Microsoft's ads doing damage to Apple: study



  • Reply 61 of 178
    italiankiditaliankid Posts: 279member
    Originally Posted by cmf2 View Post

    Could you at least try to be a good troll? Apple isn't directly competing with Microsoft. They are competing with the likes of HP, Dell, Acer, etc and they all happen to use Windows (not due to its superiority, but due to a lack of other options as Apple doesn't license its OS out). Given the limited number of computer models Apple produces, they do quite well compared to HP or anyone else. Individual mac computers are always at or near the top in total #'s sold on a model by model basis.

    Apple could increase market share by producing more computer models (for example, a traditional desktop) but the more models they produce, the less time they can spend on each model and build quality and the overall level of system wide integration would diminish. Personally, I am quite happy to pay more for a better computer (there is more to a computer than processor speed, ram and hard drive size), and if their market share stays low because they focus on making a few good PC's instead of a bunch of crap ones, I'm fine with that.

    I could be a good troll.. But everyone on the Mac sites compare Apple to Microsoft. LOL
  • Reply 62 of 178
    Originally Posted by P L View Post

    You forgot the i's in m sf t.

    Msft is Microsoft's official stock symbol.
  • Reply 63 of 178
    I once had a client who said, "if you say peanuts, you get monkeys." So in everything that I buy I try to be more discriminating that is "real value for money." In the long run you get more for what you paid for. Everyone has a budget even the rich people have a budget for everything. It's just that you need to set a standard for the things you want to own or have more so if you will use them for your personal use.
  • Reply 64 of 178
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,609member
    Interesting trends. Not a whole lot of value in the survey, but it is neat that both brands dropped to zero in February, and that both trend together until the campaign. It's stupid to say that the campaign doesn't have an affect on Apple, but the impact is not nearly as significant as many (including myself) thought it would be.
  • Reply 65 of 178
    p lp l Posts: 64member
    Originally Posted by Davewrite View Post

    Msft is Microsoft's official stock symbol.

    You follow? Apples @ 127.45 up .80 today. Where is M SF T?
  • Reply 66 of 178
    This has probably already been said, but all of you know that those surveys can be skewed in any direction the analyst wants them to go, right?

    I mean, you all do realize that this analysis could very well have been paid for by M$oft or any of the companies they have deals with (Like dell), right?

    I never trust or listen to surveys any more because they could have just interviewed 5K people in Seattle, or even just 5K people working at the microsoft campus, or even no one at all, and still said they did it and the result was in M$oft's favor.

    Just something to put out there.....
  • Reply 67 of 178
    Originally Posted by heavydevelopment View Post

    I could care less if someone buys a Mac or Windows. Actually I'd prefer that a majority buy a Windows machine--ensuring the virus writers continue to focus on Windows.

  • Reply 68 of 178
    citycity Posts: 522member
    Like Apple and PCs, people perceive Target to be more expensive then Walmart, but the same products are the same price in both stores. It worked against Target to have sleek adds that flaunt better quality stuff. Walmart just claims prices are falling.
  • Reply 69 of 178
    mactelmactel Posts: 1,275member
    One study that I'd like to see is a comparison between the average use of a PC with that of a Mac. My last two PCs average 4 years of use before ditching them. My first Mac was 7 years, but that was purchased in 1984 and we didn't have the Internet or much to tax it with.

    While PCs over time slow down (usually within a year due to registry bloat and temporary files proliferation) my two year old Macbook still chuggs along just like the first day I bought it.
  • Reply 70 of 178
    Advertising is an interesting phenomena. Advertising works...if done correctly. Advertising works, when your competitor is not advertising. Advertising works, when you take a specific position and your competitor does not.

    In this situation, MS took the position of challenging the "cost" of a Mac vs the cost of a Win machine. Deceiving or not... MS took the position that their platform can't be beat by one purchasing a Mac. During this short campaign, Apple did not bite back. MS created the image and the "general" public and I do mean "general" accepted the story. An ad campaign does not always have to be clever... it just needs to have a good message and be able to be exposed a lot (good sized budget)

    It is no different than when Apple was running, in a heavy way, "I'm a PC...Mac" campaign. Apple's share strengthened and the "general" public bought the message.

    Apple needs to be creative at this point to come with a new campaign, that will battle the message that MS has been delivering without sounding to the general public, that they have been hurt by the MS message.

    I am a Mac guy...and a marketing advertising guy. I am not surprised about this study, albeit after such a short time the MS campaign has run.
  • Reply 71 of 178
    hittrj01hittrj01 Posts: 753member
    Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

    Apple is barely mentioned in their ads- WTF? Apple is causing their own bleeding , not Microsoft. Where's the Netbook, Tablet, Pad, WTFever? Where's Blu-ray? Where's matte? Where's firewire? Where's HDMI? Where's recession pricing?

    GO Blame yourself Apple.

    Where exactly is the bleeding occurring? You base this on a (most likely) skewed survey? Apple has posted some of it's best couple of quarters recently, and is one of the only companies in the computer industry actually making money right now. Just because Apple does not make the perfect product for YOU does not mean they are doing anything wrong. They obviously know what they're doing and what's best for them, otherwise they'd be going the way of GM. Now that's a company that can blame themselves for everything that's happening.
  • Reply 72 of 178
    Originally Posted by italiankid View Post

    No one is to blame but Apple...

    For years Apple has poked at Microsoft. For years Microsoft stayed quiet.

    It was only a matter of time before they upset the GIANT...

    Now Microsoft is fighting back... I am surprised it took them this long...

    Apple will have to come out with new Ads as the current ones will not work with Windows 7.

    The Truth and the Consequences

    Micro$hit cannot prevent interlopers from corrupting the system and the computer hardware resources. Micro$hit can tell you after the fact you need to restore your system because it's been compromised but they can't stop it from happening in the first place. No other operating system does this. It's not a real operating system if you can't protect resources including the system code itself and Windows can't do that. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.
 Ordinary program files can't be protected. Rootkits are installed with the greatest of ease - and without relying on social engineering to escalate privileges. Malware abounds - over 100,000 strains in the wild. And so forth. This is the price to pay for putting a standalone single user system on the Internet without a thought to the safety of one's paying customers.

Why won't Micro$hit improve things? Because they can't. Because they have so many millions of third party software titles they depend on. These titles would break under a new system. Operating system vendors need a thriving third party software market to survive - but it works the other way around too: if the third party software sector grows too big it can prevent the operating system vendor from making changes that need to be made.

Micro$hit could ship Windows sandboxed in Linux; but then every Windows user would have access to Linux and third party software would just ignore Windows in the future. Micro$hit would lose their stranglehold on the personal computing market.

    In a world of pervasive networking even an operating system designed for single user use needs multiuser capability because without that any network transaction that can trick a user into running malicious code that will subvert the entire system. Without strong multitasking the ability of an operating system to handle network traffic and run user programs at the same time will be impaired.

As the designers of BeOS noticed, the requirements of pervasive networking cannot be met without implementing something very close to general purpose timesharing. Single user client operating systems cannot thrive in an Internetted world.

Windows gets away with having severe deficiencies in these areas only by virtue of having developed a monopoly position before networking became really important and by having a user population that has been conditioned to accept a shocking frequency of crashes and security breaches as normal.

    This is not a stable situation.

    below is the article in its entirety,00.shtml
  • Reply 73 of 178
    jnjnjnjnjnjnjnjn Posts: 62member
    The value perception score looks random to me. How to explain the dip in February?

    The graph shows a lot of fluctuation; it seems that the correlation is coincidental and only exists in the mind of the 'researcher'.

  • Reply 74 of 178
    aizmovaizmov Posts: 989member
    It is interesting that Microsoft feels threatened by Apple, even though they still control 85-90% of the market.

    Microsoft is afraid of competition.

    Afraid of Apple.

    Afraid of Google.

    Afraid of FOSS.

    They know that with real competition and a leveled playing field they can't compete.
  • Reply 75 of 178
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Apple could attack PC as less green. That would work on the idiot hippy young people.
  • Reply 76 of 178
    begbeg Posts: 53member
    Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath View Post

    Soap powder advertising works too, brand x washes whiter. Much is down to what

    is fresh in the memory, most recent. Repeating stuff works too, most important.

    Agreed, looking at the graph especially the large spike Apple had in March it seems like these ratings are just what's on peoples minds. In March Apple had lots of hardware refreshes and the iPhone 3.0 event but they didn't really do anything concrete such as dropping prices, etc.

    Microsoft has been advertising alot the last few months, and Apple not so much other than the new commercials recently.

    I'd bet if we look in a few weeks we'll see a big spike for Apple in June, just by virtue of WWDC buzz. Even if no new hardware or price reductions are announced.
  • Reply 77 of 178
    Originally Posted by CREB View Post

    F@#k Microsoft.

    Took all day to come up with that did it? What an intellect.
  • Reply 78 of 178
    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

    Apple could attack PC as less green. That would work on the idiot hippy young people.

    Yeah, how dare they want clean air and to preserve the environment. What is wrong with them?
  • Reply 79 of 178
    tawilsontawilson Posts: 484member
    Originally Posted by whatisgoingon View Post

    Microsoft: our operating system is loaded onto cheap computers.

    Our normally, very expensive (as a RETAIL box [i.e. not the OEM version]) operating system is loaded onto cheap computers made by someone else.

    This somehow makes Microsoft better value for money, I don't think so. All their software is too highly priced, end of story.

    Microsoft don't make computers, which is the cheap bit of the adverts. HP mostly aren't they in the ads?

    Silly public.
  • Reply 80 of 178
    tawilsontawilson Posts: 484member
    Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

    (as Vista wasn't really much different from XP user interface wise)

    You are kidding, right?
Sign In or Register to comment.