Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Switcher Ads: Part 2
burgburgburg writes "We all recall Microsoft's last attempt to emulate the Apple Switch ads. Well, it seems they're at it again. MacNN reports that Microsoft has sent out emails to those who have recently registered MS products, looking for candidates for their 'Sensible Solutions' campaign, which will 'highlight computer professionals that have recently converted from Apple Computer products to Microsoft based systems.' Do you qualify? You must be 'a US resident with a minimum of 3 years experience as a computer professional. You must have used an Apple Computer product and a Microsoft based system as part of your work'. So when does it just stop being the sincerest form of flattery and just become utter, pathetic laziness?"
When you control 95% of the OS and office-suite markets, who else do you have to convince?
The remaining fringe is going to avoid MS no matter what.
Are they just trying to save face against semi-influential Apple ads?
I think this is sad on Microsofts part. Their copying apple with a succesful campaign but coming too late to the party. A lot of it is in the timing and I think Apple's switch has done all it can in mindshare
The biggest part of the apple campaign is that people have left the common world of windowsk, one that people dont think of leaving because they see nothing else but MS MS MS everywhere. Then to switch to Apple or indeed anything smaller is a big task and it can be seen as an active choice
For a switch to windows sounds like 'I used to use X but then I joined the herd' and gave in to peer pressure. Its hardly the same thing
note: the slashdot user 'danamania' is a transexual. beware
People _feel_ about their Macs.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
It's not so much blatent disregard of standards as believing that IE is the standard. Most people, if you point out that Mozilla or Opera or any other browser does not display a page properly, will ask what's wrong with the browser. After all, the browser that came with the system shows it just fine!
What I'd really like to know is why Microsoft even bothers to spend money on advertising for their OSs. Seriously... they have a monopoly in the desktop market that they've effectively leveraged to ensure that it stays that way for the foreseeable future. So long as all the applications that Joe Everyman needs to run, as well as all the games his kids want to play, are Windows only, what are the odds that he's going to switch to any other OS?
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
What "business" software do most people run that can't be run on a mac? Excel? Quickbooks? Quicken? Word? I mean I know people have personal preferences but honestly, I don't get it, whats so 'un business like' about a mac? Is it the fact that they don't look dull and boring like office supplies and cubicles?
but companies that refuse to make their websites accessible and usable to anything other than WIndows IE are demonstrating either major ignorance on customer service, a blatant disregard for standards, or both
The sad truth is that most companies don't design or implement their own websites -- they hire a web designer to do the job for them.
Unfortuantely, a growing number of web designers are incompetent and/or just plain lazy when it comes to building sites that work with browsers other than IE.
There is no excuse for building a site that won't at least provide basic navigation and information with even the simplest of browsers.
I get real ticked off when I keep having to turn Javascript back on just so I can see some "clever" designer's pull-down menus, or have to fire up IE because a site is MS-specific.
Even more annoying are those sites that use Active-X components so that if you're a *smart* websurfer who has disabled Active-X, you keep getting little dialog boxes and beeps advising you that the page may not display properly.
Then there's those sites built almost entirely from Flash. The worst of these even force you to have Javascript enabled before the Flash code will load as well.
Listen-up smarty-pants web designers. I don't want to be entertained, I don't want to be blown away by your fancy tricks -- I just want to be able to access the information and navigate without a whole lot of fuss, and without wearing the great big "kick me" sign that IE paints on your back when you're surfing unknown URLs.
Does the dialog box also send a report to the relevant "bad-designer" party?
It appears to me that this method only addresses the symptoms.
As my father lik@(munch munch)...
-1 Redundant ;)
but then, they can poison the well and make the genre itself ineffectual for a while.
Slashdot Journal on Monopoly News
Sometimes I get the feeling that MS has been so dominant in the OS market for so long, some of the old-timers still in charge actually miss the days where they had any adversaries.
So they keep their eyes too open and attack even the tiny companies that fight over whatever MS leaves behind.
What exactly does MS expect to gain from its campaign...? 30, maybe 35 people crazy enough to switch? Maybe, ooh, a 1% sales increase in the most wildly optimistic aftermath?
And besides, to take on MacOs X in its current form, you either have to have an incredibly good piece of software, or you just have to be stupid enough to try and spin truths to gain consumer loyalty. Since MS never had any of the former, they have to try the latter.
Does the dialog box also send a report to the relevant "bad-designer" party?
It appears to me that this method only addresses the symptoms.
What do you think carries more weight? Occasional random email complaints from Mac users, or a phone call from an Apple developer on behalf of 15,000 Mac users that reported the bug, along with detailed information on how it could be fixed?
Why mod this funny? He's telling the truth!
I worked for a press company and they switch from Mac to Windows because one clueless management said "Why would we need expensive Mac box to do the image archiving?" Thus all boxes for this purpose were replaced.
Guess what? The no. of support calls skyrocketed and we needed to hire more tech supports to sustain our business!
Pathetic Laziness? You mean like Linux desktop design and conventions?
From my experience, a huge number of people have at some point switched from Macs to Windows. While not as elegant for early computer users, you won't have the nasty incompatibility problem with everyone you know who's not a graphic designer... (I'm a graphics/development guy.)
-Money_shot
For a designer, how it looks and feels is the ONLY thing that is important. Hence the flash monstrosities that take several minutes to load over dial up (sigh....)
The TRUTH of the matter is that it is not worth the money to optimize or even take the Mac into account for the vast majority of software products or websites. So 5% of the potential viewers might not be able to view your site? So what. You may or may not want to spend money to get the 5% or make their experience better. That is a business decision, not a design decision.
I know, slashdotters will say to make everything as compatible as possible. Do a spreadsheet once in awhile. Next time someone gives you $100,000, to build a commercial site for a market that is 95% PC based, you'll have to justify spending money for Mac/Linux users as opposed to maximizing the product for the 95% you know you will be compatible with.
I think this campaign is not aimed at Mac users and convincing them to switch to Windows, but rather an attempt to stop the herd of Windows users out there from considering Macs. I bet these ads will be loaded with implied falsehoods (i.e., Word and Explorer doesn't run on Macs, can't network on Macs, etc.)
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
So, since you believe anything good should only be done by the original company to invent it, I assume you buy nothing but IBM parts if you have a PC, and would never think of using anything non-Apple with your Mac, and that if you have a PC, it would have to run an MS operating system.
Also, I must assume you drive a Ford, should you have a car. And that you haven't bought a modem since Hayes went out of business, and that your phone is made by Bell or AT&T, etc, etc.
In my opinion, if something works well, why _not_ use it? It's exactly that sort of NIH mentality that helps keep Apple at position #2.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
The money argument does not hold water, because the very things that typically tie a site to a single platform are those which are the most expensive to produce.
Extensive javascript menus, elaborate flash 'navigators', exotic ActiveX controls -- all these things take time to produce, a lot more time in fact that the simple option which would have worked anywhere.
The problem isn't money or market-share, it's that so-called web designers are pandering to ignorant clients who want something pretty on their personal desktop rather than a useful web presence. Two groups are at fault: web-designers with no pride in their profession, and clients who are much more interested in spending their company's money on attractive interactive wallpaper than on an effective web site.
The 5% market share argument is an old canard parrotted by web quacks who won't learn new tricks.
windows users are the only ones who dont have a strong connection to their operating system.
there's linux users who tend to be very anti-microsoft, there's mac users who in my experiance are very fanatical. then there's windows users like me. i use windows, it works quite well for me, and i've been using it as long as i can remember, but i dont feel the need to be pushy or get on other people's cases about using a different os, and i dont feel any reluctance to learn other os's as well.
i use windows, for no better reason than it's what's on my pc, and i dont like one button mice.
Heh. What the hell is so wrong with building it in basic HTML? Using basic HTML and maybe even throw in a couple of CSS will make the website look nice. It's not even that hard.
Hell, it seems to me like you'd have to specifically *TRY* to build it so it is incompatible with other browsers. That is harder than just freaking following regular HTML rules. Granted, I'm not specifically saying you should make it compatible no matter what, but the fact that making it compatible is just so damn easy, well...
Maybe I'm ignorant, but I don't really see how javascript or even flash "enchances" the viewing experience over straight HTML and your bmps/gifs/pngs/jpegs.
It's not just laziness. Most browsers have bugs in their CSS support that cause hideous problems. This includes Mac IE. Unfortunately, Mac IE doesn't work on anything but Macs (and is a completely separate codebase to Win IE), so the average web developer is looking at plonking down hundreds of pounds/dollars/oolas just to make sure their standards-compliant website can render properly in a buggy, minority browser.
If you want buggy browsers that are only used by a minority of people to be well-supported, find a cheaper way of testing in them.
Professionalism.
Now, since you describe yourself as an occassional designer I would like to stress that I'm really not trying to come down hard. However, professionals certainly have no excuse for the problems mentioned so far.
I tend to write all my pages under Mozilla, then test with IE and make alterations accordingly. I've found this works much better than writing under IE and then testing with Mozilla.
You see, to my mind at least IE is much more standards-compliant than it usually gets credit for. However, it supports a whole load of alternative nonsense as well. If you write and test with a browser that doesn't understand the alternatives (eg. Mozilla) then you have an easier job making sure a site works on both.
Cheers,
Ian
Apple should not "fix" sites that are optimized for IE - in the vaaaast majority of cases, such sites use ass-whacked HTML, your mother's activeX controls, and were built in FrontPage.
Apple should stick to its guns, and continue to work on STANDARDS COMPLIANCE for Safari, so that sites will work correctly in Saf/Moz/Konq/Op/etc. This will put pressure on MS to fix IE (as they have already started to do, thanks to Tantek Celik's excellent Tasman rendering engine for IE5/mac, and the standards compliance mode triggered via the presence of a legit DOCTYPE at the head of the file).
If you find a site that is *cough* "optimized" for MSIE, do the right thing, and notify the webmaster. I have done so on countless occasions with bank sites and the like, and often I get a response and eventual compliance in the long run.
long live standards. good night.
I seem to fit your description pretty neatly. But I disagree on the 'no excuse' part. If I help somebody with a simple page that reaches 80% of all Internet users, why does that oblige me to figure out how to make it work for the other 20%?
You seem to believe it's actually hard work to make a standards compliant web page. It's not. Any simple page will work fine on any browser.
It's only when you go out of your way to use unnecessary non-portable stuff that suddenly it only works on a few browsers. And the worst thing is, in most cases, it's easier to do the same thing the right way.
Of course, it may be that if you use stuff like Frontpage, that it will include MS-only stuff. I don't know, I never used it. It seems that you don't either.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
---E commerce? "selling widgets and/or widget servicing"=sales. OK, question, are you in sales or are you an "IT" guy? Here's a hint, people showing up at a site running osx are usually *not poor*, their demographics are leaning a lot towards "we spend top money and are known for brand loyalty if we are treated right".
Admit it-I got a point? Rhetorical question, I think I made it. Basic rule of thumb in sales 101, you have to get through the noes to get to the yesses. Part of any "yes" potential is , well, having da loot. The interest on the part of the surfer was there, you got the hit, they showed up at your URL, they are doing the customer's part. That's all they can do up to that point. The next step is up to you.
good lucksi
I know this guy that actually did something like this. A webdesinger character. He has been the biggest Mac zealot since I first met him 6-7 years ago. Back then I hated the mac, the one button mouse and macos 6-8. I used GNU/Linux and was very happy with it. One year ago I got my first mac. An iBook. I love it. What happens then? His Powerbook breaksdown, and while waiting for it to return he start using XP. Now he say he is happy with it and probably will stay with XP. Now thats a path I won't follow him.
Incidently this guys can't figure out os x.
It is cheaper to make cross-browser HTML.
Why? Easy:
When you write "designed for IE 4.0" HTML, it will only work on IE 4.0 - NOT IE 5.5 or 6.0. I know, we tried it here - first from 4.0 to 5.0 and then from 5.5 to 6.0.
Cross-browser HTML will work on any IE version, any Netscape version, any Opera version, Any Mac-browser. It may take five minutes longer to write, but at least you don't need to rewrite it when MS releases the next version on IE.
"So when does it just stop being the sincerest form of flattery and just become utter, pathetic laziness?"
I don't know. When did the home computing world steal color graphics, stereo sound and true multi-tasking from the Amiga?
Oh yeah, Apple had that before? No, it was the PC, I think. NO! It was the Spectrum? No, no! I think it was Apple. Wasn't Atari... Nah, video games. It must have been the PC. Damn lazy Amigas.
While you're complaining about all the wild-eyed, touchy-feely Mac enthusiasts it occurs to me that you my friend - yes you, mister - need a hug!
Seriously, I think there's a lot of Windows users who have entirely lost touch with the idea that one can like thier computer. I don't think there's anything wrong with doing so either; it's not like allowing such factors to influence our purchases and preferences is "stupid" or otherwise "uninformed." Hell, if it was we'd all be driving around in gray '87 Volvos or something.
I actually the fact that we like our computers annoys non Mac users. "It's a tool" they tell us with visibly strained patience. Like we didn't understand that. We should "grow up" and realize that there should be no fun, pleasure, or delight in the use of such a utilitarian thing.
It's a computer. Yes it's a tool and so is a furnace. But so is a Mini-Cooper. There's a difference. I don't work for Apple and I don't give a rats ass if you buy a Mac or not. But I do get tired of the "it's a tool" argument against computers with taste and style. Given the choice between owning something that feels utilitarian versus something that feels like someone put some love I'll take the love hands down. Ask any Harley-Davidson owner.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
The stock market fell only 5% this year.
The economy fell only 5% this year.
Your mortgage interest fell only 5% this year.
Only 5% my ass.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I use the phrase Joe Sixpack often. Been using it for over 20 years. I have never taken it to mean "clueless" or "unwashed." It's used to describe someone who is an average consumer who typically doesn't care very passionateley, if at all, about the wacky techno-babble stuff that is discussed on this board, or among a particular field's cognoscenti. If someone is a car mechanic, talking to another car mechanic about some spark plug minutiae, then *I* am Joe Sixpack for purposes of that discussion. Likewise two accountants grousing over lunch about the latest amortization macros in their spreadsheets.
"Newbie" is not an appropriate word to use to describe the "non-cognoscenti" as it implies the person is "on the path" to becoming an insider (of something). I am not a "newbie" as relates to automotive mechanics. I've no desire to delve into a car's deeper mysteries. I just want to turn the key and have the thing move.
Most people don't care one way or the other about their computer's operating systems, nor will they ever, nor should they have to. "Does it play most applications I see advertised? Great!" They are Joe Sixpacks; they are not clueless, nor are they unwashed.
You and I, whether through vocation or avocation, know and care a lot about computer systems. All well, good, and harmless. There are plenty of people wa-a-a-a-y smarter and better washed than either you or I who are "Joe Sixpack" when it comes to computer operating systems. We know it and they know it. None of us have had a problem with the term until you brought this up...
Feel better, now that you understand the meaning of the phrase?
3. Actually, most people I know with a mac don't want a Personal Computer and all that entails. They have stuff they want to do and do it. Just because they don't want to have to reinstall drivers or edit a Registry key doesn't make them pathetic or "cyber-squirrel"s.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
I really doubt that MS can find a real story like this one. None of the Windows users I know prefer the platform for any reason - they either have no choice or simply are ignorant.
I think the whole MS switcher ads idea is pathetic. But then again the Apple poster at my school's computer store about why to switch is equally pathetic. Looking it over I can condense it down to a sentance. "Buy an Apple Macintosh because it is a better PC than a PC is." I had to laugh that the selling point of the computer is that it is better at being what the competition is than the competition can be. Why not point out what you really have going for you. What do you have that the other guy doesn't. Sign post up ahead, you've just entered the Pathetic Zone.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
Web design is not being a code monkey and churning out a site that the client has designed.
Web design is "design". That's why they hire you.
You don't hire an interior designer and give them the design. You tell them the general idea of what you're looking for and they advise you on how to best acheive your goals.
It's the same in web design. The customer shouldn't be saying, "I want this flashy animation here, and cool menus there", but instead, "we want to focus on this product and how to grab the customers attention...".
After that it's up to the *designer* to use his/her *design* skills to successfully acheive that (subject to client approval of course).
If the client is just looking for a code monkey to churn out their design they should hire some kid who doesn't know any better. cheaper and you get the design you want. of course odds are you won't get the results you want out of your site but i guess it's a matter of what's more important; your design or the results you get from it?
Web design has a lot more to do with consultancy and design than with simply writing code
Apple's switch campaign used ordinary folks. Microsoft's practically requires MCSEs.
:-)
It's only fair, of course. That's pretty much how the two operating systems stack up as well.
Cost.
...
In the old days:
- Apple hardware cost more but it was very dependable.
- Mac OS upgrades used to be free for minor updates and major releases (every 2 to 3 years) were resonably priced.
- Lots of free stuff like hypercard and later iMovie and blah@mac.com accounts.
Now:
- Hardware is still ~40% more than similar PC stuff.
- Dependablity has dropped to "white box" levels.
- iMoive et all applications cost $100 per year (to stay up to date)
- blah@mac.com accounts cost $130 per year PER ACCOUNT PER YEAR.
- Software updates cost $130 per year.
$360 per year for the feeding of a Mac is IMO too much. I resently bought a Toshiba 1115-S103 laptop (1.5Ghz Cel, 20G HD, 256M RAM, WinXP Home and a 14" screen) for $750 (new after $200 rebate). A similar iBook would be $1540 ($1050 + $130 + $360) over two years as opposed to my Toshiba for $900 ($750 + $150 for possible OS update costs).
In other words: screw Apple until they drop the cost their software/.Mac costs. I love Mac OS X (on my iMac 400 DV) but my laptop (RedHat for work and WinXP for games) gets 90% of my time.
And yes, Mac OS X is clearly a better OS than MS XP but IMO just not worth the extra cost for me.
As for desktops, Apple loses again. Replacement parts for Macs cost way too much and take too long to get. I can replace any part in my desktop PC in less than 24 hours and do it myself. A Mac will cost you atleast twice the price for parts, require professional installation most of the time and take a minimum of one week to get the parts and one week for installation.
Now if Apple sold an ATX Mobo I might return
Well... do you mean to say that the only thing that makes OS X stable is a different set of keyboard shorcuts in the Finder?
If not, then presumably, OS X _could have_ had the exact same user interface as MacOS did, while nevertheless being stable.
Now, in truth, I don't believe that OS X could've had the MacOS UI precisely. Firstly, it would be a bad idea, since the MacOS UI has been needing to be replaced by something better since around 1990 or so when it got about as good as it was going to get. And secondly, because aspects of its shameful Unix past would show through anyway, e.g. with the file structure, or the security model.
Personally, my problem is that the OS X UI is worse than the MacOS UI, which I had really wanted to be able to retire for over ten years anyway. Coupled with Apple's continuing craptastic hardware specs and prices compared with x86, and given that WinXP is about as crappy as OS X is, IMO, switching away wasn't that tough a thing to do.
Hopefully, someday, something better will come along, and I'll finally be happy. Right now, I could be on pretty much any platform and the best I'd feel would be lousy.
Of course, I do often find myself reaching for Cmd-N to make a new folder.... (If you think I'd get rid of my Extended II keyboard, you're nuts)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Thus spake Microsoft's Mike Maples, who may have since left the company, "If someone thinks we're not after Lotus and after WordPerfect and after Borland, they're confused ... My job is to get a fair share of the software applications market, and to me that's 100 percent." (Emphasis mine)
Maples said this around 10 years ago, but that was and still is pretty much the mentality of everyone in power in the company-- even with 95% of the market, the greedy bastards still lose sleep at night at the thought of dollars going into a competitor's coffers.
The above quote either came from Cringely's Accidental Empires, or Wallace & Erickson's Hard Drive, I can't remember right now-- I recalled it verbatim because it was so galling to read that it has stuck in my mind.
~Philly
Look, we have Open Office and Star Office; they're almost as good as Microsoft Office.
Not confused enough by one desktop? Well we've got more!
The "don't piss off more than 5% of potential customers" is actually good meatspace marketing wisdom, but the fact is, when a website is broken, it's usually broken for a whole lot more than 5% of users. In my observation, anywhere from 20% to 80% depending on the cluelessness and/or ego of the webmaster.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
> You don't hire an interior designer and give them the design. You tell them the general idea of what you're looking for and they advise you on how to best acheive your goals.
> It's the same in web design. The customer shouldn't be saying, "I want this flashy animation here, and cool menus there", but instead, "we want to focus on this product and how to grab the customers attention...".
Well, let us know when you wake up from your very pleasant, but completely unrealistic, dreaming and begin consulting for actual people - these are very much more demanding and hands-on due to 'what they already know' than your fantasy clients. Don't get me wrong, your ideas are FINE, but they don't match reality in many cases and will cause you to lose clients.