Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

olePigeon · May 5, 2009, 06:04 PM

Film crew outside of a computer store, filming some lady. She explains she wants to "cut video," so she'll get the HP. Some guy hands her a stack of cash, she laughs. Director yells, "Cut!" Camera continues to zoom out and it's actually a Final Cut Pro app editing video of said scene. You just barely see the trailing end of the PC Hunter Windows splash screen in the editing window as the camera zips around showing that it's a Mac.

Picture of Apple products with promotional dialogue.

*cut to intern walking in looking at a script*

Intern: What the heck is "cutting video?"



Warhaven · May 5, 2009, 06:14 PM

PC: "Hi, I'm a PC."

Mac: "And I"m a Mac. Hey PC, I just saw a couple of those new Windows commercials today."

PC: "Yeah, aren't they awesome? Really drives the point home, doesn't it? Captures perfectly how much better Windows PCs are over
Macs and OS X."

Mac: "Huh. Kind of makes me wonder why they didn't use Windows PCs for all that editing."

PC: "Didn't use... what? What do you mean?"

Mac: "The commercials were edited and put together on Macs. You didn't know that?"

PC: *sighs and looks dejected* "You always have to steal my thunder, don't you Mac?"

Mac: "Awe, come on PC. The commercials still look fantastic."

rickey939 · May 5, 2009, 09:52 PM

Classic.

angelmb · May 6, 2009, 08:01 AM

Great one Warhaven.

osiris · May 6, 2009, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Warhaven

PC: "Hi, I'm a PC."

Mac: "And I"m a Mac. Hey PC, I just saw a couple of those new Windows commercials today."

PC: "Yeah, aren't they awesome? Really drives the point home, doesn't it? Captures perfectly how much better Windows PCs are over
Macs and OS X."

Mac: "Huh. Kind of makes me wonder why they didn't use Windows PCs for all that editing."

PC: "Didn't use... what? What do you mean?"

Mac: "The commercials were edited and put together on Macs. You didn't know that?"

PC: *sighs and looks dejected* "You always have to steal my thunder, don't you Mac?"

Mac: "Awe, come on PC. The commercials still look fantastic."

excellent! - Apple should do something like this. The MS commercials are mindlessly idiotic and need to be pimp slapped.

Spheric Harlot · May 6, 2009, 10:57 AM

Except everybody already "knows" that Macs are better for creative professionals.

There's no point in hammering home what's common knowledge.

The issue is the "Yeah, Macs are cool and creative, but a PC is just fine for plain ol' me" message of the MS ads.

And however weird or partially honest they go about proving that, it's the message they're getting across IMO.

olePigeon · May 6, 2009, 12:50 PM

The point was that those PC Hunter ads from Microsoft were created on a Mac. Would be funny to convey that somehow in a witty Apple commercial.

osiris · May 6, 2009, 01:03 PM

I think another issue that should be more clarified in an Apple rebuttal ad should be the life span of these cheap PC machines, resale value, cost of ownership... etc. But I'm preaching to the choir.

At the very least the Hunter ads should be debunked as the largest fraud ever perpetrated upon the American people.

still, I wish there was a cheaper Mac.

CharlesS · 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by osiris

I think another issue that should be more clarified in an Apple rebuttal ad should be the life span of these cheap PC machines, resale value, cost of ownership... etc. But I'm preaching to the choir.

The lifespan of my Macs has been pretty short, due to their lack of expandability. I'm pretty sure they would have lasted longer if they were PCs, but alas, I wouldn't be able to legally run OS X on a PC.

I still don't understand this "lifespan" argument when the majority of Apple's machines (excluding the Mac Pro and MBP) are disposable computers. You have to replace the whole thing whenever your needs change only slightly. The lifespan of a consumer Mac is only going to be as long as an equivalent PC if your needs are pretty simple.

At the very least the Hunter ads should be debunked as the largest fraud ever perpetrated upon the American people.

Fraud? The ad says that PCs are cheaper, and they indisputably are. I don't see what's fraudulent about that.

still, I wish there was a cheaper Mac.

So do I, or a renewed Mac clone market (they could make it work if they did it right). Apple is pretty much the world's best software company, but not so great when it comes to hardware.

olePigeon · 01:38 PM

Edit: Oops, posted to wrong thread.

olePigeon · 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Fraud? The ad says that PCs are cheaper, and they indisputably are. I don't see what's fraudulent about that.

She's a video professional that cuts video.

KeyLimePi · May 6, 2009, 08:20 PM

So, do we have any proof that the PC Hunter ads were done on Macs? I mean, I know Crispin Porter & Bogusky are pretty Mac-centric, but unless there is proof we can't be sure. There's still plenty of other editing options out there. And if we taunted Windows for using Macs to make their commercials, and then they produce proof that they didn't, then we would look like the smug jerks they're trying to make us out to be.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · May 6, 2009, 09:12 PM

No one other than people stuck up Apple's marketing dept's ass gives a good rats ass what was used to make a Microsoft commercial- especially since it's not a commercial advertising editing gear.

It's like some kind of nut who gives a flying **** that the director of a Ford commercial drove off in a Mercedes.

olePigeon · May 6, 2009, 09:37 PM

It was just a fun idea, Crash. Pull your panties outta your crack.

CRASH HARDDRIVE · May 6, 2009, 10:26 PM

Ahh yes, the 'fun' of corporate sycophancy. Carry on.

Apple Pro Underwear · May 7, 2009, 01:49 AM

i think their commercials feel "off". sometimes the people feel incencere or annoying, sometimes the tone is slightly off... but IMO it will work to an extent but they don't max out their money per commercial. their best commercials by far is the "I'm a PC" cutting every 2 seconds ad with pros, celebs and amateurs alike.

CharlesS · May 7, 2009, 02:09 AM

I have to confess I don't get the "I'm a PC" thing at all. You're not a PC - you're a guy using a PC. Sheesh, I thought that Mac users were supposed to be the fanatics - at least we're not equating ourselves with our machines.

Spheric Harlot · May 7, 2009, 02:13 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I have to confess I don't get the "I'm a PC" thing at all. You're not a PC - you're a guy using a PC. Sheesh, I thought that Mac users were supposed to be the fanatics - at least we're not equating ourselves with our machines.

It's based on a complete misunderstanding of the "I'm a Mac - I'm a PC" Apple switcher ads.

They think Justin Long is supposed to be representative of Mac users, when he's supposed to represent the Mac ITSELF.

osiris · May 7, 2009, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

She's a "video professional" that "cuts video".

Fixed.

Salty · May 7, 2009, 10:14 AM

Honestly the best way to treat them is what they're doing now... ignoring them. All Apple responding would do is give MS the buzz that they so desperately want. It's like the annoying kid in the play ground.

olePigeon · May 7, 2009, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Ahh yes, the 'fun' of corporate sycophancy. Carry on.

Hey, some people juggle geese.

Hawkeye_a · May 7, 2009, 12:43 PM

The best rebuttal to these poorly written, poorly produced and poorly directed Microsoft handicam commercials is to offer no rebuttal at all, cause to acknowledge a poor piece of advertising is to give it credit, imo.

Cheers

Railroader · May 7, 2009, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

It's based on a complete misunderstanding of the "I'm a Mac - I'm a PC" Apple switcher ads.

They think Justin Long is supposed to be representative of Mac users, when he's supposed to represent the Mac ITSELF.

It's about time they replace that PC guy. Justin can probably still be useful for a couple more years before being replaced. And even then he can do some other Mac ad work that's not too intense.

0157988944 · May 8, 2009, 08:52 PM

Replacing John Hodgeman would result in certain death for all.

Railroader · May 8, 2009, 10:07 PM

***woosh***
---[head]---

0157988944 · May 8, 2009, 10:08 PM

oh lord. *facepalmheaddeskiamanidiot*

rickey939 · May 13, 2009, 01:04 AM

(3) new ones added this evening...."Elimination"....LOL!

http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

Classic.®

Spheric Harlot · May 13, 2009, 03:53 AM

"I'm a Megan".

- - e r i k - - · May 13, 2009, 04:58 AM

I'm a Megan got a

from me too.

ctt1wbw · May 13, 2009, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

The lifespan of my Macs has been pretty short, due to their lack of expandability. I'm pretty sure they would have lasted longer if they were PCs, but alas, I wouldn't be able to legally run OS X on a PC.

I still don't understand this "lifespan" argument when the majority of Apple's machines (excluding the Mac Pro and MBP) are disposable computers. You have to replace the whole thing whenever your needs change only slightly. The lifespan of a consumer Mac is only going to be as long as an equivalent PC if your needs are pretty simple.

Fraud? The ad says that PCs are cheaper, and they indisputably are. I don't see what's fraudulent about that.

So do I, or a renewed Mac clone market (they could make it work if they did it right). Apple is pretty much the world's best software company, but not so great when it comes to hardware.

So, you're saying that if you can't put more RAM inside or a bigger hard driver inside, that your Macs' lifespan is short? Really? So they break when you want to install memory but can't due to the limited expandability?

Railroader · May 13, 2009, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by adamfishercox

oh lord. *facepalmheaddeskiamanidiot*

added so I could post what looks like a two character post

sek929 · May 13, 2009, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

The lifespan of my Macs has been pretty short, due to their lack of expandability. I'm pretty sure they would have lasted longer if they were PCs, but alas, I wouldn't be able to legally run OS X on a PC.

Tell that to my G4 going on year 8, running strong, with a new hard drive, maxed RAM, and a DVDRW.

Sure and AIO Mac isn't going to have the same lifespan, but IMO a good Mac tower will easily outlast it's PC counterparts. I know we've all been over the 'same internals' argument, but I'm speaking from a purely anecdotal standpoint. Since I bought that PowerMac in 2001 I've seen a lot of PCs come and go with my friends, and my Mac still runs better than their newer more powerful machines.

Edit: Just checked my G4, doing father duty now, and it has 80+ days of uptime. This is after running 24/7 (I never shut it down or slept it) for 8 years. Hasn't crashed once since 10.1.

Laminar · May 13, 2009, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Salty

It's like the annoying kid in the play ground.

Must resist...making...obvious...connection....

CharlesS · May 13, 2009, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw

So, you're saying that if you can't put more RAM inside or a bigger hard driver inside, that your Macs' lifespan is short? Really? So they break when you want to install memory but can't due to the limited expandability?

When your needs change, or when progress marches on to the point that you can no longer do the things you need to do with the machine, then it has reached the end of its useful lifespan. Just because your old Quadra 610 still turns on doesn't mean it didn't reach the end of its usefulness over a decade ago.

And besides, it's not like PCs suddenly self-destruct after a few years either. PCs, for the most part, use the same hardware as Macs, with the exception of not using the shorter-lived laptop components (particularly the slot-loading optical drives) that Apple likes to put in the majority of its desktops, thus giving the PCs a slight edge in hardware reliability. Also, the PC makers don't tend to be as neurotic about making their hardware as thin and silent as possible (or perhaps more than possible) as Apple is even with desktop machines, so they tend to be adequately cooled and less prone to overheating issues. I'd like to see the basis for the claim that PCs don't last as long. If you're going to say something software-related, like getting bogged down by viruses or whatever, that can easily be solved by a reformat. And components like the CPU, GPU, hard drive, etc. can usually be easily swapped out or upgraded, and the machine can be upgraded to the latest connectivity standards, keeping the machine useful long after the equivalent Mac has been replaced.

Originally Posted by sek929

Tell that to my G4 going on year 8, running strong, with a new hard drive, maxed RAM, and a DVDRW.

Sure and AIO Mac isn't going to have the same lifespan, but IMO a good Mac tower will easily outlast it's PC counterparts.

Mac towers do last a long time. However, they are almost irrelevant to the overall question of whether Macs or PCs last longer, because they start at $2500, making them completely out of the question for the vast majority of computer purchasers these days. The rest of Apple's machines (except for the also expensive MacBook Pro) are disposable and not designed to last a long time, because Apple wants you to have to buy a new one in a couple of years.

ctt1wbw · May 13, 2009, 12:35 PM

I had a Wallstreet G3 Powerbook that lasted 6 years. I needed to expand it some, but couldn't afford it at the time, but it still kept going. It's usability wasn't diminished just because I wanted to expand it but couldn't.

ort888 · May 13, 2009, 12:42 PM

You're so much better off buying a new $1,200 computer every 2.5 years then trying to make a $2,500 computer last 5 years.

CharlesS · May 13, 2009, 12:43 PM

Yeah, but what if you could get a $1,200 computer that would last 5 years? This schism doesn't exist outside of Apple's universe.

olePigeon · May 13, 2009, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

When your needs change, or when progress marches on to the point that you can no longer do the things you need to do with the machine, then it has reached the end of its useful lifespan.

Not everyone uses their computer to play games.

ort888 · May 13, 2009, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Yeah, but what if you could get a $1,200 computer that would last 5 years? This schism doesn't exist outside of Apple's universe.

It would be awesome. In my opinion, Apple has a hole in their product lineup big enough to drive a truck through.

A desktop PC that is between the iMac and Tower and doesn't cost $2,500.

It's really pathetic that you need to buy a Mini or an iMac if you don't want to spend $2,500.

Dakar V · May 13, 2009, 12:54 PM

Yes, yes, we all agree there are too many trade-offs between the mini, imac and mac pro lines. We're still ****ed and nothing is going to change that, particularly Apple.

olePigeon · May 13, 2009, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Originally Posted by ort888

You're so much better off buying a new $1,200 computer every 2.5 years then trying to make a $2,500 computer last 5 years.

Yeah, but what if you could get a $1,200 computer that would last 5 years? This schism doesn't exist outside of Apple's universe.

If you're buying a Mac you're generally well aware of the resale market for the computers. After the initial purchase, you'll get back a good percentage of the value of the computer when you upgrade. This offsets the cost of upgrading. Macintosh retains its value very well.

If you're buying a new PC every 2.5 years, you're not going to get much of anything for the old one. A Dell sold at razor thin price will depreciate extremely fast because the next model is twice as fast at the same price or cheaper. Very few people are going to buy a 2.5 year-old, used Dell.

CharlesS · May 13, 2009, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Not everyone uses their computer to play games.

I'm not talking about games. I'm talking about new connectivity standards (such as USB 2.0, which disallowed iPods from being useful on Macs less than two years old at the time) to connect external hard disks for backup purposes. I'm talking about GPU advancements that are needed to use Apple's new OS features. I'm talking about missing technologies (like FireWire) that can't be added if one needs it. I'm talking about applications (particularly ones from Apple) that list minimum CPU, GPU, RAM, etc. requirements, locking you out with no recourse other than replacing the machine. I'm talking about the fact that standards change to such an extent that some Macs that were sold only 3-4 years ago can't even play Flash video anymore. If the machine is expandable, you can solve these problems. On most Macs, you're just screwed.

olePigeon · May 13, 2009, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I'm talking about the fact that standards change to such an extent that some Macs that were sold only 3-4 years ago can't even play Flash video anymore.

Macs sold now can't play Flash video very well. Flash has and always will be retardedly slow on the Mac.

olePigeon · May 13, 2009, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I'm talking about GPU advancements that are needed to use Apple's new OS features. I'm talking about missing technologies (like FireWire) that can't be added if one needs it. I'm talking about applications (particularly ones from Apple) that list minimum CPU, GPU, RAM, etc. requirements, locking you out with no recourse other than replacing the machine.

I'm assuming you're referring to the Mac mini and iMac.

CharlesS · May 13, 2009, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Macs sold now can't play Flash video very well. Flash has and always will be retardedly slow on the Mac.

I didn't say "very well." On the Intel-based Macs, you can watch a video on Hulu or Youtube just fine. On the three-year-old Mac I'm forced to use now since my MBP is in the shop for the third time (way to go, long-lived Apple hardware!), it can't play Flash at all. Seriously, the audio plays, but the video gets about one frame per second. It used to work when the machine was new - the relentless march of technology has evidently introduced new codecs (H.264?) into the Flash format that require the latest and greatest hardware to keep up.

CharlesS · May 13, 2009, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I'm assuming you're referring to the Mac mini and iMac.

For not being able to replace the CPU or GPU on a desktop (or even the hard drive and RAM, easily), yes. For not being able to add simple things like eSATA, USB 3.0 (when it comes out), FW800 / FW3200 / FireWire at all (MacBook), that one afflicts most of the whole lineup.

Laminar · May 13, 2009, 01:16 PM

The Mac Mini's CPU can be upgraded.

Spheric Harlot · May 13, 2009, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Laminar

The Mac Mini's CPU can be upgraded.

Not anymore, AFAIK.

Laminar · May 13, 2009, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

Not anymore, AFAIK.

Oops, you're correct. The latest Minis have the CPU soldered to the logic board.

olePigeon · May 13, 2009, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I didn't say "very well." On the Intel-based Macs, you can watch a video on Hulu or Youtube just fine. On the three-year-old Mac I'm forced to use now since my MBP is in the shop for the third time (way to go, long-lived Apple hardware!), it can't play Flash at all. Seriously, the audio plays, but the video gets about one frame per second. It used to work when the machine was new - the relentless march of technology has evidently introduced new codecs (H.264?) into the Flash format that require the latest and greatest hardware to keep up.

I know that a 200MHz PC running Windows 98 can play Hulu. Flash just sucks ass on the Mac, period. There's no way around it. It's not your computer, it's not the OS, it's Flash.