I think that they made a mistake with this ad campaign, they should have used an old apple. Looking at this just makes me hungry for an apple, and intense red color of the apple peel makes the pre look less appealing...
I think the mistake is using an apple in the ad. They should just tout cards, physical keyboard and multi-tasking, cause that's their leg up. They don't need to compare themselves to Apple, that will be their downfall, just tout the merits of the Pre, and leave Apple out of the conversation.
I think the mistake is using an apple in the ad. They should just tout cards, physical keyboard and multi-tasking, cause that's their leg up. They don't need to compare themselves to Apple, that will be their downfall, just tout the merits of the Pre, and leave Apple out of the conversation.
Agreed! All they will do is remind people that they are now eligible to upgrade to the iPhone 3GS. That type of advertising always looks desperate and carries the stink of death.
Horrible. Running multiple apps at the same time....Apple purposely doesn't do that because of battery life which is absolutely terrifying on the Pre by what I've heard. Not only that, the last time I checked, the 4G service is only available in Maryland. That does the other 98% of our nation what good?
Sprint is a joke. They double billed me several times until I finally had enough of them and decide to look towards other possibilities. Thankfully the 1st gen iPhone was right around the corner.
I think the mistake is using an apple in the ad. They should just tout cards, physical keyboard and multi-tasking, cause that's their leg up. They don't need to compare themselves to Apple, that will be their downfall, just tout the merits of the Pre, and leave Apple out of the conversation.
Yeah, all advertising that does that including Microsoft's fails because of that reason among others. They are essentially defining Apple as the benchmark that needs to be beaten.
Once that benchmark is known, people then look to see where the advertised products has flaws relative to it and whether those minor advantages are enough. Usually they aren't.
Agreed! All they will do is remind people that they are now eligible to upgrade to the iPhone 3GS. That type of advertising always looks desperate and carries the stink of death.
Then what the hell are the I'm a Mac ads?
Dude, we all love Apple but don't be such a fanboi!
The source of the recent flurry of AT&T tweets is Adam Savage of MythBusters fame, who tweets that for “a few hours of web surfing in Canada” he was charged a whopping $11,000. AT&T is apparently claiming that Savage managed to download 9 gigabytes in Canada using his USB data connection (which he calls “frakking impossible“).
Dude, we all love Apple but don't be such a fanboi!
The Mac ads work so well because they frame the Mac (or the Apple product) against a product that is already perceived to be a copycat, or inferior, or less desirable in the public consciousness.
When you see John Hodgman in those ads, the first thing that comes to mind is "Yup, that's good old Windows for ya." Crashes, instability, and BSODs. Apple simply plays on the image and the prejudices that are already there. When the average person thinks Windows, they either think of the painful, boring machine they use at work, or they think of error messages, issues, viruses, or the last time they asked their "techie" friend to "clean" their computer. Windows has a lousy reputation in the consumer market, or at the very least, has always had image issues when compared to the Mac. It's all about what we already perceive to be the truth.
Ths ad for the Pre didn't work or didn't have a measurable impact against the iPhone because:
a) The product was dead in the water from the beginning because it would invariably be compared to the iPhone, and the iPhone has incredible forward momentum. The ad could have been anything at all and it wouldn't have mattered. People simply could not believe that the iPhone could be bested. So they were not prepared to give its competitor a chance.
b) The ad pits the Palm directly up against a product that is already perceived to have set the bar, and the ad looks like desperation
You can either try to understand that or remain wrong.
Your previous post was magically edited by you today and I didn't reply to you because all those points weren't there before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
The Mac ads work so well because they frame the Mac (or the Apple product) against a product that is already perceived to be a copycat, or inferior, or less desirable in the public consciousness.
The ads work because they note Windows is the standard and state reasons why Macs are better than the standard. The Pre ad does the same thing and notes that you can have real-time updates, multitasking and save money to boot.
Quote:
When you see John Hodgman in those ads, the first thing that comes to mind is "Yup, that's good old Windows for ya." Crashes, instability, and BSODs. Apple simply plays on the image and the prejudices that are already there. When the average person thinks Windows, they either think of the painful, boring machine they use at work, or they think of error messages, issues, viruses, or the last time they asked their "techie" friend to "clean" their computer. Windows has a lousy reputation in the consumer market, or at the very least, has always had image issues when compared to the Mac. It's all about what we already perceive to be the truth.
Like it or not, Apple has plenty of issues to address with the iPhone. Palm is not doing anything in noting them. You assign motives to regular actions undertaken by companies competing against each other. While we are likely both of the opinion that Macs crash less than PC's it is still a rather gray argument of which crashes less or gives fewer problems, it isn't just a fact above opinion as an example. Palm is noting true areas that it addresses for which Apple has no answer.
Quote:
Ths ad for the Pre didn't work or didn't have a measurable impact against the iPhone because:
a) The product was dead in the water from the beginning because it would invariably be compared to the iPhone, and the iPhone has incredible forward momentum. The ad could have been anything at all and it wouldn't have mattered. People simply could not believe that the iPhone could be bested. So they were not prepared to give its competitor a chance.
b) The ad pits the Palm directly up against a product that is already perceived to have set the bar, and the ad looks like desperation
c) all of the above
This is the reasoning that is pure fanboi. Palms sales and revenues are up as are Blackberry. You might have a point if Apple were willing to make different phones across all networks. Then they could kill off these competitors before they become a real issue. Instead they'll let them go get big, strong and fix all their flaws over in CDMA/EVDO land and it could really hurt Apple later.
Apple wasn't really hurt badly as a company for example until the arrival of Windows 95. What they did instead though was not sweat Microsoft during Window 1,2,3 and 3.1 by thinking they weren't in direct competition. When they awoke to reality, it was very damaging.
Jobs declared the original iPhone gave Apple a 5 year head start. In the meantime what have they really added besides a better camera and software fixes?
It won't matter if the Pre can't kill the iPhone or the Blackberry can't. They are competing in areas where Apple won't and they are using that money and marketshare to close the gap. I assure you they won't have any problem going to other providers or adding features, extended batteries, keyboards versus no keyboards, you name it when push comes to shove.
Apple will be stuck on AT&T while even if Palm is 15% inferior (which is again, opinion) they will have Sprint, Verizon and AT&T pushing their solutions by 2010 easily. What will Apple have?
No I am of the view that Apple's target of 99% actually affects about 90% of the whole market. Computer buyers.
And Sprint, targeting iPhone owners (whose contracts are up) affects about 1% of the market. Cell Phone buyers.
See the difference?
I don't see what you are talking about at all. Apple sold six million iPhones the first year. Who would call it smart to ignore 6 million potential customers? If they capture even a percentage of that it is a great boost to their sales.
Also percentages don't tell the entire story for numbers because the numbers on cell phones are much larger than for computers. Huge Apple numbers for a quarter sales of Mac computers would be 2 million in a quarter. A million sales is a great weekend for the iPhone.
So when you talk about a whole numbers, you are talking about similar number.
Also if anything, it makes Palm smarter. Why wait until Apple is the undisputed monopoly leader before you start targeting them with ads? If they grab 10% of that 6 million that would be 600,000. That isn't a bad number at all to go after in this down economy where you have some folks who have an off contract iPhone to sell and might be looking for a cheaper means of getting their smart phone fix.
I'm not saying it is great, revolutionary of anything like that. I'm just saying the number and actions make plenty of sense. They don't represent a hail mary, desperation or any other strange concept.
I don't see what you are talking about at all. Apple sold six million iPhones the first year. Who would call it smart to ignore 6 million potential customers?
I certainly wouldn't call it smart to ignore 6 million potential customers. But how many of those 6 million are in Europe? How many (pre international launch) iPhones left the US on the grey market? How many customers still have many months to run on their AT&T contract? How many customers have already upgraded to a 3G. and a new 2 year contract?
So I think your 6 million is way too high. I think it might be smarter to target the whole market, not just a fraction.
Look Trump, I don't want to get hung up on numbers. If they want to target Apple just days before they launch a brand new iPhone... and software that makes every single iPhone out there better.. then fine.... that's their lookout. I just don't like the advertisement. I don't think it's 'desperate', just a little unsophisticated and the half eaten Apple is an obvious yet boring cliche. It feels like an ad in a local paper.
Quote:
Also percentages don't tell the entire story for numbers because the numbers on cell phones are much larger than for computers.
Exactly! But in this case the numbers on (iPhone) cell phones are much smaller than for (PC) computers.
I am in the UK. I don't care about Sprint although I hope Palm find success with the Pre. My point is really simple. When Apple focuses on the PC in their advertising they are addressing nearly the whole market. When Sprint focuses on a minority of iPhone owners they are addressing only a fraction.
So you are of the view that 99% of the people that Palm are targeting in that ad aren't already using an iPhone?
You fail to see the PC market as very different than the phone market, and that's why you fail to see our points. If we forget about linux for the moment (and consumers don't know what the hell Linux is) there are two players, just two players OS-wise in the personal computer space: Mac and PC (i.e. Windows). The phone market is a "different kettle..." ah.. we've been through this already. If you don't get it this time you may never get it.
I certainly wouldn't call it smart to ignore 6 million potential customers. But how many of those 6 million are in Europe? How many (pre international launch) iPhones left the US on the grey market? How many customers still have many months to run on their AT&T contract? How many customers have already upgraded to a 3G. and a new 2 year contract?
So I think your 6 million is way too high. I think it might be smarter to target the whole market, not just a fraction.
A couple points, first I didn't say they would get all 6 million. I stated a fraction of them would be a big market boost Second, I'm pretty (if memory serves right) that Apple spent almost the entire first year in only the domestic market with AT&T. Didn't they go international with the 3G and that announcement was a year ago? (roughly)
Also it isn't like they have to grab them all at once. Let's be optimistic and say they get 10% of iPhone 2G users. That would be an extra 50,000 sales per month for the entire first year. Not a bad return at all for a direct ad appeal. Some might have upgraded, but then again, some might be tired enough of AT&T to terminate early.
Targeting a known market segment and offering them more for less reflects a very sound business strategy.
Quote:
Look Trump, I don't want to get hung up on numbers. If they want to target Apple just days before they launch a brand new iPhone... and software that makes every single iPhone out there better.. then fine.... that's their lookout. I just don't like the advertisement. I don't think it's 'desperate', just a little unsophisticated and the half eaten Apple is an obvious yet boring cliche. It feels like an ad in a local paper.
I don't claim to be an ad person. I do know that simple ideas that appeal to a brand identity seem to do better in my view. Two guys representing computers worked best for Apple. Dancing two dimensional shapes, people, etc. worked for the iPhone. A lot of the iPhone people aren't automatically Mac people. They might be PC people, or converts from any number of areas who don't have the whole Apple philosophy and history of understanding in their mentality.
People on these forums post threads about momentum all the time and who has it. Maybe the whole purpose will do nothing more than generate a headline that says 10% of early iPhone adopters buy the Pre. Business is war and anything that helps alter the perception and trajectory of people probably toward a business helps that business. Apple does this all the time. They take a small number, make it seem like a good stake in the ground and then see, now imagine this a year from now, or two years.
Quote:
Exactly! But in this case the numbers on (iPhone) cell phones are much smaller than for (PC) computers.
Yes and no. Apple has helped define and create the smartphone niche. Within that niche they are a large player. I can see where you are coming from because I've claimed that folks like LG who are pushing "feature phones" are a really danger to Apple. So from the perspective of Apple and Palm, Apple is a large player within a smaller market that is expanding by factors of 3-400%. The PC market is larger but is also mature and thus much harder to dent.
Quote:
I am in the UK. I don't care about Sprint although I hope Palm find success with the Pre. My point is really simple. When Apple focuses on the PC in their advertising they are addressing nearly the whole market. When Sprint focuses on a minority of iPhone owners they are addressing only a fraction.
Those fractions add up. They grab some iPhone users. They grab, keep and bring some customers to Sprint with the Pre. They send the EON over to AT&T as a value competitor against the iPhone. In a few more months the Pre goes up against, well not much, on the Verizon network.
Apple's choice is to say, we have THE ANSWER and you will love it or leave it. Palm is clearly angling different than that and will grab customers from wherever they can, including former iPhone users. Palm is willing to offer several different answers to several different groups. One of those groups should certainly be iPhone users. I wouldn't be surprised to have them slap at features phones with the multitasking angle as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
You fail to see the PC market as very different than the phone market, and that's why you fail to see our points. If we forget about linux for the moment (and consumers don't know what the hell Linux is) there are two players, just two players OS-wise in the personal computer space: Mac and PC (i.e. Windows). The phone market is a "different kettle..." ah.. we've been through this already. If you don't get it this time you may never get it.
I assure you I see the differences. You complain about small percentages and I believe I have answered that here. Palm clearly is willing to offer AN answer as opposed to being THE answer. Those percentages do add up.
Comments
I think the mistake is using an apple in the ad. They should just tout cards, physical keyboard and multi-tasking, cause that's their leg up. They don't need to compare themselves to Apple, that will be their downfall, just tout the merits of the Pre, and leave Apple out of the conversation.
Agreed! All they will do is remind people that they are now eligible to upgrade to the iPhone 3GS. That type of advertising always looks desperate and carries the stink of death.
Sprint is a joke. They double billed me several times until I finally had enough of them and decide to look towards other possibilities. Thankfully the 1st gen iPhone was right around the corner.
I think the mistake is using an apple in the ad. They should just tout cards, physical keyboard and multi-tasking, cause that's their leg up. They don't need to compare themselves to Apple, that will be their downfall, just tout the merits of the Pre, and leave Apple out of the conversation.
Yeah, all advertising that does that including Microsoft's fails because of that reason among others. They are essentially defining Apple as the benchmark that needs to be beaten.
Once that benchmark is known, people then look to see where the advertised products has flaws relative to it and whether those minor advantages are enough. Usually they aren't.
Agreed! All they will do is remind people that they are now eligible to upgrade to the iPhone 3GS. That type of advertising always looks desperate and carries the stink of death.
Then what the hell are the I'm a Mac ads?
Dude, we all love Apple but don't be such a fanboi!
BTW, how is THIS for a billing error.
The source of the recent flurry of AT&T tweets is Adam Savage of MythBusters fame, who tweets that for “a few hours of web surfing in Canada” he was charged a whopping $11,000. AT&T is apparently claiming that Savage managed to download 9 gigabytes in Canada using his USB data connection (which he calls “frakking impossible“).
Then what the hell are the I'm a Mac ads?
Dude, we all love Apple but don't be such a fanboi!
The Mac ads work so well because they frame the Mac (or the Apple product) against a product that is already perceived to be a copycat, or inferior, or less desirable in the public consciousness.
When you see John Hodgman in those ads, the first thing that comes to mind is "Yup, that's good old Windows for ya." Crashes, instability, and BSODs. Apple simply plays on the image and the prejudices that are already there. When the average person thinks Windows, they either think of the painful, boring machine they use at work, or they think of error messages, issues, viruses, or the last time they asked their "techie" friend to "clean" their computer. Windows has a lousy reputation in the consumer market, or at the very least, has always had image issues when compared to the Mac. It's all about what we already perceive to be the truth.
Ths ad for the Pre didn't work or didn't have a measurable impact against the iPhone because:
a) The product was dead in the water from the beginning because it would invariably be compared to the iPhone, and the iPhone has incredible forward momentum. The ad could have been anything at all and it wouldn't have mattered. People simply could not believe that the iPhone could be bested. So they were not prepared to give its competitor a chance.
b) The ad pits the Palm directly up against a product that is already perceived to have set the bar, and the ad looks like desperation
c) all of the above
Then what the hell are the I'm a Mac ads?
That's a different kettle of fish.
That's a different kettle of fish.
Deep reasoning. No it isn't.
Deep reasoning. No it isn't.
They work entirely differently.
I already posted why.
You can either try to understand that or remain wrong.
Deep reasoning. No it isn't.
Actually it is, and for a very simple reason.
99% of the people that Apple are targeting in their 'Get a Mac' ads are already using a PC.
They work entirely differently.
I already posted why.
You can either try to understand that or remain wrong.
Your previous post was magically edited by you today and I didn't reply to you because all those points weren't there before.
The Mac ads work so well because they frame the Mac (or the Apple product) against a product that is already perceived to be a copycat, or inferior, or less desirable in the public consciousness.
The ads work because they note Windows is the standard and state reasons why Macs are better than the standard. The Pre ad does the same thing and notes that you can have real-time updates, multitasking and save money to boot.
When you see John Hodgman in those ads, the first thing that comes to mind is "Yup, that's good old Windows for ya." Crashes, instability, and BSODs. Apple simply plays on the image and the prejudices that are already there. When the average person thinks Windows, they either think of the painful, boring machine they use at work, or they think of error messages, issues, viruses, or the last time they asked their "techie" friend to "clean" their computer. Windows has a lousy reputation in the consumer market, or at the very least, has always had image issues when compared to the Mac. It's all about what we already perceive to be the truth.
Like it or not, Apple has plenty of issues to address with the iPhone. Palm is not doing anything in noting them. You assign motives to regular actions undertaken by companies competing against each other. While we are likely both of the opinion that Macs crash less than PC's it is still a rather gray argument of which crashes less or gives fewer problems, it isn't just a fact above opinion as an example. Palm is noting true areas that it addresses for which Apple has no answer.
Ths ad for the Pre didn't work or didn't have a measurable impact against the iPhone because:
a) The product was dead in the water from the beginning because it would invariably be compared to the iPhone, and the iPhone has incredible forward momentum. The ad could have been anything at all and it wouldn't have mattered. People simply could not believe that the iPhone could be bested. So they were not prepared to give its competitor a chance.
b) The ad pits the Palm directly up against a product that is already perceived to have set the bar, and the ad looks like desperation
c) all of the above
This is the reasoning that is pure fanboi. Palms sales and revenues are up as are Blackberry. You might have a point if Apple were willing to make different phones across all networks. Then they could kill off these competitors before they become a real issue. Instead they'll let them go get big, strong and fix all their flaws over in CDMA/EVDO land and it could really hurt Apple later.
Apple wasn't really hurt badly as a company for example until the arrival of Windows 95. What they did instead though was not sweat Microsoft during Window 1,2,3 and 3.1 by thinking they weren't in direct competition. When they awoke to reality, it was very damaging.
Jobs declared the original iPhone gave Apple a 5 year head start. In the meantime what have they really added besides a better camera and software fixes?
It won't matter if the Pre can't kill the iPhone or the Blackberry can't. They are competing in areas where Apple won't and they are using that money and marketshare to close the gap. I assure you they won't have any problem going to other providers or adding features, extended batteries, keyboards versus no keyboards, you name it when push comes to shove.
Have you even seen the Palm Eos yet?
Apple will be stuck on AT&T while even if Palm is 15% inferior (which is again, opinion) they will have Sprint, Verizon and AT&T pushing their solutions by 2010 easily. What will Apple have?
Actually it is, and for a very simple reason.
99% of the people that Apple are targeting in their 'Get a Mac' ads are already using a PC.
So you are of the view that 99% of the people that Palm are targeting in that ad aren't already using an iPhone?
So you are of the view that 99% of the people that Palm are targeting in that ad aren't already using an iPhone?
No I am of the view that Apple's target of 99% actually affects about 90% of the whole market. Computer buyers.
And Sprint, targeting iPhone owners (whose contracts are up) affects about 1% of the market. Cell Phone buyers.
See the difference?
No I am of the view that Apple's target of 99% actually affects about 90% of the whole market. Computer buyers.
And Sprint, targeting iPhone owners (whose contracts are up) affects about 1% of the market. Cell Phone buyers.
See the difference?
I don't see what you are talking about at all. Apple sold six million iPhones the first year. Who would call it smart to ignore 6 million potential customers? If they capture even a percentage of that it is a great boost to their sales.
Also percentages don't tell the entire story for numbers because the numbers on cell phones are much larger than for computers. Huge Apple numbers for a quarter sales of Mac computers would be 2 million in a quarter. A million sales is a great weekend for the iPhone.
So when you talk about a whole numbers, you are talking about similar number.
Also if anything, it makes Palm smarter. Why wait until Apple is the undisputed monopoly leader before you start targeting them with ads? If they grab 10% of that 6 million that would be 600,000. That isn't a bad number at all to go after in this down economy where you have some folks who have an off contract iPhone to sell and might be looking for a cheaper means of getting their smart phone fix.
I'm not saying it is great, revolutionary of anything like that. I'm just saying the number and actions make plenty of sense. They don't represent a hail mary, desperation or any other strange concept.
I don't see what you are talking about at all. Apple sold six million iPhones the first year. Who would call it smart to ignore 6 million potential customers?
I certainly wouldn't call it smart to ignore 6 million potential customers. But how many of those 6 million are in Europe? How many (pre international launch) iPhones left the US on the grey market? How many customers still have many months to run on their AT&T contract? How many customers have already upgraded to a 3G. and a new 2 year contract?
So I think your 6 million is way too high. I think it might be smarter to target the whole market, not just a fraction.
Look Trump, I don't want to get hung up on numbers. If they want to target Apple just days before they launch a brand new iPhone... and software that makes every single iPhone out there better.. then fine.... that's their lookout. I just don't like the advertisement. I don't think it's 'desperate', just a little unsophisticated and the half eaten Apple is an obvious yet boring cliche. It feels like an ad in a local paper.
Also percentages don't tell the entire story for numbers because the numbers on cell phones are much larger than for computers.
Exactly! But in this case the numbers on (iPhone) cell phones are much smaller than for (PC) computers.
I am in the UK. I don't care about Sprint although I hope Palm find success with the Pre. My point is really simple. When Apple focuses on the PC in their advertising they are addressing nearly the whole market. When Sprint focuses on a minority of iPhone owners they are addressing only a fraction.
Actually it is, and for a very simple reason.
99% of the people that Apple are targeting in their 'Get a Mac' ads are already using a PC.
Bingo bango bongo.
So you are of the view that 99% of the people that Palm are targeting in that ad aren't already using an iPhone?
You fail to see the PC market as very different than the phone market, and that's why you fail to see our points. If we forget about linux for the moment (and consumers don't know what the hell Linux is) there are two players, just two players OS-wise in the personal computer space: Mac and PC (i.e. Windows). The phone market is a "different kettle..." ah.. we've been through this already. If you don't get it this time you may never get it.
Bingo bango bongo.
I thank you! (I think?)
I thank you! (I think?)
Sounded better than "bingo" I thought. It's also the name of type of golf game, lol.
I certainly wouldn't call it smart to ignore 6 million potential customers. But how many of those 6 million are in Europe? How many (pre international launch) iPhones left the US on the grey market? How many customers still have many months to run on their AT&T contract? How many customers have already upgraded to a 3G. and a new 2 year contract?
So I think your 6 million is way too high. I think it might be smarter to target the whole market, not just a fraction.
A couple points, first I didn't say they would get all 6 million. I stated a fraction of them would be a big market boost Second, I'm pretty (if memory serves right) that Apple spent almost the entire first year in only the domestic market with AT&T. Didn't they go international with the 3G and that announcement was a year ago? (roughly)
Also it isn't like they have to grab them all at once. Let's be optimistic and say they get 10% of iPhone 2G users. That would be an extra 50,000 sales per month for the entire first year. Not a bad return at all for a direct ad appeal. Some might have upgraded, but then again, some might be tired enough of AT&T to terminate early.
Targeting a known market segment and offering them more for less reflects a very sound business strategy.
Look Trump, I don't want to get hung up on numbers. If they want to target Apple just days before they launch a brand new iPhone... and software that makes every single iPhone out there better.. then fine.... that's their lookout. I just don't like the advertisement. I don't think it's 'desperate', just a little unsophisticated and the half eaten Apple is an obvious yet boring cliche. It feels like an ad in a local paper.
I don't claim to be an ad person. I do know that simple ideas that appeal to a brand identity seem to do better in my view. Two guys representing computers worked best for Apple. Dancing two dimensional shapes, people, etc. worked for the iPhone. A lot of the iPhone people aren't automatically Mac people. They might be PC people, or converts from any number of areas who don't have the whole Apple philosophy and history of understanding in their mentality.
People on these forums post threads about momentum all the time and who has it. Maybe the whole purpose will do nothing more than generate a headline that says 10% of early iPhone adopters buy the Pre. Business is war and anything that helps alter the perception and trajectory of people probably toward a business helps that business. Apple does this all the time. They take a small number, make it seem like a good stake in the ground and then see, now imagine this a year from now, or two years.
Exactly! But in this case the numbers on (iPhone) cell phones are much smaller than for (PC) computers.
Yes and no. Apple has helped define and create the smartphone niche. Within that niche they are a large player. I can see where you are coming from because I've claimed that folks like LG who are pushing "feature phones" are a really danger to Apple. So from the perspective of Apple and Palm, Apple is a large player within a smaller market that is expanding by factors of 3-400%. The PC market is larger but is also mature and thus much harder to dent.
I am in the UK. I don't care about Sprint although I hope Palm find success with the Pre. My point is really simple. When Apple focuses on the PC in their advertising they are addressing nearly the whole market. When Sprint focuses on a minority of iPhone owners they are addressing only a fraction.
Those fractions add up. They grab some iPhone users. They grab, keep and bring some customers to Sprint with the Pre. They send the EON over to AT&T as a value competitor against the iPhone. In a few more months the Pre goes up against, well not much, on the Verizon network.
Apple's choice is to say, we have THE ANSWER and you will love it or leave it. Palm is clearly angling different than that and will grab customers from wherever they can, including former iPhone users. Palm is willing to offer several different answers to several different groups. One of those groups should certainly be iPhone users. I wouldn't be surprised to have them slap at features phones with the multitasking angle as well.
You fail to see the PC market as very different than the phone market, and that's why you fail to see our points. If we forget about linux for the moment (and consumers don't know what the hell Linux is) there are two players, just two players OS-wise in the personal computer space: Mac and PC (i.e. Windows). The phone market is a "different kettle..." ah.. we've been through this already. If you don't get it this time you may never get it.
I assure you I see the differences. You complain about small percentages and I believe I have answered that here. Palm clearly is willing to offer AN answer as opposed to being THE answer. Those percentages do add up.