Samsung Hits Out at Apple with Galaxy Note Super Bowl Ad

[guardianangel42]

Yeah, that wasn't very funny to me. I mean, look at some of Apple's most successful ads: the good old "I'm a Mac" ads. They were funny, but in a witty way. They derided the competition, but in a classy way (I wouldn't have thought it possible). And they were memorable, but in a good way.

Now, I hate Apple for a variety of reasons, chief among them their anticompetetive lawsuits like the ones with Samsung, but they know how t make ads.

This ad, in my opinion, is just over the top, unbelievable, and classless.

Seriously, that guy in a pink getup and guitar is just nauseating to look at, how can you side with him?

 

[DjEaZy]

... well... i work in a shop, that sells smart/phones... and... well... i have the opportunity to test all of them out... and it seems, that every android phone maker wants to make some unique feature, that is not compatible with competitions android phone... so in the end, there is a mess... for example... a mess for company's, that make stuff, like cases and peripherals... i'm biased... i own a iPhone 4S... and in the beginning, i waz frustrated a bit... but then the jailbreak waz out, and i'm happy again... so... where waz i...? ... o... and my brother owns a Galaxy SII... and waz frustrated a bit with it... then he rooted it... and now he's happy to... so... i drifted away again from my main point... may be my point is this... the gadget is nothing, when you don't get full control of it and know, what you wanna do... but aut of the box, iPhone is better... but after jailbreak/rooting, any high end smartphone is so good, as the person, that knows, how to get things done... ēēēē...

 

[Guest]

@@@@When Samsung used inferior audio/headphone chip in Galaxy S II it was a huge let down for me....looks that your ears are damaged for listening too loud...iphone and ipods have a terrible sound quality imoh...only good for a subpar mp3 or w/e quality....

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]Missed the Galaxy Nexus launch in the US, huh?[/citation]

Then doesn't that then make a mockery of their own advert? If people have to lineup for Samsung phones too?

I found the advert entertaining - it's quite good.

For me personally, I don't like using a pen/stylus - I believe we've moved away from those days, but each to their own.

The one thing I thought was pretty poor about the advert was that it doesn't explain anything which makes the phone better. But good fun all the same.

I'm looking forward to the SG3.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]del35[/nom]Samsung users tend to choose the best hardware for the price, not what is hyped by con-artists in cahoots with the msm and other propaganda joints..[/citation]

The Mali-400MP GPU is pretty old and under-performing for a new device with such a high resolution. Certainly not what I would describe as the best hardware, tbh.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]xellow[/nom]The ad campaign probably won't be that effective and is a bit immature. It may serve best to excite the 'like-minded immature' for throwing a punch at apple and nothing more; An attempt that is a flying whiff in my opinion. Stylus Pen, Really? That will show them who's boss and give them reason to party! Not going to happen, sorry Samsung.[/citation]
I guess that when Apple was did the Mac vs PC ad it was also to excite the 'like-minded immature' for throwing a punch at microsoft and nothing more.

 

[watcha]

I would say that the difference is, in the Mac vs PC ad, Apple highlighted what they offered which 'PC's' didn't - ie less targetted by viruses, and more reliable (hardware wise).

Of course, that depends on the advert you're referring to.

The main issue for me with this Samsung advert is that it tries to poke fun at Apple without actually giving any reasons why Samsung is better.

 

[del35]

HTC makes some interesting products but Sansung makes better phones generally. One thing that keeps me from buying an HTC phone is that the models I like have no user replacable batteries and due to frequent travel I need that option. I know that many people don't mind the limitation. I agree that HTC phones offer more bang for the bucks than iCrap phones, but given the lockdown nature of iPhones, and their drm infestation almost any phone is superior to the Apple phone, a device that is now symonimous with technological parochialism and backwarness...

 

[tmshdw]

[citation][nom]del35[/nom]Dream on clueless fanboy. As a Samsung user I would be the first to ditch Samsung if something better came out. Samsung users tend to choose the best hardware for the price, not what is hyped by con-artists in cahoots with the msm and other propaganda joints. Surely there are a few morons out there that are brand worshipers and will buy whatever garbage Samsung puts out and at whatever price . But by in large my experience has been that only iCrappies are the only sub-intelligence that will gladly part with their money just to be seen with a logo that only impresses other technologically illiterate morons. I am of the feeling that the minute a company starts to draw lines in the streets it is time to ditch them especially if they have a history of defrauding the public and selling them lockdown drm infested hardware at an exorbitant price, like iCrap has done historically.[/citation]

I suggest therapy for your supposed "open" view you are trying to convince yourself that you have.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]I would say that the difference is, in the Mac vs PC ad, Apple highlighted what they offered which 'PC's' didn't - ie less targetted by viruses, and more reliable (hardware wise).Of course, that depends on the advert you're referring to.The main issue for me with this Samsung advert is that it tries to poke fun at Apple without actually giving any reasons why Samsung is better.[/citation]
First the ad talked about no viruses on the mac which was a lie. Reliability? It all depends on the study, I've seen quite a few were Apple isn't on top. Not to to mention tons of other "Mac vs PC" ads that didn't have any truth to it.

Before you go Apple berserk on me, I'm not complaining. First the law gives some leeway for companies to exaggerate on their "adverts". Also companies have always attacked each other using ads, this is nothing new.

 

[irh_1974]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]I would say that the difference is, in the Mac vs PC ad, Apple highlighted what they offered which 'PC's' didn't - ie less targetted by viruses, and more reliable (hardware wise).Of course, that depends on the advert you're referring to.The main issue for me with this Samsung advert is that it tries to poke fun at Apple without actually giving any reasons why Samsung is better.[/citation]
Hardware reliability arguement is a myth, apart from the EFI it's the same hardware in a Mac as it is in a PC, both use Intel CPUs, HDDs or SSDs, etc and Apple have never been produced a vague advert before have they? For Apple the company, and by and large the user base, it is mainly about the image and the branding rather than how it actually operates. That's why the murdered Psystar. OSX is great, I use it all the time on a Macpro and it works, but it would be so much better if run it on a home-built PC legitimately. To retain legitimacy I am stuck with hardware that cost a fortune.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]First the ad talked about no viruses on the mac which was a lie. Reliability? It all depends on the study, I've seen quite a few were Apple isn't on top. Not to to mention tons of other "Mac vs PC" ads that didn't have any truth to it.Before you go Apple berserk on me, I'm not complaining. First the law gives some leeway for companies to exaggerate on their "adverts". Also companies have always attacked each other using ads, this is nothing new.[/citation]

Can you share the advert you're referring to please?

I think we both agree that Apple is, in that advert (based on what you've said), making a valid sales point that their devices face fewer virus threats, which is all I've been saying.

Re: reliability,

http://www.pcworld.com/article/244607/smartphone_reliability_and_satisfaction_iphone_tops_the_list.html
http://www.themaclawyer.com/2010/12/hardware/pc-worlds-reliability-and-service-survey-finds-apple-best-in-quality/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mac-VS-PC-Study-Shows-Macs-Have-1-3-Fewer-Problems-87097.shtml

Just a few from thousands all reporting the same thing. You can refuse to believe it if you want, but they have at least got the right to claim they offer more reliability.

Anyway, this isn't article isn't about Apple - my original point still stands that this advert points out nothing that the Samsung phone can do that any other phone can't. I think that's poor.

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]Hardware reliability arguement is a myth, apart from the EFI it's the same hardware in a Mac as it is in a PC, both use Intel CPUs, HDDs or SSDs, etc and Apple have never been produced a vague advert before have they? For Apple the company, and by and large the user base, it is mainly about the image and the branding rather than how it actually operates. That's why the murdered Psystar. OSX is great, I use it all the time on a Macpro and it works, but it would be so much better if run it on a home-built PC legitimately. To retain legitimacy I am stuck with hardware that cost a fortune.[/citation]

Hardware isn't just the processor, HD & SSD. It's everything: the screen, the screen HINGE, the keyboard, the mouse, the SOFTWARE, the BATTERY life, the CD Rom, the backlighting, the integrated webcam, the overall engineering and how it all comes together. Even the SSD's or HD's Apple chooses are often more reliable than those found in an average PC. Please refer to the overwhelming number of studies supporting this claim (I posted some links in this reply). Don't get me wrong, my main PC is one I built myself, with no parts which are anything to do with Apple - but I can appreciate when a company has a good reputation for reliability, and I doubt I'd manage the same ratings if I had to hand make every pc.

If Apple produced a vague advert, I would criticise it for being vague too. This Samsung advert makes no compelling sales pitch, for me - they should try to come up with a selling point IMO.

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Can you share the advert you're referring to please?I think we both agree that Apple is, in that advert (based on what you've said), making a valid sales point that their devices face fewer virus threats, which is all I've been saying.Re: reliability,http://www.pcworld.com/article/244 [...] _list.htmlhttp://www.themaclawyer.com/2010/1 [...] n-quality/http://news.softpedia.com/news/Mac [...] 7097.shtmlJust a few from thousands all reporting the same thing. You can refuse to believe it if you want, but they have at least got the right to claim they offer more reliability.Anyway, this isn't article isn't about Apple - my original point still stands that this advert points out nothing that the Samsung phone can do that any other phone can't. I think that's poor.[/citation]
I think I clearly stated that there are studies that put Apple on top in terms of reliability and others that don't.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/rescuecom-computer-reliability-applecare-support,11198.html
http://smidgenpc.com/2010/05/07/laptop-reliability-ratings-which-laptop-is-really-most-reliable/
http://www.rescuecom.com/computer-reliability-report-2011-q1.html
http://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf/SquareTrade_laptop_reliability_1109.pdf

Also I fail to see the relevance in showing the first link when I was referring to the Mac vs PC ad, and to my knowledge the iPhone isn't a Mac.

Also I'm, surprised Apple doesn't completely trounce the competition in terms of laptop reliability. As tons of studies have shown, netbooks and entry level laptops are the most problematic models of a brand line up. Apple doesn't sell a single entry level laptop, yet in some tests they are beaten by other brands, and that should have never happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5z0Ia5jDt4

Entertain yourself and please tell me every single argument brought over in these ads are true.

 

[irh_1974]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Hardware isn't just the processor, HD & SSD. It's everything: the screen, the screen HINGE, the keyboard, the mouse, the SOFTWARE, the BATTERY life, the CD Rom, the backlighting, the integrated webcam, the overall engineering and how it all comes together. Even the SSD's or HD's Apple chooses are often more reliable than those found in an average PC. Please refer to the overwhelming number of studies supporting this claim (I posted some links in this reply). Don't get me wrong, my main PC is one I built myself, with no parts which are anything to do with Apple - but I can appreciate when a company has a good reputation for reliability, and I doubt I'd manage the same ratings if I had to hand make every pc.If Apple produced a vague advert, I would criticise it for being vague too. This Samsung advert makes no compelling sales pitch, for me - they should try to come up with a selling point IMO.[/citation]
I might agree if we were just talking about laptops, where there is even a bone of contention when comparing against certain Sony machines that a beautifully built, but in this instance Mac vs PC to me means desktop, tower machines like the Macpro, they certainly are beautiful but its a big ask to pay 50% more for an equivalently specced PC that will sit under a desk plugged into your 30" pro monitor made by Dell or NEC. Sure some people want the branding, but they will always buy Apple regardless of cost the same way some people always buy a BMW even if that particular year Audi has the best model, what people want is the choice and if they were given it Apple may find that the few sales that are lost on the Macpro would be made up 10 times over with sales of OSX. Let me put it on whatever machine I want - Microsoft did and it's products occupy 90%+ of the OS market, which in turn creates a dependancy on server markets with SQL for business and whole companies dedicated to providing support and service to other businesses with Wintel engineers.

Non-commercial business is good, but the commercial sector is where the real money is, Apple should have been all over this like hair on a monkey, what the hell is stopping them?

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]Vladislaus[/nom]I think I clearly stated that there are studies that put Apple on top in terms of reliability and others that don't.http://www.tomshardware.com/news/r [...] 11198.htmlhttp://smidgenpc.com/2010/05/07/la [...] -reliable/http://www.rescuecom.com/computer- [...] 11-q1.htmlhttp://www.squaretrade.com/htm/pdf [...] y_1109.pdfAlso I fail to see the relevance in showing the first link when I was referring to the Mac vs PC ad, and to my knowledge the iPhone isn't a Mac.Also I'm, surprised Apple doesn't completely trounce the competition in terms of laptop reliability. As tons of studies have shown, netbooks and entry level laptops are the most problematic models of a brand line up. Apple doesn't sell a single entry level laptop, yet in some tests they are beaten by other brands, and that should have never happen.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5z0Ia5jDt4Entertain yourself and please tell me every single argument brought over in these ads are true.[/citation]

I think I clearly stated that Apple have at least got the right to claim they offer more reliability, given that numerous studies show that they are the most reliable (studies saying otherwise just make it arguable, they don't disprove it). Since the Mac vs PC adverts are about not a specific brand of PC, and since Apple is always near the top in every link you posted, and top in every link I posted - they can certainly claim to be more reliable than an average PC (which is what the Mac vs PC adverts clearly refer to) - and IMO there are more surveys suggesting they are the most reliable than not. The surveys you linked are somewhat misleading in that they are based on how many people go in to get repaired - clearly people will be more likely to get a mac repaired if it breaks because it cost more, whereas a 300 quid Asus may not justify it (and it's much harder to actually do) - indeed your point that Apple don't sell a single entry level laptop proves precisely this point. Repairing a 2 year old Asus worth £50 may not be worth it, but repairing a 2 year old Mac worth £700 probably is.

Obviously a manufacturers reliability for one device has a correlation, more than not, to their reliability for other devices, so the iPhone report is clearly relevant too.

Watching the advert:

1 - Factual quotes from a review of Mac (clearly true)
2 - Claiming Macs work with Japanese digital cameras - true
3 - iLife features (factual)
4 - Bundled software makes movie creation easier, photos & music too - true
5 - Claims that windows freezes and has to restart more often - probably true due to the lower hardware reliability (as proven in aforementioned discussion)
6 - Factual statement on the number of viruses which affect Windows, and factual statement that it isn't the same for macs.
7 - Same as 4
8 - You can run windows on a mac - true
9 - Drivers are pre-installed on Macs but not always for pc's - true
10 - Same as 6 - saying Mac doesn't have to worry about viruses as much as Windows - true
11 - Same as 4
12 - Power cord with macs which can't as easily be yanked off a table - VERY true (from personal experience)
13 - Can run office, less depreciation - true
14 - Same as 4
15 - Pc's get viruses - true, Better at creative stuff (same as 4)

Sorry, but I don't see even a single lie there. Seriously. The only weird implication is that Apple supports foreign devices out of the box more readily - I am not sure if this is the case or not.

But lets get back to the point - Samsung advert (the real topic). Every one of those 15 Apple adverts is at least trying to make a case for which it is better. The Samsung advert, just, doesn't.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]I might agree if we were just talking about laptops, where there is even a bone of contention when comparing against certain Sony machines that a beautifully built, but in this instance Mac vs PC to me means desktop, tower machines like the Macpro, they certainly are beautiful but its a big ask to pay 50% more for an equivalently specced PC that will sit under a desk plugged into your 30" pro monitor made by Dell or NEC. Sure some people want the branding, but they will always buy Apple regardless of cost the same way some people always buy a BMW even if that particular year Audi has the best model, what people want is the choice and if they were given it Apple may find that the few sales that are lost on the Macpro would be made up 10 times over with sales of OSX. Let me put it on whatever machine I want - Microsoft did and it's products occupy 90%+ of the OS market, which in turn creates a dependancy on server markets with SQL for business and whole companies dedicated to providing support and service to other businesses with Wintel engineers.Non-commercial business is good, but the commercial sector is where the real money is, Apple should have been all over this like hair on a monkey, what the hell is stopping them?[/citation]

Fair enough, I was more referring to Macbooks - because they sell far more of those.

Actually, I agree with you that the Mac desktops are overpriced - no doubt there in my view. But I never mentioned price in any of my comments. I myself have a custom built i7 Extreme with OCZ Revodrive, 12 GB RAM, 30 inch Dell Monitor, and a 6870 Vapor-x gfx card, and it runs dead silent due to some excellent product selection and some customisation (Zalman ZM-1000-HP, Noctua NH-D14, for much less than the cost of a Mac desktop (which would be slower and more expensive)

Btw, my gf has a Sony Vaio Z which I bought for her (Quad SSD, top of the line) and it was far more expensive and has far more issues than my Macbook Air, and doesn't even run as fast, in my subjective opinion (both running Windows 7). Overall the Air is just much better built, and I do still think (going on surveys etc) that Apple is very reliable in this department.

In terms of letting people install OSX on different hardware, no objections from me here to anything you said.

 

[irh_1974]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Fair enough, I was more referring to Macbooks - because they sell far more of those.[/citation]
Any manufacturer worth its salt will always try to focuss attention or the subject of any conversation towards an area they have the most strength, simply marketing 101, but to retain scientific objectivity the focus should be on the market itself, not the products sold within it. That's why Apple spend so much advertising the iPad, and almost nothing advertising Macpro, and they will continue to ram the iPad advertising down peoples throats until something something deposes it in the market, if that ever happens the R&D and the advertising will dry up and will be moved onto the next thing. A real shame for anyone who has previously invested in that product and eagerly awaits the new model.
Like the iPod.

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]Any manufacturer worth its salt will always try to focuss attention or the subject of any conversation towards an area they have the most strength, simply marketing 101, but to retain scientific objectivity the focus should be on the market itself, not the products sold within it. That's why Apple spend so much advertising the iPad, and almost nothing advertising Macpro, and they will continue to ram the iPad advertising down peoples throats until something something deposes it in the market, if that ever happens the R&D and the advertising will dry up and will be moved onto the next thing. A real shame for anyone who has previously invested in that product and eagerly awaits the new model.Like the iPod.[/citation]

Lets be clear - the adverts myself and Vladislaus were talking about (the whole Mac vs PC set) are for laptops. So I was entirely correct to be talking about Macbooks, and your comment on the Desktop Macs was wide of the mark. For example, if you watch the link he posted, the advert talks about the power lead which doesn't pull the laptop off the table, and shows a picture of a Mac laptop after every clip.

I don't know why you are trying to discuss which products Apple markets most, nobody else on here is? It means absolutely nothing about the reliability of a device just because a company believes it can gain a better ROI by advertising a more profitable product. This is what every company does, and means nothing about the reliability. As it happens, one of the reliability studies I posted looks at reliability across the board, phones, tablets, laptops, desktops - and Apple comes out on top.

For people who bought old devices - Apple is a very good option. Versions of the iPod which are 2/3 years old are still supported and getting new software. Devices half that age on Android have had support dropped. Even some brand new devices are still not coming out with ICS. But that is absolutely irrelevant to the discussion at the moment.

We were talking about the Samsung advert which doesn't make any compelling sales pitch - doesn't show any advantages it offers.

Someone compared it to Mac adverts which focus on laptops and said that they were bad too, and I responded by saying they at least made selling points, and were in my opinion (and the opinion of the advertising standards) not misleading.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]watcha[/nom]Lets be clear - the adverts myself and Vladislaus were talking about (the whole Mac vs PC set) are for laptops[/citation]

[citation][nom]irh_1974[/nom]Any manufacturer worth its salt will always try to focuss attention or the subject of any conversation towards an area they have the most strength, simply marketing 101[/citation]

I think you have steered the conversation to be about Apple, well done, congratulations on hijacking another thread

 

[watcha]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]I think you have steered the conversation to be about Apple, well done, congratulations on hijacking another thread[/citation]

Journey back. The first mention of Apple came from Vladislaus, not me. In fact, in my posts I've tried to steer it back to Samsung.