Microsoft Switcher Ads: Part 2

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Switcher Ads: Part 2

Posted by pudge on Thursday February 13, 2003 @07:31PM from the i-vote-for-pathetic-flattery dept.

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?"

14 of 623 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Maybe it just works by doomdog · 2003-02-13 19:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why insist on calling it laziness? Maybe the switcher ads just work -- and it's always good sense to copy what is known to work well...

If Microsoft knows the ads are working for Apple, they'd be stupid not to use them themselves....
1. Re:Maybe it just works by cposs · 2003-02-13 19:42 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It may "just work" for Apple, but if microsoft does it too then it's dilution of message. Anyone who's seen an apple add will probably discount it instantly, unless Microsoft finds some really good stories. Copying a proven design works for products, and sometimes in advertising, but not for competing products.
apple vs microsoft by gh0ul · 2003-02-13 19:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Microsoft is basically afraid because Apple has openly admitted their old OS wasn't so great, and the new MacOS has everyone switching to a Mac.. I used to hate mac's but now I use one for every day tasks, even work.. Microsoft may try a switch campaign, and they will get people to do it.. but for every switch ad microsoft makes, 500 more people just bought a mac and ditched their old PC's which can't run XP.
I actually met a reverse switcher today. by Hawthorne01 · 2003-02-13 19:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

Went to the local Apple store, and at the Genius Bar there was a man dejectedly putting a brand-new 15" TiBook back into his briefcase. The websites he visits are all optimized for Windows and the software he uses daily (he's a financial planner) comes in Windows-only (and yes, he tried Virtual PC, to no avail). He's selling his TiBook and going back to Windows. The lack of software I can almost understand, 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.

--
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
1. Re:I actually met a reverse switcher today. by Dominic_Mazzoni · 2003-02-13 19:49 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  The websites he visits are all optimized for Windows
  
  This is going to change fast, thanks to Safari. Whenever a page looks incorrect or doesn't function in Safari, click the little bug icon in the upper-right corner, and it pops up a dialog where you can send feedback directly to Apple's Safari team. It can optionally include a screenshot of the page.
  
  Trust me, if enough people report problems with the same site, Apple WILL figure out a way to fix it. Safari has already improved dramatically in the beta version from last month to the one released this week.
  
  Anyway, I too have been frustrated by web pages that are optimized for Windows, but thanks to Safari, and also thanks to standards-compliant browsers like Mozilla/Netscape 7, things are finally starting to change.
2. Re:I actually met a reverse switcher today. by haeger · 2003-02-13 23:53 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This is going to change fast, thanks to Safari. Whenever a page looks incorrect or doesn't function in Safari, click the little bug icon in the upper-right corner, and it pops up a dialog where you can send feedback directly to Apple's Safari team. It can optionally include a screenshot of the page.
  
  Now this would be a killer app for Mozilla-like browsers. Whenever something doesn't look right, You can popup a dialog with a screenshot and some text explaining that the page is "broken" in some way.
  
  Not many people can be bothered to take a screenshot, start a mail-client, write a letter explaining what the problem is, mail the letter and screenshot to "www.broken-site.com".
  
  If 90% of this is already done and all the user had to do was to provide a name and where to send the complaint, I bet we'd see a lot of changes in the web-world.
  
  "Would You FIX the F*CKING page already? We get 500 screenshots a day and it's wrecking havoc in our mailserver"
  
  Problem moved from the person doing the browsing to the person writing bad html.
  
  .haeger
  
  --
  You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Not a chance.... by jericho4.0 · 2003-02-13 19:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think there are lots of good reasons why proffesional types could choose Windows over Mac. Price/performance, availability of software, ease of interoperability, etc.
But the adds will never have the pure appeal of the Mac switch adds. "TCO amoritized over the year saved us $$" is not "bleep, bleep, bleep, bleep, gone!"
I have an expensive Mac. It strikes me as slow, sometimes. I get annoyed when software comes out for the PC first. But I'm not giving it up for anything.

--
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Best of both worlds by thryllkill · 2003-02-13 20:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

I currently have two operating computers. My desktop system is a painfully old PIII 800Mz running Win2k(it duel boots to SuSE 8 when I want to dabble and learn). But my laptop is an iBook 700mhz, and I love it.
My reasons are: PIII)Want games, want to add hardware when I want from just about whatever source I want. The PIII is mostly a frankenstein of parts either bought or traded from friends. Unfortunatly I could not do this with a Mac.
But...
iBook) Want small, only 12.1 inch screen, the thing is tiny, fits in my backpack no prob. My friend's dell required him to buy a new "laptop" backpack. Want tough, magnesium caseing, rubber mounted hard drive, the thing is like a small tank in the laptop world. Want Unix, without all the trouble linux causes in laptops. Yeah I know it is very possible to have a very workable linux laptop, but I don't think it is possible to have a very workable linux laptop that works out the box, and I can send back to the company when the DVD-CDRW drive goes kaput.
Would I own a Mac desktop, at the moment, hell no! They would need to be more competative in both the speed and the price arenas for me to even consider it.
But my point is this, there are people out there who have weighed the differences and made the choice of both. OSX is easy, and fast, and pretty. Win2K (sorry don't know about XP) is where most of my professional experience lays so troubleshooting it easy, and it plays games, and it was hella cheap ($50 OEM version when I bought my HDD).

--
Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.
Re:Of course! by jericho4.0 · 2003-02-13 20:17 · Score: 4, Interesting

Ok, I'll bite.
Yes. Macs are slow. The ads are meant to sell to user types. As far as crashing goes, yes they used to,or so I hear, but my G4 hasn't crashed in 8 months. Windows sucked just as bad back then too.
You (and this is assuming you have the brains to make an informed, bias free decision), have the right to choose what's right for you. My choice of what's right ranges from Blade servers to Intel/Linux to Onyx's but the Mac is my workstation, and it's staying.

--
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
mac "slowness" by green+pizza · 2003-02-13 20:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have an expensive Mac. It strikes me as slow, sometimes. I get annoyed when software comes out for the PC first. But I'm not giving it up for anything.
I hear you about the performance issue. I've found the G4/MacOSX combo to have "baffling" performance. Many apps and many functions are zippy as can be, but yet there are still a few areas that can be slow. Resizing a window, for example, is pretty slow for all but the most lightweight applications. Apple's iCal calendar app also has a tendancy to chug pretty hard. Yet this very same machine is an absolute video monster. Final Cut Pro runs like a dream, I'm using "just" an 867 MHz machine, yet I couldn't really ask for any faster video editing performance. The app's gui is fast, scrubbing thru frames is fast, applying layers is fast. It's great! True, I don't do much compositing, so my render times are almost instant... but then, neither do most folks. (though I have heard that some folks are finding iMovie 3 to be somewhat slow) I've also found Photoshop to be extremely fast for the images I work with (never larger than 2048x2048). Others have reported zippy compile and run performance of command-line apps, though I haven't tried this out myself.

Perhaps Apple is still in the early stages of tweaking Mac OS X... maybe they're working on the demanding areas first and will eventually touch up the more minor performance issues (window resize, for example).
I don't really blame them by IamTheRealMike · 2003-02-13 21:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

Think about it - Microsoft is a monopoly, basically people have to buy their software. Yes, for geeks and highly non-demanding users stuff Windows lockin is less effective, but for the vast majority of people, they feel they have to use Windows.
So.... what does that leave left to advertise? It must get pretty boring working in Microsofts adverts department. I expect they've got bored of spamming OSDN, that was a good wheeze for a while, but now they have to do something to make the long winter days go past right?
Anyway, it's not like MS are actually threatened by Apple, anybody who runs the numbers can see that. It's just a side show, an entertaining game to try and give the surface appearance that there's actually competition in the markets.
Re:Hi, my name is Bob... by qengho · 2003-02-14 02:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

probably will stay with XP....Incidently this guys can't figure out os x.

Without fail, the biggest whiners about OS X are those with the most Mac experience (hell, I used to be one of them). The biggest complaint seems to be "The key commands are different." I can't figure out why muscle memory is more important to these folks than rock-solid stability.
Re:Why I switched: by annodomini · 2003-02-14 05:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

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).

This is blatantly wrong. None of these prices are right, at least on the mac end, unless you are talking about something other than US$. iMovie et al. are free. The only one which is not freely available is iDVD, which is bundled with iLife for $50. Mac.com accounts are $100 per year, not $130, and you never included the price of a similar service with the Toshiba. Comparing Mac.com prices with other similar services (you have to add up a few, such as an imap mailbox, plus 100 MB WebDAV disk space, plus web space, plus a bunch of free software), you find that $100 a year is a fair price. Jaguar may have been $130, but as you said, before there were free incremental updates and reasonably priced major ones. This is still the case. $130 is a pretty damn reasonable price for Jaguar. And we haven't had long enough to see how often updates like this will come out.
You still get tons of free stuff with MacOS. iTunes, iMovie, iCal, Mail, iPhoto, iSync, Safari, X11, a complete BSD distribution, Project Builder and related development tools, etc. Last time I checked Microsoft charged an awful lot for Visual Studio, not to mention anything equivalent to the rest of that (I don't pretend to be an expert on the exact product offerings and pricing of Microsoft software).
So, if you want to compare prices between similar Macs/PC offerings, please at least quote the correct price and compare similar items.
Our Marketing department swiched... by weave · 2003-02-14 07:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

By corporate mandate, Marketing had to ditch their Macs and switch to Dells. We, the tech department, gleefully went down there one day and confiscated their G4 towers. We then hooked them up in our offices and started playing. I loved mine so much I bought an iMac for home last summer and just yesterday took delivery of my new 12" G4 PB.
Meanwhile, Marketing's switch to dells and XP has left them miserable. Does that count? Sure was a sensible switch in my mind. Their loss, my gain! In fact I'm typing this in using Safari right now!