People don't want crap. No matter how bad the economy is

Apple wasn't attacking the fact that Microsoft spends money on advertising. They were saying that instead of investing in fixing their crappy product, MS chose to pour money into trying to fool people. Apple, on the other hand, doesn't have a crappy product to fix so they are justified in focusing on ads.

You're half right ... people don't WANT crap but, until they either learn how to differentiate between products or experience something better, then there is a decent chance that they'll buy the least expensive choice.
Ads on TV - neither M$s or Apple's - do a particularly good job of describing what the day-to-day experience will be like. There's not enough time in 30-seconds.
These M$ ads are a joke though ... they dare not talk about the OS so all they talk about is the hardware. Kinda weird for a software company. If nothing else it does show how effectively Apple's ads have painted M$ into a corner.

This is pretty much all Microsoft can do. They know they've created a turd of an operating system just wrapping it in a pretty UI. For years they have done little in terms of security for it, so when they finally go all out and start putting roadblocks (User Account Control) to help users think twice about doing things (even simple things), the users, who are well accustomed to not having to think twice, turn it off and are pissed off when they get a virus.

OS X, on the other hand, has had a UNIX like prompt for a root level password and prompts telling us something bad could happen if we open an application since day one. It might have been a shock for Classic OS users, but I think we all figured out early on that this was what was not only good for us, but the OS as well. Both Linux and OS X actively try to protect themselves from users...even administrators.

OS X is gaining a lot of popularity and Apple is continuously improving their product rather than throwing together a mishmash of half-baked, hackneyed solutions and passing them off as technological advancements (as was the case with a lot of the later versions of the Classic OS and is the case now with Vista/7), Apple learned from their mistakes and have not looked back since. Microsoft, however is still working on Windows 95 and just making it look prettier and prettier...though it's still kind of ugly.

Windows users equate Windows to something that the sophisticated power user uses. They equate Linux with what the uber power user uses. They equate OS X with something that is a toy. The problem is, OS X is simple to use. Too simple. That's really not a problem because people are sick of doing things the hard way and want the ease of use that is associated with OS X. However, OS X is really far from simple under the hood. More hardcore Windows users would probably change their tune if they accepted that they don't have to do things the hard way. But, hey, if they like trying to end non-responsive processes repeatedly for 10 minutes while Windows figures out what's going on, then more power to them. That's just one reason I went back to Macs. It's cliche to say, but OS X "just works".

The ads are not going to help sway people from buying a Mac by stating what everyone already knows: Macs are more expensive. They're also more of an investment. If people want them, they'll stick with what they have for the time being and save up and buy one rather than settling for a disposable PC with Vista on it. Each ad claims something positive about Macs: 1) They are cool. 2) They are sexy. However, Giampaolo thinks they're all about aesthetics rather than computing power. Well form does follow function, Giampaolo. These ads, rather than bashing on Macs/OS X are really telling consumers that they have to settle for Windows. Whether they will or not...remains to be seen.

I like how Bogusky is getting smug about their Microsoft ads when they use Macs to make the ads. Just a bit ironic.

I feel sad for people that want to buy a $400 laptop or a $200 desktop.

Why? Because I don't think they need to buy one.

There are plenty of great, used PCs out there that might need little more than some RAM and a wipe-and-refresh. For $100 you can likely get a better PC. Maybe even less.

I recently got rid of a perfectly good eMac. It had a gig of RAM and was mostly up-to-date. Why spend big bucks on a NEW computer when you can, for the most part, get a nearly as good USED computer for less than 1/10th the price? Or maybe even free?

At work I support software developer desktops. These machines are old - VERY old in PC terms, but they've been well maintained and still work for developers that use things like C++ compilers all day. Will these old PCs be great for a 10th grade student? Of course! These machines kick serious buttage. But instead, for some unknown reason, the whole idea passed around at work by management is the desire to literally destroy them. So I started a program to wipe them and send them to the local schools. We get a write-off, the school system LOVES us, and their money can be better spent otherwise.

If MS really gave that guy 1500 USD (ooh cash) to buy a laptop, I bet he returned it the next day and bought a Mac !

(C'mon ! If you got a *FREE* laptop, would you want a PC ?)

I'd rather have my computers washed in unicorn tears, instead of rancid gorilla sweat like PC's...

There is still one good/big reson to buy a PC, over a Mac.
.
Games
.
There are comming more and more games to Mac, but there still need a few.
And the companys/persons that say "Just run it in VMWare/Parrale/Use Boot Camp" Well thats not the same.
I want it native.
.
But still a Macbook/Macbook Pro are still a nice machine.
I know people that got one and installed Linux or Windows XP on then, and is not using OS X.
some becouse of programs they need at work, some becouse they like linux better