So if it wasn't for the fact that coop had hp computers on discount when she bought hers, there's no telling what she'd have brought home. If she'd see that ad, there's at least a chance she'd buy something with a microsoft os, cause she might remember having seen the white apple thing not being better despite being more expensive.
I don't think microsoft is targetting those people who actually know what vista or windows 7 is. They're showing one that does, in order to give the impression that any in-the-know person would choose a brand name non apple product over a similar apple product. "What the expert chooses must be the right choice, and he chooses to ignore apple." I think is their message.
Windows Vista Ultimate costs $250 while OS X leopard costs $110 (Amazon US prices). How is Windows software cheaper?
HP machines are cheaper than Apple machines because of cheaper/lower quality components. It has nothing to do with Microsoft.
I actually recommend Macbook running Microsoft Windows for windows users looking to buy a new laptop. The quality of these laptops is far more superior than cheap hp laptops.
After 2 years, you will be able to sell your old macbook for 60% of its value. Try to pull that with a cheap hp laptop - if it lasts that long
HP machines are cheaper than Apple machines because of cheaper/lower quality components. It has nothing to do with Microsoft.
I actually recommend Macbook running Microsoft Windows for windows users looking to buy a new laptop. The quality of these laptops is far more superior than cheap hp laptops.
After 2 years, you will be able to sell your old macbook for 60% of its value. Try to pull that with a cheap hp laptop - if it lasts that long
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]Windows Vista Ultimate costs $250 while OS X leopard costs $110 (Amazon US prices). How is Windows software cheaper?HP machines are cheaper than Apple machines because of cheaper/lower quality components. It has nothing to do with Microsoft.I actually recommend Macbook running Microsoft Windows for windows users looking to buy a new laptop. The quality of these laptops is far more superior than cheap hp laptops.After 2 years, you will be able to sell your old macbook for 60% of its value. Try to pull that with a cheap hp laptop - if it lasts that long[/citation]
apple mashines better quality? ehh? the ONLY thing good about an apple laptop that you can't have cheaper and better in a regular one is the magnetic power plug. That imo is an acceptable compromise between cutting the price in half and getting what you need.
The os price itself might be half as high for apple, but considering it's built on a system that was free to begin with it's actually a $100 ripoff - and on top of that you have to pay a considerable apple tax to use it.
And your recommendation is that people buy an expensive macbook, and the expensive windows you complained about being more expensive a sentense earlier? You're the one selling the things I assume? The buying majority might not agree with your recommendation.
And reselling your mac at 60% price after two years - ye well that's fine I'm sure. But who'd care really, if you paid overprice to begin with, that actually comes down to a resale price that could match the original investment of the non apple system. Which means that even if you'd only sell the used hp or similar laptop for a third of the original price, you'd still have a better budget to show at the end of the day.
apple mashines better quality? ehh? the ONLY thing good about an apple laptop that you can't have cheaper and better in a regular one is the magnetic power plug. That imo is an acceptable compromise between cutting the price in half and getting what you need.
The os price itself might be half as high for apple, but considering it's built on a system that was free to begin with it's actually a $100 ripoff - and on top of that you have to pay a considerable apple tax to use it.
And your recommendation is that people buy an expensive macbook, and the expensive windows you complained about being more expensive a sentense earlier? You're the one selling the things I assume? The buying majority might not agree with your recommendation.
And reselling your mac at 60% price after two years - ye well that's fine I'm sure. But who'd care really, if you paid overprice to begin with, that actually comes down to a resale price that could match the original investment of the non apple system. Which means that even if you'd only sell the used hp or similar laptop for a third of the original price, you'd still have a better budget to show at the end of the day.
keither5150
Distinguished
- Sep 7, 2008
- 369
- 0
- 18,780
For the next ad they should give the student $4000 to buy any laptop that they want. The students would be allowed to keep the extra money.
My guess would be that 90% of students would by a laptop running windows and spend the rest on beer.
$3000 will buy a lot of beer.
And "Windows Vista Ultimate costs $250 while OS X leopard costs $110 (Amazon US prices)" Windows Home premium comes will most laptops for free. And HP is running the same guts as the Apple. This has been common knowledge for about 2-3 years. @ Anonymous..... you should stay Anonymous and enjoy your overpriced experience.
My guess would be that 90% of students would by a laptop running windows and spend the rest on beer.
$3000 will buy a lot of beer.
And "Windows Vista Ultimate costs $250 while OS X leopard costs $110 (Amazon US prices)" Windows Home premium comes will most laptops for free. And HP is running the same guts as the Apple. This has been common knowledge for about 2-3 years. @ Anonymous..... you should stay Anonymous and enjoy your overpriced experience.
[citation][nom]rooket[/nom][citation]
[nom]LuxZg[/nom]
Why? I guess you would like Vista Ultimate to be the only edition and cost the same amount as Vista Starter?[/citation]
I still think it is bad, look at Mac users: one O/S period.[/citation]
Umm.. I don't think comparision with OS X is good. Apple sells one OS, targeted for 6 computers in total (or there about).
Microsoft sells OS that is aimed at all these different target groups. You need a cheap OS for netbooks and lower end hardware. Also need a cheap OS for countries in which people can't afford full blown OS. Than you have enterprises that have special needs as Active Directory+Group Policy, additional security and management options, and a whole different approach to using computers vs home users. Than you have an average gropup of users that don't use computers much at all.. And you have gamers, tech freaks, people that use multimedia heavily and so on. You also have hardware that's wastly different, from low end to the top. Remember, Vista and Win7, just like previous client OSes from MS aren't the end of line. There are even more options for the same OS once you look at servers. You've got Small, Essential, Standard, Enterprise, Database, Home, HPC, and many more.. There are a lot of them new, so I'm not much into it
In the start, Microsoft did have just Windows for home/office, and Windows for servers. Hell, before that it even had just one But needs have grown - for part of people. For other part they are still the same as they were in 1995.
Now there is a heavy choice if you want a on-fits-all product. You can sell Windows Server 2008 R2 Database edition, with Multimedia & user applications built in - all in one OS, for just 150$ (like Apple). Or you can have it priced at 1000$ and make everyone pay all these features.
I am sure you can see this wouldn't work. Even though Microsoft has billions in bank, and made a lot of money, developing huge OSes like these, and selling for 150$ would soon make them bankrupt. On the other hand, selling them for 1000$ would make people forget Windows and Micrsoft real soon, and again they would be bankrupt.
So again - what's the problem with Microsoft vs not just Apple, take a look at any software. You want to buy some app, and mostly it has Lite (free), standard (mid-priced) and Pro version (heavily priced). Choice is yours. Hey, if you want Ultimate-everything, pay the price. Or just be reasonable and admit that you don't need Windows which supports clustering of few hundered CPUs just for your home PC. I'm going over the top here, but large scale or small - it comes down to the same facts..
[nom]LuxZg[/nom]
Why? I guess you would like Vista Ultimate to be the only edition and cost the same amount as Vista Starter?[/citation]
I still think it is bad, look at Mac users: one O/S period.[/citation]
Umm.. I don't think comparision with OS X is good. Apple sells one OS, targeted for 6 computers in total (or there about).
Microsoft sells OS that is aimed at all these different target groups. You need a cheap OS for netbooks and lower end hardware. Also need a cheap OS for countries in which people can't afford full blown OS. Than you have enterprises that have special needs as Active Directory+Group Policy, additional security and management options, and a whole different approach to using computers vs home users. Than you have an average gropup of users that don't use computers much at all.. And you have gamers, tech freaks, people that use multimedia heavily and so on. You also have hardware that's wastly different, from low end to the top. Remember, Vista and Win7, just like previous client OSes from MS aren't the end of line. There are even more options for the same OS once you look at servers. You've got Small, Essential, Standard, Enterprise, Database, Home, HPC, and many more.. There are a lot of them new, so I'm not much into it
In the start, Microsoft did have just Windows for home/office, and Windows for servers. Hell, before that it even had just one
But needs have grown - for part of people. For other part they are still the same as they were in 1995.Now there is a heavy choice if you want a on-fits-all product. You can sell Windows Server 2008 R2 Database edition, with Multimedia & user applications built in - all in one OS, for just 150$ (like Apple). Or you can have it priced at 1000$ and make everyone pay all these features.
I am sure you can see this wouldn't work. Even though Microsoft has billions in bank, and made a lot of money, developing huge OSes like these, and selling for 150$ would soon make them bankrupt. On the other hand, selling them for 1000$ would make people forget Windows and Micrsoft real soon, and again they would be bankrupt.
So again - what's the problem with Microsoft vs not just Apple, take a look at any software. You want to buy some app, and mostly it has Lite (free), standard (mid-priced) and Pro version (heavily priced). Choice is yours. Hey, if you want Ultimate-everything, pay the price. Or just be reasonable and admit that you don't need Windows which supports clustering of few hundered CPUs just for your home PC. I'm going over the top here, but large scale or small - it comes down to the same facts..
[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom]PC gaming is dying (thank you xbox and PS3) so the OS/computer is a support system for a web browser.[/citation]
Oh my, oh my..! Don't you dare say that again 😀 First of all, PC gaming had been dying since first Playstation, and boy, is it alive and well still! PC gaming won't die untill PC is dead itself, so please, don't get crazy 😉
And OS is much more than just a support for a web browser. To make you realize that, why don't you buy one of those ASUS motherboards that have Firefox embeded in BIOS for instant boot & surf.. Now, check back in about a month and tell me if you've missed anything
Sure, ONE DAY, when we'll have everything in "The Cloud", online, when computers will be just terminals and so on and so on .. but there will be many ads, and many Windows vs Mac debates untill that happens..
Btw, I wonder if you can do some accounting on Xbox. I mean, it too can go online, soooo.. why not? While at it, why not host a web server on it, and put some database so you can stuff Wikipedia on it. Yeah.. right..
Oh my, oh my..! Don't you dare say that again 😀 First of all, PC gaming had been dying since first Playstation, and boy, is it alive and well still! PC gaming won't die untill PC is dead itself, so please, don't get crazy 😉
And OS is much more than just a support for a web browser. To make you realize that, why don't you buy one of those ASUS motherboards that have Firefox embeded in BIOS for instant boot & surf.. Now, check back in about a month and tell me if you've missed anything
Sure, ONE DAY, when we'll have everything in "The Cloud", online, when computers will be just terminals and so on and so on .. but there will be many ads, and many Windows vs Mac debates untill that happens..
Btw, I wonder if you can do some accounting on Xbox. I mean, it too can go online, soooo.. why not? While at it, why not host a web server on it, and put some database so you can stuff Wikipedia on it. Yeah.. right..
anamaniac
Distinguished
- Jan 7, 2009
- 2,447
- 0
- 19,790
This is my personal opinion...
Linux for servers and mobiles.
Macintosh for media (picture/video editing etc.).
Microsoft for gaming (Essentially all major games except WoW).
All of the above works just for the normal consumers email/browsing/flash games etc.
It doesn't matter what your average consumer uses, as it all works. Linux just may represent the highest learning-curve for an average consumer, but I was fine with Ubuntu my first time personally.
The next MOBO I buy I'll have to make sure supports hackingtosh though... I just wanna try it out.
Personally, if I want a mac, I'll still build a PC, but then I'll attempt to get a legit OSX license, and put the OSX on the PC for a multi-boot.
I prefer PCs also because of hardware choices. I can keep my old junker running by slowly gradually out parts, instead of dramatically spending a few grand at once just for a upgrade. I also don't like how macs look. I prefer black.
Okay, maybe more than two-cents.
Flame on.
Linux for servers and mobiles.
Macintosh for media (picture/video editing etc.).
Microsoft for gaming (Essentially all major games except WoW).
All of the above works just for the normal consumers email/browsing/flash games etc.
It doesn't matter what your average consumer uses, as it all works. Linux just may represent the highest learning-curve for an average consumer, but I was fine with Ubuntu my first time personally.
The next MOBO I buy I'll have to make sure supports hackingtosh though... I just wanna try it out.
Personally, if I want a mac, I'll still build a PC, but then I'll attempt to get a legit OSX license, and put the OSX on the PC for a multi-boot.
I prefer PCs also because of hardware choices. I can keep my old junker running by slowly gradually out parts, instead of dramatically spending a few grand at once just for a upgrade. I also don't like how macs look. I prefer black.
Okay, maybe more than two-cents.
Flame on.
ThePatriot
Distinguished
- May 12, 2006
- 147
- 0
- 18,680
I wear Versace,
Rolex tells me the time,
Victor and Rolf Aftershave,
Armani and Ray-Ban spectacles,
Play golf in Scottsdale,
Audi Q7 for wheels,
Cirrus SR-22 for wings,
and....
Apple for computing and cell phone.
PC's (yak) are sooooo not my style.
Rolex tells me the time,
Victor and Rolf Aftershave,
Armani and Ray-Ban spectacles,
Play golf in Scottsdale,
Audi Q7 for wheels,
Cirrus SR-22 for wings,
and....
Apple for computing and cell phone.
PC's (yak) are sooooo not my style.
b23h
Distinguished
- Jul 5, 2009
- 95
- 0
- 18,630
The series of ads are fine as it does point out the price difference, and of course MS makes money off of any PC sold with Windows. However I wish MS was a bit more sophisticated with their ad campaigns. Those Gates/Seinfeld were amusing in an off-hand way, but I expect they were of marginal utility in expressing a message for MS. And while I can cut through the Apple ads and note this or that fallacy they’re pushing, I expect the ads are fairly effective and I really don’t see an effective push back from MS.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News First credible report of RTX 5090 FE with melted connector appears — third-party cable likely cause- Started by Admin
- Replies: 49
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Tested: Intel's Arrow Lake 140T iGPU mostly maintains an edge over AMD's older 880m
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 20
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Question How much information do we have on 9070 XT performance?
- Latest: Scar Mountain
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram