By pointing out the continuing shortcomings of computing in a Windows environment, the Apple ads target a very specific audience very effectively. A year ago, my wife and I were in that target audience and the ads motivated us into taking a closer look at Macs. More specifically, we began getting fed up with all-too-frequent blue screens of death and program crashes on our Windows machines, despite maintaining our hardware and faithfully installing anti-malware updates and updates to application software. Reboots were big time-wasters. The contrast in reliability that the Apple ads claimed was enough to get us to take a more serious look at converting to Macs, and ultimately to replace my wife's desktop with our first iMac in September 08.
The astonishing improvements in reliability and our user satisfaction are confirmation that the Apple ads were on target in reducing our misgivings about giving up Windows. Within two months after our first purchase, we acquired two unibody MacBooks, and for a full year now our user experience with the three Macs has been positively blissful compared to the constant Windows frustrations of the past.
We've still have one Windows desktop that I use from time to time for a couple isolated applications, partially because I have no desire to put Windows on any of our our Macs. Those occasions are becoming rarer by the month, and it won't be long before we retire it for one of the 27" iMacs.
Others have pointed out that introduction of Windows 7 is the perfect time for Apple to be airing its "Broken Promises" ad. A large number of Windows users, particularly those still on XL, may opt for a new computer with 7 already installed, rather than go through all the laborious and chancy backup and disk wiping steps required to upgrade from XLon . People in that situation who put great value premium performance are natural candidates to make their next computer purchase a Mac.
As PC Guy John Hodgman might say, "Trust me on this."
By pointing out the continuing shortcomings of computing in a Windows environment, the Apple ads target a very specific audience very effectively. A year ago, my wife and I were in that target audience and the ads motivated us into taking a closer look at Macs. More specifically, we began getting fed up with all-too-frequent blue screens of death and program crashes on our Windows machines, despite maintaining our hardware and faithfully installing anti-malware updates and updates to application software. Reboots were big time-wasters. The contrast in reliability that the Apple ads claimed was enough to get us to take a more serious look at converting to Macs, and ultimately to replace my wife's desktop with our first iMac in September 08.
The astonishing improvements in reliability and our user satisfaction are confirmation that the Apple ads were on target in reducing our misgivings about giving up Windows. Within two months after our first purchase, we acquired two unibody MacBooks, and for a full year now our user experience with the three Macs has been positively blissful compared to the constant Windows frustrations of the past.
We've still have one Windows desktop that I use from time to time for a couple isolated applications, partially because I have no desire to put Windows on any of our our Macs. Those occasions are becoming rarer by the month, and it won't be long before we retire it for one of the 27" iMacs.
Others have pointed out that introduction of Windows 7 is the perfect time for Apple to be airing its "Broken Promises" ad. A large number of Windows users, particularly those still on XL, may opt for a new computer with 7 already installed, rather than go through all the laborious and chancy backup and disk wiping steps required to upgrade from XLon . People in that situation who put great value premium performance are natural candidates to make their next computer purchase a Mac.
As PC Guy John Hodgman might say, "Trust me on this."
That would be XP not XL. Also while many talk blindly about a blue screen its actually there for a purpose. Most people don't understand this is reporting an error and that error directly points to a problem that in most cases can be resolved quickly. Most blue screens these days have to do with a poorly written device driver or beta driver. Updating the driver almost always resolves the problem
If someone just continues to reboot after a blue screen and never actually looks at the error the problem will just continue.
This of course is more of an issue with Windows because of 3rd party hardware and drivers that are controlled by the OEM. However the upside is if you have a driver problem on a windows system you can resolve it yourself instead of having to wait for Apple to fix the problem seeing they control the drivers on Apple systems.
Not saying you shouldnt have switched to an Apple computer and its good you are happy with your switch, its just the entire blue screen issue is over stated in my opinion. Blue screen are rare these days.
That would be XP not XL. Also while many talk blindly about a blue screen its actually there for a purpose. Most people don't understand this is reporting an error and that error directly points to a problem that in most cases can be resolved quickly. Most blue screens these days have to do with a poorly written device driver or beta driver. Updating the driver almost always resolves the problem
If someone just continues to reboot after a blue screen and never actually looks at the error the problem will just continue.
This of course is more of an issue with Windows because of 3rd party hardware and drivers that are controlled by the OEM. However the upside is if you have a driver problem on a windows system you can resolve it yourself instead of having to wait for Apple to fix the problem seeing they control the drivers on Apple systems.
Not saying you shouldnt have switched to an Apple computer and its good you are happy with your switch, its just the entire blue screen issue is over stated in my opinion. Blue screen are rare these days.
Yeah, except that you are completely ignoring the thrust of his post. He didn't buy a Mac *because* of the adds, but they did help him consider the platform more seriously. This means that the adds were a success in his case.
Since you have spent the entire thread trying to argue that this can not be possible, I guess it makes sense that you are talking about the blue screen (and what a good thing it is, oddly enough ).
Yeah, except that you are completely ignoring the thrust of his post. He didn't buy a Mac *because* of the adds, but they did help him consider the platform more seriously. This means that the adds were a success in his case.
Since you have spent the entire thread trying to argue that this can not be possible, I guess it makes sense that you are talking about the blue screen (and what a good thing it is, oddly enough ).
So we have now verified that one person looked into an Apple computer because of an ad. Still doesnt mean attacks ads are seen as favorable by the majority of users, because they aren't.
My point wasnt that ads never work its that attack ads do not work. People dont want to hear about how bad the competition is they want to hear about what the company has to offer. The if you cant look go try to make somone else look bad approach doesnt work well anywhere in life.
So we have now verified that one person looked into an Apple computer because of an ad. Still doesnt mean attacks ads are seen as favorable by the majority of users, because they aren't.
My point wasnt that ads never work its that attack ads do not work. People dont want to hear about how bad the competition is they want to hear about what the company has to offer. The if you cant look go try to make somone else look bad approach doesnt work well anywhere in life.
The majority may say they don’t like these ads, but that is not the same as the ads not working. You say they don’t work and we have a poster that says that it did work. Now, you could call him a liar and/or an idiot, but your point was that it did not work, not that they didn’t work well or that the concept was generally disliked.
The whole point of ads are to make your product look superior (for the money) than a competitor. That is what the “PC Hunter" ads were doing. That is what the iDon’t ads are doing. They are targeting the people that don’t like Apple and their products. Use old precepts that people cling to but that aren’t necessarily true anymore or ever is standard. You have to get your potential customer to be interested in your product in a very short time. That is why teaser ads exist even though they don’t actually show a product. It’s just a tactic, and it works. These attack ads you mention work by exploiting a product’s faults, real or otherwise. It’s just a tactic, and it works.
Sorry - my slip - should have said XP. Enough decades for an old fart like me and the memory fails and the terminology begins to blur. My career was writing, and my first computer was in 1983, an Epson HX-20. Look it up in Wikipedia. It had an LCD screen that only displayed four lines of 20 characters each, something like looking at the world through a pinhole. Documents (such as they were) could be saved digitally on what essentially was a portable dictation microcassette. Primitive, but it worked.
Over the years I migrated through MS-DOS portables in the late '80s and early '90s, then through practically every version of Windows. WordPerfect at the time was excellent word processing software to help me get my job done.
I'm not a computer professional, just a long-time user. It is in that context that I'm speaking of blue screens and crashes. They're the failures that disrupt what I want to accomplish. Me? Resolve a blue screen issue? I'm supposed to fix a driver problem? Bull! When the "check engine" light in our car comes on, there are damn few of us these days who dare dive under the hood to fix that either!
The real point to my previous post is to offer the actual experience of just one consumer in relation to the effectiveness of the Apple ads. Almost every previous comment has been conjectural, even those that are based on reference to advertising principles and studies. There is a more realistic way to get a better insight into the ads' effectiveness. That is to hang around an Apple store and ask the people buying Macs - especially their first Mac after a history of Windows machines - what influenced their decision. No doubt Apple's ad people have done a lot of just that, to decide what messages to communicate and how to deploy their marketing dollars most effectively. "Broken Promises" and "attack" ads didn't come about by accident or by some sort of irrational simmering grudge against Microsoft by Apple executives. They were developed for very good business reasons.
The majority may say they don?t like these ads, but that is not the same as the ads not working. You say they don?t work and we have a poster that says that it did work. Now, you could call him a liar and/or an idiot, but your point was that it did not work, not that they didn?t work well or that the concept was generally disliked.
The whole point of ads are to make your product look superior (for the money) than a competitor. That is what the ?PC Hunter" ads were doing. That is what the iDon?t ads are doing. They are targeting the people that don?t like Apple and their products. Use old precepts that people cling to but that aren?t necessarily true anymore or ever is standard. You have to get your potential customer to be interested in your product in a very short time. That is why teaser ads exist even though they don?t actually show a product. It?s just a tactic, and it works.
I wouldn't call anyone a liar. My point started when one other member feels that pushing even harder attack ads is the way to go. My point is attack ads to most are childish and overall the general population does not respond well to them.
One ad that Apple used in 2006 highlighted the fact their systems came bundled with ilife. While it showed Windows systems do not come with a decent bundle it wasnt an attack ad and it woudl spark interest about ilife and what the bundle offers. That is a smart ad.
My point is Apple has alot of nice features to offer they should spent time hightlighting those features and shouldn't even mention MS. There is no need to try and make MS look bad if you feel you have a good product, which they do.
Sorry - my slip - should have said XP. Enough decades for an old fart like me and the memory fails and the terminology begins to blur. My career was writing, and my first computer was in 1983, an Epson HX-20. Look it up in Wikipedia. It had an LCD screen that only displayed four lines of 20 characters each, something like looking at the world through a pinhole. Documents (such as they were) could be saved digitally on what essentially was a portable dictation microcassette. Primitive, but it worked.
Over the years I migrated through MS-DOS portables in the late '80s and early '90s, then through practically every version of Windows. WordPerfect at the time was excellent word processing software to help me get my job done.
I'm not a computer professional, just a long-time user. It is in that context that I'm speaking of blue screens and crashes. They're the failures that disrupt what I want to accomplish. Me? Resolve a blue screen issue? I'm supposed to fix a driver problem? Bull! When the "check engine" light in our car comes on, there are damn few of us these days who dare dive under the hood to fix that either!
The real point to my previous post is to offer the actual experience of just one consumer in relation to the effectiveness of the Apple ads. Almost every previous comment has been conjectural, even those that are based on reference to advertising principles and studies. There is a more realistic way to get a better insight into the ads' effectiveness. That is to hang around an Apple store and ask the people buying Macs - especially their first Mac after a history of Windows machines - what influenced their decision. No doubt Apple's ad people have done a lot of just that, to decide what messages to communicate and how to deploy their marketing dollars most effectively. "Broken Promises" and "attack" ads didn't come about by accident or by some sort of irrational simmering grudge against Microsoft by Apple executives. They were developed for very good business reasons.
Using MS-DOS, I really hate to even think about it to be honest. I wasn't trying to put aside your experience I have just been trying to make the point that Apple would be better served if they focused on their product and their benefits instead of trying to beat up on MS. The ads were funny at first but now they just come off as childish.
I feel if you have a good product you should talk about your product instead of trying to make someone else look bad.
Lets be honest if you went into the Apple store and their product was crap it doesnt matter what their ad said you wouldnt have switched. My main point was the general public doesnt respond well to attack ads. Not that ads cant peak interest.
One ad that Apple used in 2006 highlighted the fact their systems came bundled with ilife. While it showed Windows systems do not come with a decent bundle it wasnt an attack ad.
They are pointing out how Windows fails in comparison by not bundling such apps. All the ?Get A Mac? ads attack non-Mac PCs in some way. That is the whole basis for the campaign. It?s funny because the ones reinforcing the public feeling about Vista were in many ways more honest than the one you mention is not an ?attack ad?. MS can?t bundle a suite like iLife with Windows the way Apple can because of their market dominance. Apple didn?t point that out.
extremeskater said: "Still doesnt mean attacks ads are seen as favorable by the majority of users, because they aren't."
Do you have hard facts or data to support that statement? That is, with specific reference to Apple's ads.
I have my own experience in Apple Stores which I am lucky enough to have two retail Apple stores near my house. When you get to know the people that work there and talk to them about the system you never hear them bash Microsoft of anyone else. They talk about what their system has to offer, they spend time showing you the system and the OS.
They talk about training classes that are offered for people that dont feel totally comfortable switching. Thankfully Apple store employees are trained to be far more professional then the people making these ads.
When you get into an Apple Store the product is sold based on its merrits not by trying to make someone else look bad. The people in the White Castle rarely understand what the public wants its the people that acutally work with the public and understand the product that knows what they are doing.
extremeskater, your points are well taken about positive advertising. As to negative ads, we all get sick of the campaign ads that defame the opponents and make us wonder whether the attacker has any ethics at all.
But nothing in Apple's ads have been unethical or defamatory. Apple realized that it was in a situation where the competitor's product had real vulnerabilities, but its frustrated users were reluctant to swap the devil they knew for something they didn't. Apple seeks to make Windows users ever more conscious of their pain, painful enough for them to overcome their fear of change and to take that fateful step from the familiar to the unknown.
Now, Apple's campaign hasn't been without its positive aspects, either. To those fearful Windows users it keeps saying, "Come over to us, and we'll hold your hand. You won't fall - or fail." That's the purpose of its selling One-to-One and offering free tutorials at its stores. Bring in your Windows machine, buy One-to-One with your new Mac, and Apple will copy all your precious stuff from your Windows machine to your new unit. Apple's hand-holding and user training is the envy of the industry. Stand in an Apple store, watch all the One-to-One clients and visitors to the Genius Bar, and see if you can find any who walk away unhappy. AI has reported hard survey numbers to back that up. Mac customer satisfaction is by far the highest in the personal computer industry.
I have my own experience in Apple Stores which I am lucky enough to have two retail Apple stores near my house. When you get to know the people that work there and talk to them about the system you never hear them bash Microsoft of anyone else. They talk about what their system has to offer, they spend time showing you the system and the OS.
They talk about training classes that are offered for people that dont feel totally comfortable switching. Thankfully Apple store employees are trained to be far more professional then the people making these ads.
When you get into an Apple Store the product is sold based on its merrits not by trying to make someone else look bad. The people in the White Castle rarely understand what the public wants its the people that acutally work with the public and understand the product that knows what they are doing.
Bashing competiton in the store is bad form becase it's bad business. Talking about marketing, not morals or ethics. Different medium and time frame requires diffeent kind of sales technique. For instance, a 30 second comedic one-way advert is not the same as two-way intercourse between two people far to face. Once you have the customer in the store in front of a Mac the game is different. Remember, thy don't even show a Mac in those ads until the closing frames.
Its not about ignoring anything. If you have some kind of data that shows Apple ads have directly contributed to sales then lets see it. Attack ads do not work they only make a company look weak and the #1 rule in advertising is never directly talk about your competitor it does notthing but give them free advertising.
Only a mindless fool would make a major purchase based on something they see on tv.
Then the vast majority of American consumers are mindless fools:
They are pointing out how Windows fails in comparison by not bundling such apps. All the ?Get A Mac? ads attack non-Mac PCs in some way. That is the whole basis for the campaign. It?s funny because the ones reinforcing the public feeling about Vista were in many ways more honest than the one you mention is not an ?attack ad?. MS can?t bundle a suite like iLife with Windows the way Apple can. Apple didn?t point that out.
Besides, you can't really compare Apple's Mac/PC campaign to a political attack ad: political attack ads rarely are truthful, while there has been nothing in the Mac / PC ads that wasn't factually accurate. The only ones who seem to see the Mac / PC campaign as "attack ads" are those who are being attacked.
Your right you don't have to take out a second mortgage to get surgery because you would die before you ever got real treatment. This is why foreign leaders come ot the US for treatment because we have the best in the world. Thats what a true free market society provides because of inovation and competition.
And actually the national drop our rate in the US is 16% not 30% while in Canada its 18%. Not that we should be looking at the bottom.
You may want to read up on healthcare across the world before making such bold statements
So we have now verified that one person looked into an Apple computer because of an ad. Still doesnt mean attacks ads are seen as favorable by the majority of users, because they aren't.
Except that inspite of them Apple is breaking Mac sales records in a recession. Continuously. If the ads aren't actually helping (which is ludicrous to assume), they're not hurting, either.
The majority of "users" aren't going to look at Apple ads "unfavourably." At worst, they're going to ignore them. It's only enthusiasts that are confined to small corners of the internet like us that have strong opinions about it.
Even an internet poll (the link you yourself posted earlier) showed your assumption was quite wrong. And that was polling mostly tech enthusiasts, if I recall correctly.
I understand what you are saying and they do seem a bit smug...
The only people who find them smug, arrogant, misleading, whatever, are the so-called tech savvy types who bore their acquaintances with their own smug, arrogant egos. Real users nod their heads in agreement. They have experienced the "pain and frustration" mentioned in the latest ad.
And no, solipsism, you are not one of those types. I think we all know who those are on this forum.
Comments
Not to mention increasingly negative and ineffective now that Microsoft Windows 7 actually works and they are running such positive ads themselves.
Justin Long needs to get his own career going as well.
I thought you were banned.
The astonishing improvements in reliability and our user satisfaction are confirmation that the Apple ads were on target in reducing our misgivings about giving up Windows. Within two months after our first purchase, we acquired two unibody MacBooks, and for a full year now our user experience with the three Macs has been positively blissful compared to the constant Windows frustrations of the past.
We've still have one Windows desktop that I use from time to time for a couple isolated applications, partially because I have no desire to put Windows on any of our our Macs. Those occasions are becoming rarer by the month, and it won't be long before we retire it for one of the 27" iMacs.
Others have pointed out that introduction of Windows 7 is the perfect time for Apple to be airing its "Broken Promises" ad. A large number of Windows users, particularly those still on XL, may opt for a new computer with 7 already installed, rather than go through all the laborious and chancy backup and disk wiping steps required to upgrade from XLon . People in that situation who put great value premium performance are natural candidates to make their next computer purchase a Mac.
As PC Guy John Hodgman might say, "Trust me on this."
By pointing out the continuing shortcomings of computing in a Windows environment, the Apple ads target a very specific audience very effectively. A year ago, my wife and I were in that target audience and the ads motivated us into taking a closer look at Macs. More specifically, we began getting fed up with all-too-frequent blue screens of death and program crashes on our Windows machines, despite maintaining our hardware and faithfully installing anti-malware updates and updates to application software. Reboots were big time-wasters. The contrast in reliability that the Apple ads claimed was enough to get us to take a more serious look at converting to Macs, and ultimately to replace my wife's desktop with our first iMac in September 08.
The astonishing improvements in reliability and our user satisfaction are confirmation that the Apple ads were on target in reducing our misgivings about giving up Windows. Within two months after our first purchase, we acquired two unibody MacBooks, and for a full year now our user experience with the three Macs has been positively blissful compared to the constant Windows frustrations of the past.
We've still have one Windows desktop that I use from time to time for a couple isolated applications, partially because I have no desire to put Windows on any of our our Macs. Those occasions are becoming rarer by the month, and it won't be long before we retire it for one of the 27" iMacs.
Others have pointed out that introduction of Windows 7 is the perfect time for Apple to be airing its "Broken Promises" ad. A large number of Windows users, particularly those still on XL, may opt for a new computer with 7 already installed, rather than go through all the laborious and chancy backup and disk wiping steps required to upgrade from XLon . People in that situation who put great value premium performance are natural candidates to make their next computer purchase a Mac.
As PC Guy John Hodgman might say, "Trust me on this."
That would be XP not XL. Also while many talk blindly about a blue screen its actually there for a purpose. Most people don't understand this is reporting an error and that error directly points to a problem that in most cases can be resolved quickly. Most blue screens these days have to do with a poorly written device driver or beta driver. Updating the driver almost always resolves the problem
If someone just continues to reboot after a blue screen and never actually looks at the error the problem will just continue.
This of course is more of an issue with Windows because of 3rd party hardware and drivers that are controlled by the OEM. However the upside is if you have a driver problem on a windows system you can resolve it yourself instead of having to wait for Apple to fix the problem seeing they control the drivers on Apple systems.
Not saying you shouldnt have switched to an Apple computer and its good you are happy with your switch, its just the entire blue screen issue is over stated in my opinion. Blue screen are rare these days.
That would be XP not XL. Also while many talk blindly about a blue screen its actually there for a purpose. Most people don't understand this is reporting an error and that error directly points to a problem that in most cases can be resolved quickly. Most blue screens these days have to do with a poorly written device driver or beta driver. Updating the driver almost always resolves the problem
If someone just continues to reboot after a blue screen and never actually looks at the error the problem will just continue.
This of course is more of an issue with Windows because of 3rd party hardware and drivers that are controlled by the OEM. However the upside is if you have a driver problem on a windows system you can resolve it yourself instead of having to wait for Apple to fix the problem seeing they control the drivers on Apple systems.
Not saying you shouldnt have switched to an Apple computer and its good you are happy with your switch, its just the entire blue screen issue is over stated in my opinion. Blue screen are rare these days.
Yeah, except that you are completely ignoring the thrust of his post. He didn't buy a Mac *because* of the adds, but they did help him consider the platform more seriously. This means that the adds were a success in his case.
Since you have spent the entire thread trying to argue that this can not be possible, I guess it makes sense that you are talking about the blue screen (and what a good thing it is, oddly enough
Yeah, except that you are completely ignoring the thrust of his post. He didn't buy a Mac *because* of the adds, but they did help him consider the platform more seriously. This means that the adds were a success in his case.
Since you have spent the entire thread trying to argue that this can not be possible, I guess it makes sense that you are talking about the blue screen (and what a good thing it is, oddly enough
So we have now verified that one person looked into an Apple computer because of an ad. Still doesnt mean attacks ads are seen as favorable by the majority of users, because they aren't.
My point wasnt that ads never work its that attack ads do not work. People dont want to hear about how bad the competition is they want to hear about what the company has to offer. The if you cant look go try to make somone else look bad approach doesnt work well anywhere in life.
So we have now verified that one person looked into an Apple computer because of an ad. Still doesnt mean attacks ads are seen as favorable by the majority of users, because they aren't.
My point wasnt that ads never work its that attack ads do not work. People dont want to hear about how bad the competition is they want to hear about what the company has to offer. The if you cant look go try to make somone else look bad approach doesnt work well anywhere in life.
The majority may say they don’t like these ads, but that is not the same as the ads not working. You say they don’t work and we have a poster that says that it did work. Now, you could call him a liar and/or an idiot, but your point was that it did not work, not that they didn’t work well or that the concept was generally disliked.
The whole point of ads are to make your product look superior (for the money) than a competitor. That is what the “PC Hunter" ads were doing. That is what the iDon’t ads are doing. They are targeting the people that don’t like Apple and their products. Use old precepts that people cling to but that aren’t necessarily true anymore or ever is standard. You have to get your potential customer to be interested in your product in a very short time. That is why teaser ads exist even though they don’t actually show a product. It’s just a tactic, and it works. These attack ads you mention work by exploiting a product’s faults, real or otherwise. It’s just a tactic, and it works.
Over the years I migrated through MS-DOS portables in the late '80s and early '90s, then through practically every version of Windows. WordPerfect at the time was excellent word processing software to help me get my job done.
I'm not a computer professional, just a long-time user. It is in that context that I'm speaking of blue screens and crashes. They're the failures that disrupt what I want to accomplish. Me? Resolve a blue screen issue? I'm supposed to fix a driver problem? Bull! When the "check engine" light in our car comes on, there are damn few of us these days who dare dive under the hood to fix that either!
The real point to my previous post is to offer the actual experience of just one consumer in relation to the effectiveness of the Apple ads. Almost every previous comment has been conjectural, even those that are based on reference to advertising principles and studies. There is a more realistic way to get a better insight into the ads' effectiveness. That is to hang around an Apple store and ask the people buying Macs - especially their first Mac after a history of Windows machines - what influenced their decision. No doubt Apple's ad people have done a lot of just that, to decide what messages to communicate and how to deploy their marketing dollars most effectively. "Broken Promises" and "attack" ads didn't come about by accident or by some sort of irrational simmering grudge against Microsoft by Apple executives. They were developed for very good business reasons.
The majority may say they don?t like these ads, but that is not the same as the ads not working. You say they don?t work and we have a poster that says that it did work. Now, you could call him a liar and/or an idiot, but your point was that it did not work, not that they didn?t work well or that the concept was generally disliked.
The whole point of ads are to make your product look superior (for the money) than a competitor. That is what the ?PC Hunter" ads were doing. That is what the iDon?t ads are doing. They are targeting the people that don?t like Apple and their products. Use old precepts that people cling to but that aren?t necessarily true anymore or ever is standard. You have to get your potential customer to be interested in your product in a very short time. That is why teaser ads exist even though they don?t actually show a product. It?s just a tactic, and it works.
I wouldn't call anyone a liar. My point started when one other member feels that pushing even harder attack ads is the way to go. My point is attack ads to most are childish and overall the general population does not respond well to them.
One ad that Apple used in 2006 highlighted the fact their systems came bundled with ilife. While it showed Windows systems do not come with a decent bundle it wasnt an attack ad and it woudl spark interest about ilife and what the bundle offers. That is a smart ad.
My point is Apple has alot of nice features to offer they should spent time hightlighting those features and shouldn't even mention MS. There is no need to try and make MS look bad if you feel you have a good product, which they do.
Do you have hard facts or data to support that statement? That is, with specific reference to Apple's ads.
Sorry - my slip - should have said XP. Enough decades for an old fart like me and the memory fails and the terminology begins to blur. My career was writing, and my first computer was in 1983, an Epson HX-20. Look it up in Wikipedia. It had an LCD screen that only displayed four lines of 20 characters each, something like looking at the world through a pinhole. Documents (such as they were) could be saved digitally on what essentially was a portable dictation microcassette. Primitive, but it worked.
Over the years I migrated through MS-DOS portables in the late '80s and early '90s, then through practically every version of Windows. WordPerfect at the time was excellent word processing software to help me get my job done.
I'm not a computer professional, just a long-time user. It is in that context that I'm speaking of blue screens and crashes. They're the failures that disrupt what I want to accomplish. Me? Resolve a blue screen issue? I'm supposed to fix a driver problem? Bull! When the "check engine" light in our car comes on, there are damn few of us these days who dare dive under the hood to fix that either!
The real point to my previous post is to offer the actual experience of just one consumer in relation to the effectiveness of the Apple ads. Almost every previous comment has been conjectural, even those that are based on reference to advertising principles and studies. There is a more realistic way to get a better insight into the ads' effectiveness. That is to hang around an Apple store and ask the people buying Macs - especially their first Mac after a history of Windows machines - what influenced their decision. No doubt Apple's ad people have done a lot of just that, to decide what messages to communicate and how to deploy their marketing dollars most effectively. "Broken Promises" and "attack" ads didn't come about by accident or by some sort of irrational simmering grudge against Microsoft by Apple executives. They were developed for very good business reasons.
Using MS-DOS, I really hate to even think about it to be honest. I wasn't trying to put aside your experience I have just been trying to make the point that Apple would be better served if they focused on their product and their benefits instead of trying to beat up on MS. The ads were funny at first but now they just come off as childish.
I feel if you have a good product you should talk about your product instead of trying to make someone else look bad.
Lets be honest if you went into the Apple store and their product was crap it doesnt matter what their ad said you wouldnt have switched. My main point was the general public doesnt respond well to attack ads. Not that ads cant peak interest.
One ad that Apple used in 2006 highlighted the fact their systems came bundled with ilife. While it showed Windows systems do not come with a decent bundle it wasnt an attack ad.
They are pointing out how Windows fails in comparison by not bundling such apps. All the ?Get A Mac? ads attack non-Mac PCs in some way. That is the whole basis for the campaign. It?s funny because the ones reinforcing the public feeling about Vista were in many ways more honest than the one you mention is not an ?attack ad?. MS can?t bundle a suite like iLife with Windows the way Apple can because of their market dominance. Apple didn?t point that out.
extremeskater said: "Still doesnt mean attacks ads are seen as favorable by the majority of users, because they aren't."
Do you have hard facts or data to support that statement? That is, with specific reference to Apple's ads.
I have my own experience in Apple Stores which I am lucky enough to have two retail Apple stores near my house. When you get to know the people that work there and talk to them about the system you never hear them bash Microsoft of anyone else. They talk about what their system has to offer, they spend time showing you the system and the OS.
They talk about training classes that are offered for people that dont feel totally comfortable switching. Thankfully Apple store employees are trained to be far more professional then the people making these ads.
When you get into an Apple Store the product is sold based on its merrits not by trying to make someone else look bad. The people in the White Castle rarely understand what the public wants its the people that acutally work with the public and understand the product that knows what they are doing.
But nothing in Apple's ads have been unethical or defamatory. Apple realized that it was in a situation where the competitor's product had real vulnerabilities, but its frustrated users were reluctant to swap the devil they knew for something they didn't. Apple seeks to make Windows users ever more conscious of their pain, painful enough for them to overcome their fear of change and to take that fateful step from the familiar to the unknown.
Now, Apple's campaign hasn't been without its positive aspects, either. To those fearful Windows users it keeps saying, "Come over to us, and we'll hold your hand. You won't fall - or fail." That's the purpose of its selling One-to-One and offering free tutorials at its stores. Bring in your Windows machine, buy One-to-One with your new Mac, and Apple will copy all your precious stuff from your Windows machine to your new unit. Apple's hand-holding and user training is the envy of the industry. Stand in an Apple store, watch all the One-to-One clients and visitors to the Genius Bar, and see if you can find any who walk away unhappy. AI has reported hard survey numbers to back that up. Mac customer satisfaction is by far the highest in the personal computer industry.
I have my own experience in Apple Stores which I am lucky enough to have two retail Apple stores near my house. When you get to know the people that work there and talk to them about the system you never hear them bash Microsoft of anyone else. They talk about what their system has to offer, they spend time showing you the system and the OS.
They talk about training classes that are offered for people that dont feel totally comfortable switching. Thankfully Apple store employees are trained to be far more professional then the people making these ads.
When you get into an Apple Store the product is sold based on its merrits not by trying to make someone else look bad. The people in the White Castle rarely understand what the public wants its the people that acutally work with the public and understand the product that knows what they are doing.
Bashing competiton in the store is bad form becase it's bad business. Talking about marketing, not morals or ethics. Different medium and time frame requires diffeent kind of sales technique. For instance, a 30 second comedic one-way advert is not the same as two-way intercourse between two people far to face. Once you have the customer in the store in front of a Mac the game is different. Remember, thy don't even show a Mac in those ads until the closing frames.
Its not about ignoring anything. If you have some kind of data that shows Apple ads have directly contributed to sales then lets see it. Attack ads do not work they only make a company look weak and the #1 rule in advertising is never directly talk about your competitor it does notthing but give them free advertising.
Only a mindless fool would make a major purchase based on something they see on tv.
Then the vast majority of American consumers are mindless fools:
American Idol
Fox News
McDonalds
Jonas Brothers
Miley Cyrus / Hanna Montana
Kanye West
Windows
I rest my case.
They are pointing out how Windows fails in comparison by not bundling such apps. All the ?Get A Mac? ads attack non-Mac PCs in some way. That is the whole basis for the campaign. It?s funny because the ones reinforcing the public feeling about Vista were in many ways more honest than the one you mention is not an ?attack ad?. MS can?t bundle a suite like iLife with Windows the way Apple can. Apple didn?t point that out.
Besides, you can't really compare Apple's Mac/PC campaign to a political attack ad: political attack ads rarely are truthful, while there has been nothing in the Mac / PC ads that wasn't factually accurate. The only ones who seem to see the Mac / PC campaign as "attack ads" are those who are being attacked.
Your right you don't have to take out a second mortgage to get surgery because you would die before you ever got real treatment. This is why foreign leaders come ot the US for treatment because we have the best in the world. Thats what a true free market society provides because of inovation and competition.
And actually the national drop our rate in the US is 16% not 30% while in Canada its 18%. Not that we should be looking at the bottom.
You may want to read up on healthcare across the world before making such bold statements
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html, btw WHO stopped this ranking system in 2000, since it was too complex to prepare.
This interest read as well http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm
If you want to make anymore bold statements, then please check your facts first!
Apologies, if I went off topic, but this guy IMO is to make bold unsupported comments to us.
So we have now verified that one person looked into an Apple computer because of an ad. Still doesnt mean attacks ads are seen as favorable by the majority of users, because they aren't.
Except that inspite of them Apple is breaking Mac sales records in a recession. Continuously. If the ads aren't actually helping (which is ludicrous to assume), they're not hurting, either.
The majority of "users" aren't going to look at Apple ads "unfavourably." At worst, they're going to ignore them. It's only enthusiasts that are confined to small corners of the internet like us that have strong opinions about it.
Even an internet poll (the link you yourself posted earlier) showed your assumption was quite wrong. And that was polling mostly tech enthusiasts, if I recall correctly.
You may want to read up on healthcare across the world before making such bold statements
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html, btw WHO stopped this ranking system in 2000, since it was too complex to prepare.
This interest read as well http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm
If you want to make anymore bold statements, then please check your facts first!
Apologies, if I went off topic, but this guy IMO is to make bold unsupported comments to us.
The other tables on that page (links) are quite telling as well. I actually thought Canada rated higher.
I understand what you are saying and they do seem a bit smug...
The only people who find them smug, arrogant, misleading, whatever, are the so-called tech savvy types who bore their acquaintances with their own smug, arrogant egos. Real users nod their heads in agreement. They have experienced the "pain and frustration" mentioned in the latest ad.
And no, solipsism, you are not one of those types. I think we all know who those are on this forum.