Are Apple's ads really better than Microsoft's?
I rather enjoyed this article:
Are Apple's ads really better than Microsoft's?
Are Apple's ads really better than Microsoft's?
Quote:
If you asked anyone in the wider beyond to tell you about just one striking piece of Microsoft brand advertising in the last 13 years, you might find them looking as if they're trying to recall the name of their twelfth one-night stand.
If you asked anyone in the wider beyond to tell you about just one striking piece of Microsoft brand advertising in the last 13 years, you might find them looking as if they're trying to recall the name of their twelfth one-night stand.
Comments
I rather enjoyed this article:
Are Apple's ads really better than Microsoft's?
MS' advertisment is horrendous.
They made Seinfield look boring and that's hard. No one I know would say
"I'm a PC"
PC users tend to identify with components not the overall brand. So you have your AMD and Nvidia fanbois and more but the "I'm a PC" angle?
Puhleeze.
Funny a decade ago the mere mention of Microsoft entering a market caused tremors. Fast forward to today and they've had their fanny kicked in so many areas no one expects them to win any "beach assaults" anymore.
Balmer is a blithering idiot and being in WA I can tell you that the morale in Redmond ain't that rosey in many areas. I'm sure there will be a MS employee to argue with me but I've had more than a few friends bail from Redmond.
Name one other company that could design a piece of hardware (xbox360) that gets hot enough to de-soldier its own processor when used in a typical way (room temparature, placed on a pile rug). The xbox is the 2nd best thing that Microsoft has ever made (#1 being Excell), and it kind of sucks.
Most hardware companies test their new stuff in extreme conditions (magnetic fields, vibration, heat, etc) before they ship out millions of units.
Microsoft just has a bad culture. I don't have any first hand experience with them, but a culture of failure is the only thing that explains how so many smart people with so many financial resources can do such a bad job.
MSFT market cap: $250 billion
APPL market cap: $158 billion
The only sense in which Microsoft is a "failure" is that Apple loyalists hate the corporation like religious zealots. Microsoft is astonishing successful and has been, almost entirely without interruption, for well over a decade.
Name one other company that could design a piece of hardware (xbox360) that gets hot enough to de-soldier its own processor when used in a typical way (room temparature, placed on a pile rug).
It is typical to place electronics on a pile rug? I do not think so. At least, there are ample warnings against placing it on carpet in the documentation that comes with the machine. It is stupid to place electronics on a pile rug, though it is also stupid for Microsoft to not include safeguards against stupid customers.
Apple's laptops have caught fire. Your argument is shit.
You can put the PS3 on a pile rug no problem. In fact you can run it for days in a sauna with no problems.
Many manufacturers had problems with Sony batteries and fires - that is a completely different problem from the xbox. You can take ANY XBOX, and make it have the red ring of death, the problem had a much greater chance of happening than the fiery Apple laptop - HP and Lenovo also had fiery laptops from the same problem, and they have labs that do all the right things (vibration, etc) - I have been in the IBM/Lenovo testing facility, I know.
I kind of do this for a living, groverat - and no product I have ever worked on would have ever had a problem like the red ring of death. I have seen one in a million things (like the flaming laptop) get to the field, but nothing like the 100% potential failures of the xbox360.
Of course MS is the bigger company, the amazing thing is that it isn't orders of magnitude the bigger company, given their absolute entrenchment at the heart of one of the most significant and ubiquitous technologies in the world.
Used to be we could talk about how MS could buy Apple, if it wanted to, and use its assets as favors at the next office party.
Now we're reminded that MS is still the bigger company by some some percentage, but how much longer will even that be true, given the trend lines?
MS isn't a "failure", but they're nobody's idea of a dynamic company that knows where it's going, either. History, timing and luck gave them this enormous, immortal cash cow, but that doesn't mean they can't slowly rot. I say they're slowly rotting.
MSFT market cap: $250 billion
APPL market cap: $158 billion
Apple's laptops have caught fire. Your argument is shit.
It's not really Grove. Even by your own admission MSFT market cap is almost
100 million dollars more than Apples yet they cannot design hardware that doesn't
need to be replaced en masse? Yes I have friends that had to swap their 360 out.
The Apple laptops that have flamed up have been rare birds.
The truth is Microsoft hasn't won a market since they beat Netscape with Explorer. Since
then it has been loss after loss after loss. It's getting comical because no one fears MSFT entering a market now.
They're not going to beat Vmware and we all know it
They're not going to beat the duopoly of Nintendo and Sony and we all know it
MSFT has Windows and Office and that's it for a product line that generates billion dollar
profit.
Apple's transitioning from Billion dollar iPod to the billion dollar smartphone market. I'm liking Apple's momentum a lot more than MSFT right now.
Seems to me as of today, Apple gets it when it comes to advertising. Microsoft is lost.
Apple's advertisements are essentially product demonstrations. Microsoft's most recent ads don't even talk about their own product.
Every single thing ever designed and built by man has a "100% potential failures" rate. I could destroy anything you give me simply by using it stupidly. That is not to say that the Xbox 360s first incantation was high quality, it is simply to say that you are taking one anecdote and trying to make sweeping generalizations off of it, which is logically unsound.
It is apples and oranges. Apple does not make what Microsoft makes. Apple tried a decade ago, and it failed.
Incidentally, Microsoft makes better mice. (Microsoft simply doesn't build much hardware.)
addabox:
But, Grove, isn't it kind of astonishing that Apple's market cap is even in the same neighborhood as Microsoft's?
No, it's not astonishing.
Apple makes some awesome stuff and they do an amazing job marketing it.
Economics is not a zero sum game. Apple and Microsoft can both be successful.
You are in a fundamentally weak position when you're saying, "You suck because you can't even beat me by two laps!"
Of course MS is the bigger company, the amazing thing is that it isn't orders of magnitude the bigger company, given their absolute entrenchment at the heart of one of the most significant and ubiquitous technologies in the world.
So Microsoft is a failure because Apple isn't as big as them… fantastic thinking.
If Microsoft is a failure, what explains " their absolute entrenchment at the heart of one of the most significant and ubiquitous technologies in the world."?
(The answer is: They make a very wide range of highly useful and successful software products.)
And if Microsoft just got lucky, then I can say that Apple is just getting lucky, and we've gotten nowhere.
Now we're reminded that MS is still the bigger company by some some percentage, but how much longer will even that be true, given the trend lines?
Trend lines are useless.
Microsoft historical:
Apple historical:
If the trend lines indicate anything it is sustained success by Microsoft during boom and bust fluctuations from Apple. (Next bust coming when Steve goes to his great reward, I suppose.)
hmurchison:
100 million dollars more than Apples yet they cannot design hardware that doesn't
need to be replaced en masse? Yes I have friends that had to swap their 360 out.
$100 billion more
And I had to ship my MacBook Pro back to Apple for repair because the video card shit the bed on me, using it on a wooden desk, getting too hot for me to put my hands on.
The truth is Microsoft hasn't won a market since they beat Netscape with Explorer. Since
then it has been loss after loss after loss. It's getting comical because no one fears MSFT entering a market now.
Where can market share go but down once it tops 90%?
All 3 of you are arguing that Microsoft is a failure because they are so huge and dominant and successful. It is just mind-numbing.
MSFT has Windows and Office and that's it for a product line that generates billion dollar profit.
Yes.
Apple's transitioning from Billion dollar iPod to the billion dollar smartphone market. I'm liking Apple's momentum a lot more than MSFT right now.
Momentum… there's a concept that makes sense in a discussion of corporate health and success.
jazzguru:
Apple's advertisements are essentially product demonstrations.
Except when it's just a douche-looking hipster with his hands in his pockets without a Mac in sight spouting some vague bullshit. I'm sure you intended to point that out.
e1618978:
Every single thing ever designed and built by man has a "100% potential failures" rate. I could destroy anything you give me simply by using it stupidly. That is not to say that the Xbox 360s first incantation was high quality, it is simply to say that you are taking one anecdote and trying to make sweeping generalizations off of it, which is logically unsound.
Very few things have 100% potential failure rate under normal usage. Point me to anything else that fails as much as the xbox360 - even American cars have better reliability. Your argument is basically that "failure rates done matter, because you can drop anything off a cliff and it will break" - and you thought my argument was shit? Mirror, meet groverat.
They failed to do environmental testing of their product before they shipped it. I don't know anyone else who failed to do that, ever.
If the trend lines indicate anything it is sustained success by Microsoft during boom and bust fluctuations from Apple. (Next bust coming when Steve goes to his great reward, I suppose.)
look at the graph again - it is success until the dot com bust, and then sustained failure since for Microsoft. That is a logarithmic graph.
All 3 of you are arguing that Microsoft is a failure because they are so huge and dominant and successful. It is just mind-numbing.
Nope. I've just been talking about the advertising.
Except when it's just a douche-looking hipster with his hands in his pockets without a Mac in sight spouting some vague bullshit. I'm sure you intended to point that out.
That guy (who you seem to have a seething hatred for) actually talks about the product being advertised (Mac) and what that product does.
Do Microsoft's most recent ads talk about Vista? At all?
addabox:
No, it's not astonishing.
Apple makes some awesome stuff and they do an amazing job marketing it.
Economics is not a zero sum game. Apple and Microsoft can both be successful.
You are in a fundamentally weak position when you're saying, "You suck because you can't even beat me by two laps!"
So Microsoft is a failure because Apple isn't as big as them? fantastic thinking.
If Microsoft is a failure, what explains " their absolute entrenchment at the heart of one of the most significant and ubiquitous technologies in the world."?
(The answer is: They make a very wide range of highly useful and successful software products.)
And if Microsoft just got lucky, then I can say that Apple is just getting lucky, and we've gotten nowhere.
I'm not saying MS is a failure. In fact, I explicitly said they weren't.
What I'm saying is (and as the graphs you posted show, even though you don't seem to think so) is that for the past ten years or so, while Apple has been running on all cylinders and piling success on success, MS has been just sort of milling around. Everything new Apple enters into seems to really profitable and create a lot of buzz and brand awareness and work with Apple's all over strategy for selling hardware and software (Apple TV excepted, but we'll see).
Everything MS does, outside of the Windows division, seems to kind of languish and lose money and generally underperform expectations (XBox excepted, but even there they're only now barely breaking even and have been humbled by the lowly Wii.)
Now, when you're MS, you can get away with just sort of milling around, because you have all those millions and millions and millions of Windows desktops and server installations that just keep minting money. When you're the defacto standard of desktop computing, you can pretty much hang out all day smoking weed and listening to tunes on your Zune and still make a shitload of money.
When you're the defacto standard of desktop computing, you can pretty much hang out all day smoking weed and listening to tunes on your Zune and still make a shitload of money.
Unless it's a 30 GB Zune and it's a leap year.
Your argument is basically that "failure rates done matter, because you can drop anything off a cliff and it will break" - and you thought my argument was shit?
That is not my argument. You claimed the XBox had a "100% potential failures" rate. I was merely mocking your made-up terminology by saying that everything has a "100% potential failures" rate.
They failed to do environmental testing of their product before they shipped it.
No, they didn't. You are making that up.
look at the graph again - it is success until the dot com bust, and then sustained failure since for Microsoft. That is a logarithmic graph.
You ignored Apple's. Which is telling.
jazzguru:
That guy (who you seem to have a seething hatred for) actually talks about the product being advertised (Mac) and what that product does.
Give me some examples.
You said that "Apple's advertisements are essentially product demonstrations" and that is absolutely nowhere near true.
addabox:
What I'm saying is (and as the graphs you posted show, even though you don't seem to think so) is that for the past ten years or so, while Apple has been running on all cylinders and piling success on success, MS has been just sort of milling around.
Apple had a lot of room to grow because they were in such a sorry state after they completely flubbed the 1980s and 1990s.
Microsoft hit its ceiling (or near its ceiling) a long time ago. If you dominate your market, what the hell else can you do? A corporation cannot just grow into infinity.
Microsoft's business is their OS, their corporate software, and their productivity suite. No one matches them or even comes close. All this XBox and Zune shit is essentially something they blow money on for the hell of it. Meanwhile, Apple's foray into hipster gadgetry has become their almost singular focus as a brand and when you start at the bottom (Apple 1999) its much easier to climb up than if you start at the top (Microsoft 1999).
jazzguru:
Give me some examples.
You said that "Apple's advertisements are essentially product demonstrations" and that is absolutely nowhere near true.
Examples of the "Mac guy" talking about Macs and what they do? Watch the ads. Every ad starts out with "Hi, I'm a Mac!". Right out of the gate, you've been introduced to the brand.
Product demonstrations: have you seen any iPhone ads on TV?
My overall point is that Apple's ads actually highlight their products and what they do.
Microsoft's ads? Not so much. Look at the now infamous "Lauren" ad. Where does it actually mention Microsoft as a brand or their product (Windows), except maybe at the end with a little logo?
Examples of the "Mac guy" talking about Macs and what they do? Watch the ads. Every ad starts out with "Hi, I'm a Mac!". Right out of the gate, you've been introduced to the brand.
Microsoft commercials show Microsoft logos. Right out of the gate, you've been introduced to the brand!
My overall point is that Apple's ads actually highlight their products and what they do.
Some of Apple's ads show what Apple products do. Some of Microsoft's ads show what Microsoft products do.
Stop being a loyalist for a massive, monolithic corporation.
I don't know what your point with the graphs is - Apple has been a good investment since 2000 (even with the current drop), and Microsoft has been a bad one.
jazzyguy:
Microsoft commercials show Microsoft logos. Right out of the gate, you've been introduced to the brand!
Some of Apple's ads show what Apple products do. Some of Microsoft's ads show what Microsoft products do.
Stop being a loyalist for a massive, monolithic corporation.
I do not currently own a Mac.
If disagreeing with you makes me a loyalist, so be it.
Microsoft's ads stink compared to Apple's ads. Deal with it.
Ok - either they failed to do any environmental testing, or else their environmental testers were totally incompetent. The end result is indistinguishable from no testing at all - any competent tester would have noticed the problems with the 360.
Apple has certainly been a good investment; the only consistent moneymaker in my single-stock portfolio, really.
Microsoft is not a bad investment. It's not a great one, but if you want to hold long-term value without much risk then it's a very good choice. If you're some kind of day-trader then it's not a very good choice.
What you (and others) seem impressed by is growth. And from a certain perspective Apple's accomplishments are impressive. When you see where they were originally and where they could have been, if intelligently managed, then their current state is not so impressive.
Microsoft is ingrained. Their products are a foundational part of our economy. Apple could have been in that spot, but they screwed it up many different times and only now are growing, but they are growing on the appeal of consumer gadgets.
jazzguru:
Microsoft's ads stink compared to Apple's ads. Deal with it.
"I have a subjective opinion that I am presenting as factual in nature… deal with it."
I just got served.
It's not a great one, but if you want to hold long-term value without much risk then it's a very good choice. If you're some kind of day-trader then it's not a very good choice.
Microsoft stock has dropped from $58 to $21 in the last 9 years. How exactly is that a good investment? Do you mean that Microsoft is a good investment going forward?
jazzguru:
"I have a subjective opinion that I am presenting as factual in nature? deal with it."
I just got served.