Microsoft's fight against Apple ads seen as waste of money - Page 3

Oh great. Way to blow my cover. As if I weren't on thin enough ice already after greenlighting those Seinfeld ads.

More Teckstud FAIL! It's called Windows 7, and it comes out pretty much in the middle of the second half of 2009. That fact alone means there's no way they will spend dramatically less on advertising in the second half of 2009 than they did in the 1st half.

Good grief! Why do you persist with this rubbish?

And don't lecture me on simple math(s) because 2008 plus "the first 6 months" of 2009 does NOT equal 2 years.

Pardon me for not reading all responses so if someone mentions this already, sorry.

I don't mind the "I'm a PC" ads though have you noticed that they all take place in Best Buy?

Best Buy always has last generation Macs in comparison to the Apple Store and at the full prices the last generation had when those Macs were introduced.

Dude! you should get a dell!

cos she's in rehab?
i kid.. i kid...

No offence, but what country and/or grade are you from/in that you need that joke explained to you?!

sorry i was rushed with the kiddies i will re write it .
again sorry

And all their MacBooks(Pros) are scratched and dented.

Eeeeewwwww- now that's the biggest insult to ever be unleashed upon me!

Actually, maybe it's because they had to hide all the bruises and abrasions on her forehead from slamming it against the nearest wall for each time Vista crashed.

Jeeez, mate... your introduction sounds a bit propagandish

There are many decent free anti-malware products out there, and they receive updates daily. Sure once in a while new threat will slip through undetected for a while, but all in all there is no much drama there any more. Anti-mallware will take some processor time, but if you can get high end quad core PC system for the price of dual core Mac, you are not so worried about a few CPU beats.


That is so freakin' individual. I still have to find a friend or at least acquaintance who has realized that and purchased Mac, and I know for fact that many of my acquaintances - starting with me - have spent more than enough money on their gear to be able to get very decent Mac gear... so obviously, they decided to stay with PC "headaches" rather than swapping that for brand new Mac "headache". With all the polish and user friendliness Mac has, it all goes down the drain if it doesn't do what you need.


Still much more consumers choose PC. Heck, even Mac users with bootcamp choose PC, in a way - obviously they can't live with Mac only

LOL I can't argue with that!

While I have some sympathy for Balmer - he is very entertaining in a clownish way - he is definitely not the man for the top position in MS. An over-enthusiastic car seller, yes. CEO of the biggest software company in the world - Hell NO.

From the other point of view, whoever replaces Mr. B simply has to be better than him, so this is probably the lowest MS will go. Considering that, they are not doing so bad.

Hilarious and so true! Girls do dig guys with Macs! Its a given!

Except that MS didn't make mistake - when add was launched, price was as stated in the add. And simple fact that Apple found it important to make MS change their add makes it effective.


Telling some clueless parents that their kids can do their study related work on cheaper PC notebook instead of desirable but expensive Mac can be effective, specially in this economy. Of course, we'll never know if and how many more Macs would have been sold otherwise.


I believe past MS adds were more of damage control strategy, in waiting of Windows 7. It is really hard to know how effective they were as we can't repeat whole script without MS adds and see if Mac sales would be any better or not.

I personally believe some results are achieved, maybe not huge but then again, we are talking about handful of very cheap and short adds. I don't think MS has spend $300M on those adds - in fact, I believe majority of that budget will go into Windows 7 adds.

Beside reducing damage, past adds also gave MS advertising agency some time to work out strategy for further advertising, while instantly rising MS brand's media presence that might be useful for launching new products.


How did you get to those numbers? Of course Apple makes more money for selling someone Mac with OSX than MS selling someone new copy of Windows, but then again it costs almost nothing to make new copy of Windows (as in to print DVD and put it in box) compared to making new computer. Additionally Windows is not the only product MS is selling.

Rest, I agree. MS needs better and more desirable products. But having them and letting them pass unnoticed is almost as bad as not having them at all.

Hey, at least the Dell Dude knows his weed. Lauren is on ecstasy.

I'm sure you mean that only some consumers have chosen Mac for this reason.

Most people I know personally who've chosen Apple products have done so because they're 'cool', fashionable or just good-looking; few care about the actual usability or merits of the OS etc.

OT, I'd love to know what percentage of MS Windows running on Apple hardware was properly licensed.

The Microsoft ad campaign was a series of major blunders. In fact, the NY Times article which gushes over the MS ads shows that Apple's market share dipped only slightly and quickly recovered - which (since the ads are still running) suggests that the ads didn't do anything. From a business management perspective and based on years of marketing education and experience, there are quite a few MAJOR blunders to the ads:

1. MS is the market leader and Apple is trying to gain credibility. Before MS ran the ads, it was easy for people to say "no one uses Macs" or "they're not worth considering because they're too nonstandard" or any of the other silly complaints people have made. Now, Microsoft comes along with an ad saying "We, Microsoft, the biggest OS vendor in the market, think Macs are good enough to consider as an alternative to Windows and we'll do a comparison". They handed Apple the credibility issue on a platter ('if Macs are important enough for Microsoft to look at them, perhaps I should, too'). They're also suggesting that people should go into the Mac section to check it out - and many of those people would never have gone their otherwise. If the Apple salesmen grab even a small percentage, it's completely free business for Apple.

2. The premise is foolish. Is there anyone who needs to be told that you can buy a cheaper PC than a Mac? While, in reality, Macs can be competitive on the high end, clearly a price-driven customer wouldn't be buying a Mac. But Microsoft just sent the message that perhaps the prices are close enough that one needs to have a look. Again, price sensitive people wouldn't have considered a Mac, anyway, so why give them the idea? Some percentage will be high end users who realize that those bargain basement PCs that MS is pushing are junk and maybe look at Macs.

3. Perhaps the biggest blunder is the entire premise of the ads - that price is all that matters.
3a. By sending the message that price is all that matters (or, at least, the most important thing), MS opens themselves up to Linux systems which are less expensive (no Windows licensing fee). That's not much of a problem today, but when Google releases its ChromeOS, it could be serious. Google has the clout to finally make Linux a player - and MIcrosoft just handed them their weapon. "If Microsoft says I should choose my computer on the basis of price, maybe I SHOULD choose this cheaper ChromeOS computer".

3b. It's bad practice to focus on price when you're vulnerable. Vista was junk and everyone knows it was junk. Even people who haven't used it or wouldn't know an OS if it bit them in the butt have gotten the message that Vista is junk. In that scenario, you don't come out "But we're cheap!" It merely reinforces the message that it's junk. Rather, their focus should have been on their DEFENSIBLE strengths - application availability, ubiquity, widespread support options, etc., etc., etc.). They could have fought back against Apple using a strength that doesn't scream "sure, we're junk, but at least we're cheap".

3c. It's really bad practice for someone who offers the low priced product to try to use price against a premium, elite product. That would be like Chevy using price against BMW. Duh. All it does is further differentiate you from the high quality, premium brand. It basically increases the prestige value of the premium brand - and sends the message "we know we'll never be as good as Apple, but at least we're cheap".

With their money, Microsoft should have done better. I have to conclude that the ad agency's hands were tied by poor management decisions. Properly done, they could have fought back by building on their strengths. For example, they might focus on ease of use - and pull out fluff like "not that long ago, people were using arcane commands like del c://**.* to control their computers. Thanks to Windows, 2 billion computer users can now do things visually without remembering a single command" or something like that. SOME people will realize that Apple led the way and Microsoft followed, but it doesn't matter - MS is the one who brought it to 95% of those billions of people. Others (probably the majority) will not realize that Windows is a cheap copy of Mac OS, so they'll be appreciative of what Microsoft has done.

THAT is how it should be done.

That's not true. Some of us are ALL THREE. (you left out charming, intelligent, rich, and sexy, though).

Good point! In your case you added the value by adding the VALUE. Your probably pretty good at hardware repairs so AppleCare and it's One-One didn't appeal to you. Nothing wrong with that but the commercials for PC's MISS that extra tid-bit. For you, and I, it's a moot point. We could repair and be going in no time but for the remaining 99% of the world it's not the case. So you pay more, you get WAY more than just hardware.

On paper they seem similar but I can't find a Laptop, PC Variant, with a 1066mhz BUS speed and DDR3 memory for less than $1400, I CAN however find a PC with those specs for a lot less but it comes with a picture of an Apple on it... And someone took a bite out of it.

The desktop you built is something Apple doesn't. And like you I've gone that route... Once. I decided the New Mini was a perfect replacement for my old aging mini's and replaced them all and turned the Hackintosh back into a PC, Ubuntu PC mind you.

But you do bring up a valid point in that what you wanted in the form factor you wanted it in they didn't make. You have the Mini with a more pricey laptop components and then the MacPro with the pricey server internals. But I think Apple would get slammed to build a middle-road Mac, it should be priced at $999 (Desktop form factor) but they can't justify the price because the cost of the parts would be less than or equal to the Mini due to less expensive desktop parts thus tossing the Mini into the archives and it doesn't deserve that. It's a great computer that sips power and pounds through work like a champ. It's a great little server and a fantastic home theater system.

On a side note I drive a Suzuki. I do because a few years ago I was stranded at 8pm on a major highway in my then 2yr old Suzuki. Still under warranty. I called Roadside Assist. Rather than tell me, like Honda did to my wife on the same year, your Roadside has expired sorry here's a number... The guy on the phone (In Cali), got ahold of the nearest dealer, got a hold of a towing company they work with. In 20 mins me, my wife and 8 month old son were picked up in a new Suzuki XL7 (we were in an XL7) following mine on a flat bed back to the dealer. My powertrain warranty was still good and the repair was covered. The dealer told us this is normal in the event an owner breaks down within 45 miles of a dealer. We were told to call back on Monday for an ETA and if need be the dealer would drive our truck to our house and swap with the new XL7 we were being lent. If we had been farther away they would have sent Enterprise. My wife had a honda and was told to pound sand. She was given a number and a nice good-bye. For that reason, I drive Suzuki. For the same reason I own a Mac even if I run Windows. Has this been PC Company & Microsoft I'd still be on the highway, on hold waiting to be transfered to another rep who could help me. This is my 6th Suzuki and I'm on my... 20th Mac? I've only had a Suzuki break down once, Mac zero.

s'okay, bruce. I kinda like your animated style.

I think INTELLIGENT ranks the highest.

How do you pick out the PC owners on a website? they misspell words.

The way I gauge the effectiveness of the laptop hunter commercials is that they are very effective for Microsoft's target audience.

Those who never venture much past the browser.

Those who would drive 5 miles back home because they forgot their McDonalds coupons.

Those new to computers that rely on the retail salesperson at Best Buy.

And of course those who spend their online time trolling Apple tech sites.

None of these would appreciate the value of a Mac. Few of them would ever be targeted by Apple. The rest of the people who viewed these ads probably didn't see them effective. I had to laugh at the one who said she was a video professional and proceeded to pick a worst choice over the better choice; the Mac when it comes to easily editing video. Actually all the hunters, IMO, were lame on the reasons for their choice.

Apple, with billions in the bank, is doing just fine in their targeted audience. I'm guessing, they don't advertise to increase overall market share and are quite content with the profit margins they make in their global market.

Microsoft pundits would like to believe Apple's fortunes against MS were due to the ad campaign, thus living in the usual state of denial that Apple makes superior stuff.

Secondly, the fact that internally MS people are putting "I'm a PC" stickers on their machines means that MS ads are just corporate breast beating and such ads never make for effective campaigns with customers.

Correct. However the commercial ran after the Mac prices had changed so SOMEONE made a mistake. Perhaps it was the agency, I don't know. It's a Microsoft ad. They carry the can.


Why? I thought the point of the commercials was to try and sell more Windows PCs ... not to upset a couple of Apple executives.



You missed my point. Not only were the ads trying to steer people away from buying a Mac they also seemed to encourage punters to buy PCs at a much lower price than the original budget. I am sure that HP would rather sell you a $1000 PC than a $700 one.


They may be cheap to make but they are not cheap to air on national TV. BTW I don't think the "I'm a PC" ads, shot all around the world and featuring celebs would be that cheap to make. Seinfeld didn't come cheap either!


Yep that's what you think... but you don't know! The NYT article states that Microsoft spent over $300 million on TV in 2008 and 2009. From what I can gather those figures are likely only for North America. I am in the UK and the "I'm a PC" ads were rotated pretty heavily here. The campaigns responding to Apple could have cost even more than 300 million. We will have to rely on teckstud as he appears to be the only one who knows the real figures.



The Mac's ASP and the cost of a Windows OEM license are estimates via Google. If you know some more accurate figures let me know.

Apple wants you to buy a Mac and Microsoft doesn't. This has nothing to do with boxed OS software. The simple point being that for for every Mac convert, Apple can earn $1000plus in earnings and hundreds of dollars in profits. For every punter that Microsoft can "save" from Apple's evil clutches they make just tens of dollars.

Steve Ballmer said it himself. 'Apple's gains are only a rounding error.' In a way, he is actually right so that makes it doubly curious that he is spending many millions of dollars targeting Apple.

ms's adds are moronic in that they turn their focus on apple being expensive, thus implying that they are great but expensive since they cant pinpoint any other thing in their ads but their pricy equipment, thus equating apple with pricy greatness. Only morons would do that, help an opponent become even more reputable whilst attacking them. Because the next step will be from the consumer: "I know apple are great, and they are not that expensive", which were my initial thoughts when I jumped the ms crazy sinking ship three years ago. They are emphasizing this all the more.

Of course the "analyst" misses that important point, as most analysts are keen to.

Another thing is that via their ads they stoop to promote a pc not based on their os, or even their own hardware, not even based on other people's hardware and their os, but based on other people's hardware and their os being cheapos...what a strategy...


As for the pirates, if MS where to chase the pirates (and in corporate environments ms chase "pirates" and suck their clients bloods out) they they wouldn't be able to charge $400 for effing windows vista ultimate, with the ultimate refering to the precious add ons they would release (these add ons boiling down to dreamscene : the ability to stick a loop of clip playing in the background....)

I think this point has been over-hyped to death. I actually don't think it means anything at all.

If Ford were running a commercial claiming better gas mileage than a Honda, but the ad was based on last year's model Honda, you can bet that Honda's lawyers would call and tell them to change it or pull it.

If Southwest was running ads saying they had the most flights to Florida and Jet Blue added a couple of flights so they were even or exceeded Southwest's number, Jet Blue's lawyers would make exactly the same call.

If Weight Watchers was running adds saying that Lean Cuisine's meals all had 200 calories more than Weight Watchers' meals and Lean Cuisine coincidentally had new meals hit the stores a month later (meals that they had been working on for months) that were 10 calories lower, Lean Cuisine's lawyers would call Weight Watchers and tell them to stop saying they had 200 calories less, that Lean Cuisine had reduced their calories and the adds were no longer accurate.

No company's marketing and legal departments are, on general principle, going to allow a competitor to get away with making a factual claim about their product that is less than 100% accurate. This isn't something unique to Apple or Microsoft or any other company. That's just how businesses operate.

So, to point to this as a measure of the ad's (or ads') effectiveness simply doesn't hold water. At the moment your ad is no longer 100% accurate on factual claims regarding a competitor, you're going to, at the very least, get a call from their lawyers. Even if your ad campaign were actually driving business to your competitor, they would still call you on any points of fact about their product that were not completely accurate.

So, all this really means is that Microsoft's ad was no longer accurate and Apple legal called them and pointed that out. Attempts to read significance into it beyond that are just that.

The fact is Apple have had so far a very good year in terms of revenue/profit and MS had a declining year compared to last years figures. The P&L tells you the story of each company's performance, not newspapers mate.

btw: The analyst 'AppleFan' boy was using actual factual data to provide feedback on both companies performance, you may not like his style of writing, but the same figures have been used by other analysts.

My colleagues stated a true simple fact, YOU NEVER MENTION YOUR COMPETITION IN an AD, MASSIVE NO NO. Apple have been very clever to target the PC and not MS directly. You may not like Apple, but Kudos to them for very clever ads.

Another example of Apple INNOVATION vs. MS RECYCLING!

Wow you must be a Microsoft fanboy if you got the link to the ad. All I say is all good things come to an end.

In other words that money Microsoft wasted should have been use to make Windows 7 better and sell it for $29!

Well said.

Your comments also remind me of what it was like to work with PC vs Mac magazines when placing media orders. Back in the day you often worked with one editorial group for multiple platforms. It was a mess and the attention to detail on the non-mac side was equally appalling.

Oh, pah-leeze!

MANY of us Mac users have licensed copy of Windows installed, either one we bought personally, or one that was provided under our companies licensing agreement. We are forced to continue to use Windows on a daily basis for proprietary apps that were never ported or written for OS X.

VMware Fusion and Parallels BOTH require entering a license key, then placing a call, or going online, to MS tech support (at least once) to authenticate your copy.

Get real.

What are you talking about? which part of my post is so fanciful in your opinion? I've no problem with you having a different opinion, but 'pah-leez' at least make sense.

"Hi, I'm a young, hip, modern woman looking for a laptop for under $100. I'd like to have a Mac but I'm just not special enough for them. Hey look, I found this one on the bottom shelf at my local Walmart, the manual is in Chinese, but it's exactly what I'm looking for. Congratulations! It's a PC!"

Correct . I will try .

I feel all these ads placed by MSFT are a misdirection to force our eyes away from their unfair monopoly. These ADS increased business for all laptop vendors. And MSFT sells SW to both sides of the fence. MSFT needs apple to exist.

So Balmer is a genius in that no matter what they do they make sales and create a fake p/c argument. No one can be as stupid as steve acts .No one . So many here to me are like sheep, bleating away at every bullshIt MSFT missive. I do not ever believe one word for msft ever. One day the sheep and the sec will look up .

just saying
peace
9

Thanks i never went to college and kinda ramble on sometimes . I see that MSFT is like the CIA IN THAT no matter what they say it a lie .

I always figured it was just the effects of the methane.

Not necessarily a lie, just a horrible misprepresentation of what should constitute human interaction with technology. Meaning, "they have no taste", which is really the basis for all of their woes and lousy image today.

true!

actually the ad campaign was successful in getting cheap PC buyers not to buy a Mac