Oranges are better.
So, I went to try and watch the latest Apple ads on their website. I say 'try' because they wouldn't play properly. I'd only get a few seconds in before the video would freeze, and skip ahead, and generally just suck to all hell. I got the gist of the ads via multiple scrolls to get a few seconds played at a time until I'd seen it all. [No, I didn't care enough to find, and then download, the .mov files and then play them in a decent player, i.e. not Quicktime.] The ads are alright I guess, though more than a little smug... but, hey, it's Apple, after all. :p
The iLife one doesn't seem wholly fair, nor does the Network one. iLife seems like a cheap shot because if Microsoft included the programs Apple does, it would be sued as a monopolist trying to erase competition in image editing, video creation, e-mail, etc. The programs Microsoft includes (Word Pad, etc) are so basic for precisely that reason. Microsoft's attempts at expanding the OS' program suite are met with anti-trust lawsuits, as in the IE case in the USA, and the Windows Media Player case in the EU. The Network ad seems disingenuous for the simple reality that the PC peripherals market is much more vast than that for Apple. Many component makers do not design hardware drivers for OS X, and to imply otherwise seems a bit distorted. Almost as though some sort of reality distortion field was in place... hmmmmmm.
The other ads are all pretty amusing if mildly smug. Restarting is particularly chuckle-inducing, and I like the sheepish manner of the PC guy in WSJ.
The prompt for this little rant was actually a conversation I had with someone when I jokingly stated that the iPod nano was, "sooooo 6 months ago." In search of a date on which to base my assertion, I realized just how ridiculous wikipedia can be sometimes. Not only does the iPod nano have its very own page, but the iPod article is almost absurdly lengthy to begin with.
Disagree? Let's try a comparison, shall we?
Wikipedia's article on the iPod.
Wikipedia's article on the theory of relativity.
Yeah.
I still want this, damnitt! :p It's so pretty!
The iLife one doesn't seem wholly fair, nor does the Network one. iLife seems like a cheap shot because if Microsoft included the programs Apple does, it would be sued as a monopolist trying to erase competition in image editing, video creation, e-mail, etc. The programs Microsoft includes (Word Pad, etc) are so basic for precisely that reason. Microsoft's attempts at expanding the OS' program suite are met with anti-trust lawsuits, as in the IE case in the USA, and the Windows Media Player case in the EU. The Network ad seems disingenuous for the simple reality that the PC peripherals market is much more vast than that for Apple. Many component makers do not design hardware drivers for OS X, and to imply otherwise seems a bit distorted. Almost as though some sort of reality distortion field was in place... hmmmmmm.
The other ads are all pretty amusing if mildly smug. Restarting is particularly chuckle-inducing, and I like the sheepish manner of the PC guy in WSJ.
The prompt for this little rant was actually a conversation I had with someone when I jokingly stated that the iPod nano was, "sooooo 6 months ago." In search of a date on which to base my assertion, I realized just how ridiculous wikipedia can be sometimes. Not only does the iPod nano have its very own page, but the iPod article is almost absurdly lengthy to begin with.
Disagree? Let's try a comparison, shall we?
Wikipedia's article on the iPod.
Wikipedia's article on the theory of relativity.
Yeah.
I still want this, damnitt! :p It's so pretty!