Microsoft ‘Laptop Hunters’ ads – forget Lauren, meet Giampaolo
Ten days ago, we met Lauren, who ended up choosing a PC over a Mac and making headlines all over the Internet. Lauren has now been confined to history. In her place comes Giampaolo, a new guinea pig/actor/stooge willing to put up with hatred from Apple fanboys for the sake of an appearance fee.
As most ‘Laptop Hunters’ on a budget will know, the market is heavily skewed towards Windows-based PCs rather than Macs. The latter are just too expensive for anyone who cares more for value-for-money over aesthetics and a “cool” brand name.
Microsoft began its latest, and some would say greatest, marketing campaign a couple of weeks ago. The ‘Laptop Hunters’ ads feature people looking to buy new laptops and with certain requirements in mind. Microsoft promises to pay for the laptop the buyer settles on, so long as it’s within budget and ticks all the right boxes.
Lauren ended up buying a budget Windows-based laptop after discovering all Apple alternatives were too expensive. Now, Giampaolo faces a similar hunt for a new laptop, and as you can from the video embedded below, price is once again the stick which Microsoft chooses to beat Apple around the head with.
Giampaolo has a slightly higher budget to play with than Lauren, and that $1,500 means two Apple Macs are options – a 13-inch white MacBook or a 13-inch aluminum MacBook. Giampaolo heads for an electronics store to compare prices and feature-sets and comes away with a Hewlett Packard laptop for $1099. Incidentally, Lauren also bought an HP.
Giampaolo’s biggest complaint about Apple is summed up nicely in his statement after visiting the Apple section of the store he makes his purchase in.
Macs to me are about aesthetics more than they are about the computing power. I don’t want to pay for the brand. I want to pay for the computer.
Hear, hear. Well said my man. This latest ad will likely prompt a similar number of snarky and somewhat snobby comments from the Apple fanboy brigade, but even they must surely concede that Microsoft is right to focus on price concerns at a time when the economy is faltering and many people are holding on to the cash they have in the bank.
A global recession is likely to be good for Microsoft and bad for Apple. And these genius ads are sure to help.
Related Posts:
April 5th, 2009
Lol. Let the Games resume.
April 5th, 2009
“A global recession is likely to be good for Microsoft [...]“.
A global recession is not likely to be good for Microsoft at all – it is far more likely to be good for open source.
“[...] these genius ads are sure to help.”
“Genius” according to whom? These ads are uninspired and uninspiring – they are completely lacking in creativity, and are unlikely to make much difference at all. Perhaps Microsoft blew the advertising budget on its last few feeble attempts at marketing, and had to get by on a shoestring for this latest campaign. Sadly, it seems that they just can’t get anything right these days.
April 5th, 2009
A recession is more of an inconvenience for Microsoft. Given that PC makers are likely not to sell as much hardware, they probably won’t buy as many Windows licenses for their machines.
These adverts, along with “I’m a PC” are simply bland; at least when you see an Apple ad you know that you’re going to be entertained or inspired.
That’s probably the reason why the modern Apple ads get away with some of the dubious claims they make about Windows and Microsoft, because they are presented in (great) humour.
April 5th, 2009
Apple computers are not as underpowered as they seem. They are very quick if you ever actually use one, and most of the idiots who say they’re not worth the money have a) never used one AND/OR b) can’t afford one.
Realistically, the high price is only justified if you are into media type stuff, granted. But if Giampaulo wants to go for a substandard HP laptop with a rubbish 32 bit OS that barely works with a lot of bloatware that looks half the quality of a Mac and actually is no quicker than the equivalent Mac, then go Giampaulo. If you’re going to spend the money anyway, go Apple – you can’t even argue on the whole ‘gaming’ side of things now Apple PCs run Windows. And faster than the vast, vast majority of Windows laptops.
Microsoft are kind of getting desperate, but its people like Dave who present a very one sided view of Apple that get on people’s wicks. Its not just aesthetics, its the operating system as well. Some Apple fanboys go over the top – Windows does indeed have its merits and it has a majority share in the market.
However, Microsoft are advertising PCs in the $1k+ range now as being better than Apples, while totally missing the point that Apple have the majority share in expensive PCs for a reason. Even in these tough times, people pay Apple.
April 7th, 2009
The elitist “can’t afford it” snarky comment. What, no really expensive automobile versus Yugo/Kia comment to top it off?
Apple has the majority share in Retail $1K computers. None of the machines Dell, HP and Leveno sell direct are part of the number. How many 1K + computers do you think Dell ships in a quarter? They have the margins crown
It’s impossible for Apple to have a majority in anything from a purely numbers basis.
They made a big deal about passing Dell in education. Which meant what, exactly?
It didn’t mean when you opened the door to the Server room it was full of Xservers. Or that the staff were using Macs at their desks or the labs were all iMacs. It meant the student purchases at the bookstore were Macbooks. And despite the fact that they had indeed passed Dell, 7 out of 10 machines still left with Windows installed on the hard drives.
See Microsoft doesn’t build computers.
If you are referring to the oft quoted Popular Mechanics article back a year ago, they used a single laptop, not a vast, vast number.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html
Dave isn’t the only one playing fast and loose with selective facts.
It’s amazing that running OSX gives you the ability to instantly look at a computer on a TV commercial and tell it’s “substandard”. That rubbish 32 bit OS runs 99% of every transaction. This bloated subprime OS seems to get it done.
You are missing the point, the commercial wasn’t mainly about price. It was about having a huge number of options. open to you if you buy a PC. It’s amazing how hard it is for Mac users to realize Microsoft doesn’t make computers.
Apple has a very carefully segmented line where you aren’t likely to have much of a choice. iMacs are an all-in-one so they don’t eat into Mac Pro sales. Now fetch me a new Macbook with firewire.
There is no way that Apple is ever going to offer the options and number of choices you get from dozens of manufacturers that are trying earn your business.
Microsoft doesn’t make computers.
If you aren’t needing to run native OSX apps it’s just another PC. I can order a Dell with Linux. Or I can order one with Windows and pop BSD or OSX86 on it if I’m careful with the hardware.
See Microsoft doesn’t make computers.
There are advantages to a closed system with stability and support. You get to dictate the environment and the experience. But it is still limiting. You get only what Apple thinks you need and deserve. You can’t buy a Netbook or an $800 mid range solid performer.
It isn’t because “They can’t build one at those prices that isn’t junk”. It’s because it would blow the margins. Apple is competing with itself. There is no reason for them to offer you an advantage that will benefit you at their expense.
See Microsoft doesn’t build computers.
I can find crap and I can find solid. I can buy mass produced fugly with little attention to fit and finish. I can purchase more pricey boxes or even ones designed for a specific purpose like HTPC. You will get what Apple thinks you deserve.
There is no benefit that doesn’t have an off setting limitation. Buy a Mac just prior to the model being updated and you are paying a huge premium. The Mini was crazy expensive before it was updated. It cracks me up to hear people talking about the excellent resale value on Macs as if the amount they overpaid when they bought it and let Apple use for free for years doesn’t exist.
You don’t get latest, greatest as quickly on a Mac as you do on the PC side because the competition for my money by multiple companies who are desperate to add value on thin margins and rise above herd need to do it to survive.
See, Microsoft doesn’t make computers.
Buy a crappy machine for a couple hundred dollars and it falls apart. Spend 2K and it won’t. Odds are Microsoft gets the same license fee. Whatever churn in hardware dollars that gets passed around and which manufacturer winds that month with the lead matters little to Redmond.
Apple sales hurt individual PC makers far more than MS. If you buy an Emachine it hurts Dell not MS. Any Pc sale hurts Apple 100%. You can buy a Mac that’s an excellent value compared to an individual PC model. But I have the option of hundreds of other choices and tweakable components. A Mac model will be RAM, processor speed and hard drive.
That laptop he bought was $1099. He could have purchased direct and found a better deal. That was the point of the ad. Walk into an Apple Store an that’s all. There is no possible way to counter the choices you get on a PC purchase being a huge advantage.
See, Microsoft doesn’t make computers.
April 8th, 2009
You know what! I used to work for the IT industry and thought that PCs and Windows were the THING! Then I met Unix… An OS that once was up and running was UP and RUNNING… No need to frequently reboots and so on… Command line… WOW… the fastest way for you to change any setting on your computer.. In the Windows world by the time you get around the IP configuration to change any setting there, you would have done with various Unix based machines.
I used to have Windows based PCs… I was always running at Fry’s Electronics for the latest… For an upgrade on CPU, motherboard and so on… Always spending money to make the $600-1,000 machine better… And guess what… It never did.
I now have a MacBook Pro and for the last two years I have not had the need to buy anything else extra, or upgrade or change or anything… The computer just works… I run Windows in it because of my work and let me tell you… It runs Windows better when I had PCs?!?
So my point is: Why do you buy a computer? What are your needs for it? What do you expect from it?
Me? I expect it to work… I expect it to run whenever I turned it on; and when I click on something without a glitch… I expect it to not LOCK on me when I need it the most… I expect to have good quality software for reasonable pricing… I expect to have an OS that is transparent, secure and stable… I want speed, reliability and easy of use… And more importantly: NO NEED TO BUY EXTRA STUFF TO MAKE IT WORK OR ANYTHING ELSE!
Two years for my MacBook Pro and three years for my Son’s iMac… I have not stepped into an Electronic Store to buy anything else to make the computer better… It just works… Day in and Day out…
THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE… The long term… In the short term Windows less than $1,000.00 machines looks like a good deal, but as time goes by, you will have spent more money than if you had bought or payed for a computer that would have take you to the distance…
NOTE: Thank God Micro$oft does not make computers! Can you imagine?!?
April 9th, 2009
@Ken,
The elitist “can’t afford it” snarky comment. What, no really expensive automobile versus Yugo/Kia comment to top it off?’
You give Microsoft way too much credit – if they built cars, they wouldn’t produce anything nearly as good as a Yugo or a Kia.
April 10th, 2009
Hello Hugh,
I’m not addressing Microsoft at all, really. The point of that particular ad wasn’t that you can buy a similar or better hardware for less money as much as it was about a huge choices you get if you choose non-apple hardware.
I can certainly afford a Mac, have used various Apples from the early 80’s including the Lisa and have used the Motorolas/IBMs and yes the Intels. If I had a reason to favor some OSX only software, and I quite understand why some do, it’s a good fit.
If Apple hadn’t stupidly booted Jobs in favor of bean counter CEOs like Amelio who stupidly tried to get in a fight they couldn’t win, Apple would have never gone to Intel. Jobs and the early brain trust had very deliberately put damn near everything that made a Mac a Mac on those ROMs. It made any attempt at a Compaq-like snatch of the PC hideously expensive.
Imagine Jobs watching those soulless idiots hand over that ROM for a flat license fee and a cut of the sales.
I was running a service center in a big box Compusa rival that sold and serviced Macs and those clones, one of the better ones was headquartered in Round Rock, Texas several miles from the Dell mothership. Ouch.
Apple had been slipping for a couple of years at that point from bean counter foolishness and a badly lagging OS, and people were buying faster processors and more RAM at a lower cost. In beige square boxes. It was like watching a replay, but Apple never had IBMs deep pockets at that point.
Jobs got back a sorry company at that point. The man is a once in a generation visionary genius. Apple will certainly suffer a serious wound if his health stops him from being fully engaged. A man with the brass balls of a cat burglar, the marketing flair of P.T. Barnum and the business mind of any CEO you care to name is a very rare thing. I don’t care if you have talented staff who can carry out the vision, the iPod, the iPhone and iTunes wouldn’t have happened.
He was left with a volume so low, only Intel was going to have the volume to compete with Intel. It was not in Apples’ best interests to make a PC with direct hardware comparisons possible. He needed a fast processor with power requirements and a heat profile suitable for laptops and had neither the volume or the the time to piss around. I’m not seeing 15 year old illegal monopoly actions as a big part of this.
Gates decided early on that letting others fight out the hardware was a better strategy and if you think simply recognizing that was true makes me some kind of fanboy, get in line behind IBM and OS/2, Digital, Sun and the rest of the dead who tried to tie hardware to a proprietary OS. He was the only one who didn’t do so.
He also dropped his or Balmers’ direct assault on Linux when the rather foolish change in strategy from the server side Linux was way ahead in, to Ubuntu and the Desktop took hold. Red Hat and to a lesser extent Suse were making noise and MS wouldn’t have been able to shut it down. They were still smarting from the last litigation. If Jobs was a big dog in FOSS and didn’t need to sell hardware, he probably would have taken great pleasure in a beatdown. It’s not like BSD scared him.
While Apple did the only thing it could with an Intel heart, spend large amounts of money branding every other computer to Microsoft since the only real difference was now the OS.
Looks like a pretty sweet deal to me if your biggest competition for the consumer desktop is going to do you a favor and run award winning ads keeping your name as the only other OS in the public eye. Hell, the worse that could happen is you sell a few less OEM licenses. Macs after all use the ability to run your OS as a minor selling point. If the most popular OSS apps still run on Windows, HP and Dell are taking the biggest hit. Apple is only going to take a small slice of the business side of the menu unless they go insane. I don’t see Apple putting out an Exchange, SQL or even an Apache. They don’t do commodity IT. You won’t see Corporations ordering Corinthian leather seats for delivery vans. Jobs certainly has the audacity to troll those waters if he thought it would work
The really sad part of all this is Linux had MS scared and walked away. When CFOs and Controllers were seriously pissed at MS changing the VLM terms, instead of continuing to push certification and education of IT staff necessary to get the traction of making a living from supporting OSS.
Not only did MS get people to pay them a stream of revenue for the privilege of supporting a wretched Server OS, they sold the idea you could get rich doing doing it.
Look at the comments you see from articles like this who assume I’ve only used Windows and need to open my eyes to Unix.
While Apple and Linux decided to hammer Microsoft over the consumer desktop, they quietly folded up the FUD website, and put out new backend products like SharePoint and consolidated all the accounting software under Dynamics. Vista getting blasted dropped the client software revenue 8% and Server Products shot up 28%. I really don’t see how you can backup the claim of Microsofts impending doom.
I don’t love MS. I also don’t see how Macheads keep swallowing the purely brilliant marketing claim that buying a Mac hurts MS more than Dell. Comparing hardware is not somewhere Apple wants to go.
I must be a paid shill,eh?
April 13th, 2009
Gudday Ken,
“The man [Jobs] is a once in a generation visionary genius.”
He’s not, actually – you’ve not included me in your calculations (although to be fair, my visionary genius lies outside the realm of I.T.)
“I really don’t see how you can backup the claim of Microsoft’s impending doom.”
Microsoft are definitely in big trouble, but trying to determine where things will end up and how long it will take is difficult. Remember that MS inherited the monopoly mantle from IBM, who themselves once had 90% market share. IBM have managed to re-invent themselves, thereby ensuring their corporate survival – but they no longer conduct business in the manner that they once did. The big question is whether Microsoft can also do this – and perhaps more pertinently, whether they are actually willing to try.
November 11th, 2009
What would be good is if Mac users could just stop lying about the rubbish they buy and start living the the real world, not some fairy land where everything can be run in a virtual machine.