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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?