IMO, Macs should be marketed to schools as being multi platform capable. Therefore students can learn Windows, OS X and, through VM software, Linux on one machine. That seems like a strong competitve advantage to me.
This is precisely the tactic that a friend of mine at a major university plans to take in his next go-round of tech purchases. He will argue that Macs are the platform of best choice because of their ability to boot both XP and X. The case can ? and should ? be made.
Mac OS X, BootCamp XP, Virtualization of XP, Linux -- Security and reliability -- These are the strongest points for Apple to penetrate the enterprise market (which as melgross points out is really what drives PC sales).
Apple can stay "boutique" and somehow still continue to squeeze great revenues and profits out of the Macs, but in the long run, looking down the next 5 years and Microsoft being more vulnerable than ever, it is really just baffling why Apple is not interested in the enterprise market -- not even small to medium enterprise besides the [video, photo, science, advertising] market.
Mac OS X, BootCamp XP, Virtualization of XP, Linux -- Security and reliability -- These are the strongest points for Apple to penetrate the enterprise market (which as melgross points out is really what drives PC sales).
Apple can stay "boutique" and somehow still continue to squeeze great revenues and profits out of the Macs, but in the long run, looking down the next 5 years and Microsoft being more vulnerable than ever, it is really just baffling why Apple is not interested in the enterprise market -- not even small to medium enterprise besides the [video, photo, science, advertising] market.
Sadly, I'm begining to agree. I looked at the Apple adds and they disappoint me. Especially when you think of all the great adds Apple has had in the past. Looks like Apple will not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
I just hope that they aren't the same type of crappy ads Apple slways seems to allow it agencies to come up with. If their computer ads were as good as their iPod/iTunes ads, they might actually sell some machines.
Mel, they're hideous. Arrogant, insulting to PC users, reinforces stereotypes that do not focus on growing market share, way too abstract, and cater mostly to the existing Mac fan base rather than potential "switchers". I am very, very dissapointed with these ads. Finally Apple takes the PC head on with TV ads but it's a hell of a waste of marketing budget. Freakin' bollocks ads.
I totally disagree. The ads are short, to the point and entertaining.
Sadly, I'm begining to agree. I looked at the Apple adds and they disappoint me. Especially when you think of all the great adds Apple has had in the past. Looks like Apple will not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
The only constant for Apple ads over the past several decades is that some people love 'em and some people hate 'em. Even though you might not like them, they are effective for some part of the market Apple is shooting for. Believe it or not what matters is not the content of the ad, it is the existance of the ad. The ads just need to plant the words "Apple" and "Mac" into the consumer brain, and they've done their job. For that facts and details (even broad generalities) are far less effective than something entertaining or controversial.
I totally disagree. The ads are short, to the point and entertaining.
Entertaining to Mac owners is besides the point. It doesn't matter what you think. I am, of course, assuming that you are a Mac user, or at least someone who is interested enough to be here on this site.
The problem is that these ads should NOT be aimed at Mac users. The people for whom the ads are intended should not be made to feel foolish. Ads are meant to be uplifting, not depreciatory. Those that are, fail. This has been shown to be true in many studies done by the ad industry itself.
Apple has been accused over the years of failing to understand that their sales pitch should not be aimed at current users as much as towards those who do not use the platform. Therefore, Apple has been taken to task for mainly advertising in Mac journals. When advertising on tv, they are out of that space. The ads in Mac user areas of concentration are different. Those can be done in a style that we can look at, and nod our heads, thinking; "how true, how true". But, to non Mac users, this is often insulting, and you should never insult your potential customers, even in a gentle, or joking, manner.
The only constant for Apple ads over the past several decades is that some people love 'em and some people hate 'em. Even though you might not like them, they are effective for some part of the market Apple is shooting for. Believe it or not what matters is not the content of the ad, it is the existance of the ad. The ads just need to plant the words "Apple" and "Mac" into the consumer brain, and they've done their job. For that facts and details (even broad generalities) are far less effective than something entertaining or controversial.
Well, not in a way that will sell more machines. Apple's most famous ads have been cited as ads that failed to do what they were supposed to to, sell Macs. They were harsh and insulting to those very people Apple was trying to win over. That's a no no.
The only constant for Apple ads over the past several decades is that some people love 'em and some people hate 'em. Even though you might not like them, they are effective for some part of the market Apple is shooting for. Believe it or not what matters is not the content of the ad, it is the existance of the ad. The ads just need to plant the words "Apple" and "Mac" into the consumer brain, and they've done their job. For that facts and details (even broad generalities) are far less effective than something entertaining or controversial.
I think you are making this a bit oversimplified. If that's all that is necessary Apple could make the adds in house with iMovie. Time will tell if the adds are effective. They just don't seem to me to be of the same quality as the iPod adds and certainly not the '1984' add.
Entertaining to Mac owners is besides the point. It doesn't matter what you think. I am, of course, assuming that you are a Mac user, or at least someone who is interested enough to be here on this site.
The problem is that these ads should NOT be aimed at Mac users. The people for whom the ads are intended should not be made to feel foolish. Ads are meant to be uplifting, not depreciatory. Those that are, fail. This has been shown to be true in many studies done by the ad industry itself.
Apple has been accused over the years of failing to understand that their sales pitch should not be aimed at current users as much as towards those who do not use the platform. Therefore, Apple has been taken to task for mainly advertising in Mac journals. When advertising on tv, they are out of that space. The ads in Mac user areas of concentration are different. Those can be done in a style that we can look at, and nod our heads, thinking; "how true, how true". But, to non Mac users, this is often insulting, and you should never insult your potential customers, even in a gentle, or joking, manner.
I totally disagree. The ads are short, to the point, entertaining and do not insult the intended potential switcher market.
Microsoft might consider these ads somewhat insulting though. But then again, they are the company under fire from their OWN USERS for security issues and difficult frustrating user interfaces.
I think you are making this a bit oversimplified. If that's all that is necessary Apple could make the adds in house with iMovie. Time will tell if the adds are effective. They just don't seem to me to be of the same quality as the iPod adds and certainly not the '1984' add.
Apple more or less did this with the iPhoto and iMovie ads from a few years ago. They were impressive and really showed the power of iPhoto(re: young father taking pictures during his wife's child birth) and iMovie(re: wedding/honeymoon movies burned to dvd for relatives)
Big problem though, they didn't work, if work means they increased Mac sales.
I totally disagree. The ads are short, to the point, entertaining and do not insult the intended potential switcher market.
Microsoft might consider these ads somewhat insulting though. But then again, they are the company under fire from their OWN USERS for security issues and difficult frustrating user interfaces.
And you saw the ads? That is truely a Mac-centric position.
Right now, triple booting into Linux is more of a pain than double booting into X and XP. If, and when, Apple directly supports that, it will be different.
I guess thats relative... triple booting with linux is pretty simple to me.
I guess thats relative... triple booting with linux is pretty simple to me.
It is relative. Most people will think it is easy when Linux shows up as one of the boot-up choices when you press the key. Otherwise the only way to do it, other than as your permanent os, is to boot-up into whichever os you were using, go to prefs, go to startup drive, select the drive, and wait for the machine to reboot.
I guess thats relative... triple booting with linux is pretty simple to me.
It may be easy, but it still involves more steps than it should. From what I understand, you need to chose the Windows bootloader, then when the Windows bootloader starts, you choose linux. I think you might have to be quick about it if it only allows you a few seconds to chose before it goes to the default. It should just be a third option to pick.
I'm not sure how necessary Linux is on a Mac, but I suppose that claim should be best left to the people that do use both Linux and OS X a lot. I run most or all of the Unix and open source software that I want under OS X.
I'm not sure how necessary Linux is on a Mac, but I suppose that claim should be best left to the people that do use both Linux and OS X a lot. I run most or all of the Unix and open source software that I want under OS X.
I've suggested that Macs be marketed as being multi-platform capable. That would be a powerful advantage to purchasers such as schools and busineses IMO.
I think you are making this a bit oversimplified. If that's all that is necessary Apple could make the adds in house with iMovie. Time will tell if the adds are effective. They just don't seem to me to be of the same quality as the iPod adds and certainly not the '1984' add.
Well I'll grant you the need for production quality in the ads, but what I meant by content was what the message is. As long as it is slick and labelled Apple, the details of the message aren't particularly important.
Well I'll grant you the need for production quality in the ads, but what I meant by content was what the message is. As long as it is slick and labelled Apple, the details of the message aren't particularly important.
I still think the ads are terrible, but did you notice that the PC guy looks more than a bit like Bill Gates?
Comments
originally posted by backtomac
IMO, Macs should be marketed to schools as being multi platform capable. Therefore students can learn Windows, OS X and, through VM software, Linux on one machine. That seems like a strong competitve advantage to me.
This is precisely the tactic that a friend of mine at a major university plans to take in his next go-round of tech purchases. He will argue that Macs are the platform of best choice because of their ability to boot both XP and X. The case can ? and should ? be made.
Apple can stay "boutique" and somehow still continue to squeeze great revenues and profits out of the Macs, but in the long run, looking down the next 5 years and Microsoft being more vulnerable than ever, it is really just baffling why Apple is not interested in the enterprise market -- not even small to medium enterprise besides the [video, photo, science, advertising] market.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Mac OS X, BootCamp XP, Virtualization of XP, Linux -- Security and reliability -- These are the strongest points for Apple to penetrate the enterprise market (which as melgross points out is really what drives PC sales).
Apple can stay "boutique" and somehow still continue to squeeze great revenues and profits out of the Macs, but in the long run, looking down the next 5 years and Microsoft being more vulnerable than ever, it is really just baffling why Apple is not interested in the enterprise market -- not even small to medium enterprise besides the [video, photo, science, advertising] market.
Sadly, I'm begining to agree. I looked at the Apple adds and they disappoint me. Especially when you think of all the great adds Apple has had in the past. Looks like Apple will not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by melgross
I just hope that they aren't the same type of crappy ads Apple slways seems to allow it agencies to come up with. If their computer ads were as good as their iPod/iTunes ads, they might actually sell some machines.
Mel, they're hideous. Arrogant, insulting to PC users, reinforces stereotypes that do not focus on growing market share, way too abstract, and cater mostly to the existing Mac fan base rather than potential "switchers". I am very, very dissapointed with these ads. Finally Apple takes the PC head on with TV ads but it's a hell of a waste of marketing budget. Freakin' bollocks ads.
I totally disagree. The ads are short, to the point and entertaining.
Originally posted by backtomac
Sadly, I'm begining to agree. I looked at the Apple adds and they disappoint me. Especially when you think of all the great adds Apple has had in the past. Looks like Apple will not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
The only constant for Apple ads over the past several decades is that some people love 'em and some people hate 'em. Even though you might not like them, they are effective for some part of the market Apple is shooting for. Believe it or not what matters is not the content of the ad, it is the existance of the ad. The ads just need to plant the words "Apple" and "Mac" into the consumer brain, and they've done their job. For that facts and details (even broad generalities) are far less effective than something entertaining or controversial.
Originally posted by rickag
I totally disagree. The ads are short, to the point and entertaining.
Entertaining to Mac owners is besides the point. It doesn't matter what you think. I am, of course, assuming that you are a Mac user, or at least someone who is interested enough to be here on this site.
The problem is that these ads should NOT be aimed at Mac users. The people for whom the ads are intended should not be made to feel foolish. Ads are meant to be uplifting, not depreciatory. Those that are, fail. This has been shown to be true in many studies done by the ad industry itself.
Apple has been accused over the years of failing to understand that their sales pitch should not be aimed at current users as much as towards those who do not use the platform. Therefore, Apple has been taken to task for mainly advertising in Mac journals. When advertising on tv, they are out of that space. The ads in Mac user areas of concentration are different. Those can be done in a style that we can look at, and nod our heads, thinking; "how true, how true". But, to non Mac users, this is often insulting, and you should never insult your potential customers, even in a gentle, or joking, manner.
Originally posted by Programmer
The only constant for Apple ads over the past several decades is that some people love 'em and some people hate 'em. Even though you might not like them, they are effective for some part of the market Apple is shooting for. Believe it or not what matters is not the content of the ad, it is the existance of the ad. The ads just need to plant the words "Apple" and "Mac" into the consumer brain, and they've done their job. For that facts and details (even broad generalities) are far less effective than something entertaining or controversial.
Well, not in a way that will sell more machines. Apple's most famous ads have been cited as ads that failed to do what they were supposed to to, sell Macs. They were harsh and insulting to those very people Apple was trying to win over. That's a no no.
Originally posted by Programmer
The only constant for Apple ads over the past several decades is that some people love 'em and some people hate 'em. Even though you might not like them, they are effective for some part of the market Apple is shooting for. Believe it or not what matters is not the content of the ad, it is the existance of the ad. The ads just need to plant the words "Apple" and "Mac" into the consumer brain, and they've done their job. For that facts and details (even broad generalities) are far less effective than something entertaining or controversial.
I think you are making this a bit oversimplified. If that's all that is necessary Apple could make the adds in house with iMovie. Time will tell if the adds are effective. They just don't seem to me to be of the same quality as the iPod adds and certainly not the '1984' add.
Originally posted by melgross
Entertaining to Mac owners is besides the point. It doesn't matter what you think. I am, of course, assuming that you are a Mac user, or at least someone who is interested enough to be here on this site.
The problem is that these ads should NOT be aimed at Mac users. The people for whom the ads are intended should not be made to feel foolish. Ads are meant to be uplifting, not depreciatory. Those that are, fail. This has been shown to be true in many studies done by the ad industry itself.
Apple has been accused over the years of failing to understand that their sales pitch should not be aimed at current users as much as towards those who do not use the platform. Therefore, Apple has been taken to task for mainly advertising in Mac journals. When advertising on tv, they are out of that space. The ads in Mac user areas of concentration are different. Those can be done in a style that we can look at, and nod our heads, thinking; "how true, how true". But, to non Mac users, this is often insulting, and you should never insult your potential customers, even in a gentle, or joking, manner.
I totally disagree. The ads are short, to the point, entertaining and do not insult the intended potential switcher market.
Microsoft might consider these ads somewhat insulting though. But then again, they are the company under fire from their OWN USERS for security issues and difficult frustrating user interfaces.
Originally posted by backtomac
I think you are making this a bit oversimplified. If that's all that is necessary Apple could make the adds in house with iMovie. Time will tell if the adds are effective. They just don't seem to me to be of the same quality as the iPod adds and certainly not the '1984' add.
Apple more or less did this with the iPhoto and iMovie ads from a few years ago. They were impressive and really showed the power of iPhoto(re: young father taking pictures during his wife's child birth) and iMovie(re: wedding/honeymoon movies burned to dvd for relatives)
Big problem though, they didn't work, if work means they increased Mac sales.
Originally posted by rickag
I totally disagree. The ads are short, to the point, entertaining and do not insult the intended potential switcher market.
Microsoft might consider these ads somewhat insulting though. But then again, they are the company under fire from their OWN USERS for security issues and difficult frustrating user interfaces.
And you saw the ads? That is truely a Mac-centric position.
Originally posted by melgross
Right now, triple booting into Linux is more of a pain than double booting into X and XP. If, and when, Apple directly supports that, it will be different.
I guess thats relative... triple booting with linux is pretty simple to me.
Originally posted by doh123
I guess thats relative... triple booting with linux is pretty simple to me.
It is relative. Most people will think it is easy when Linux shows up as one of the boot-up choices when you press the key. Otherwise the only way to do it, other than as your permanent os, is to boot-up into whichever os you were using, go to prefs, go to startup drive, select the drive, and wait for the machine to reboot.
Much too much.
Originally posted by doh123
I guess thats relative... triple booting with linux is pretty simple to me.
It may be easy, but it still involves more steps than it should. From what I understand, you need to chose the Windows bootloader, then when the Windows bootloader starts, you choose linux. I think you might have to be quick about it if it only allows you a few seconds to chose before it goes to the default. It should just be a third option to pick.
I'm not sure how necessary Linux is on a Mac, but I suppose that claim should be best left to the people that do use both Linux and OS X a lot. I run most or all of the Unix and open source software that I want under OS X.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I'm not sure how necessary Linux is on a Mac, but I suppose that claim should be best left to the people that do use both Linux and OS X a lot. I run most or all of the Unix and open source software that I want under OS X.
I've suggested that Macs be marketed as being multi-platform capable. That would be a powerful advantage to purchasers such as schools and busineses IMO.
Originally posted by backtomac
I think you are making this a bit oversimplified. If that's all that is necessary Apple could make the adds in house with iMovie. Time will tell if the adds are effective. They just don't seem to me to be of the same quality as the iPod adds and certainly not the '1984' add.
Well I'll grant you the need for production quality in the ads, but what I meant by content was what the message is. As long as it is slick and labelled Apple, the details of the message aren't particularly important.
Originally posted by Programmer
Well I'll grant you the need for production quality in the ads, but what I meant by content was what the message is. As long as it is slick and labelled Apple, the details of the message aren't particularly important.
I still think the ads are terrible, but did you notice that the PC guy looks more than a bit like Bill Gates?
Originally posted by melgross
I still think the ads are terrible, but did you notice that the PC guy looks more than a bit like Bill Gates?
No way, he looks like a dork.
No way, he looks like a dork.
Yup, suggesting that anyone that uses PCs is a dork. Wow, what a great way to appeal to PC users.