Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Businesses Apple

Microsoft Switcher Ads: Part 2 761

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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Switcher Ads: Part 2

Comments Filter:
  • Switch? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14, 2003 @03:41AM (#5300244)
    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?
  • This is pretty sad (Score:5, Insightful)

    by amigaluvr ( 644269 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @03:43AM (#5300260) Journal
    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
  • by jericho4.0 ( 565125 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @03:45AM (#5300265)
    The switch adds work because the're true to how people (user types) feel about computers. I have a hard time imageining XP adds with the same appeal.

    People _feel_ about their Macs.

  • by kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @03:47AM (#5300273)
    Or at least, one size does not fit all *well.*

    It's not at all unusual for an advertising stratagy that works for one company to fail miserably for another, even one the same line of business.

    Avis was made a major player in the car rental business by their " We're number two, so we try harder" ads.

    Hertz did not counter with a "We're number one, so we try harder" campaign. It wouldn't even have made sense.

    In this case Apple is the smaller, "nicheier" and less obvious choice for most professionals. Apple users are also known for being devoted to the product line.

    MS products are the "obvious" majority choice that even it's own users "love to hate."

    The "switch" approach makes sense for Apple and just looks a bit pathetic on the side of an outfit that already has over 90% of the market rapped up.

    Goliath trying to make himself out to be the underdog just isn't pretty.

    KFG
  • by KiahZero ( 610862 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @03:49AM (#5300281)
    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?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14, 2003 @03:52AM (#5300293)
    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?
  • by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @03:54AM (#5300297)
    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.
  • by Buck2 ( 50253 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @03:54AM (#5300300) Homepage
    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.
  • by vandel405 ( 609163 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @04:07AM (#5300339) Homepage Journal
    Apple, is advertising to 95% of the market. They have a large domain of possible targets. Microsoft would be targeting 3% of the market. It would seem much too small to be worth the effort.

    If MicroSoft played the AD on TV, say 1 million Apple users will see it. When Apple plays the same style add, and PAYS the SAME amount, 95 million people see it.

    This seems like a good way for microsoft to waste its cash. GO FOR IT!
  • Re:Hey Michael... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14, 2003 @04:17AM (#5300362)

    -1 Redundant ;)

  • by myov ( 177946 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @04:21AM (#5300372)
    Macs are for technically-challenged,

    Um, no. Macs are for people who want a computer that just works so they can get on with what they're doing, and not wondering why their OS blew up.
  • by MonopolyNews ( 646464 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @04:21AM (#5300374) Homepage Journal
    but then, they can poison the well and make the genre itself ineffectual for a while.
  • by alpharoid ( 623463 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @04:25AM (#5300386)
    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.
  • by Dominic_Mazzoni ( 125164 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @04:28AM (#5300393) Homepage
    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?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14, 2003 @04:31AM (#5300400)
    Scenario: Red Hat runs a switching campaign about someone whose shed proprietary OSes for Linux.

    Result: Oh, it would be a "great marketing stroke", turning Apple's sillyness against them, blah blah blah. The Slashbots would be emoting the glorys of the OSS marketing Gods.

    Analysis: If a proprietary company does something, it's always stupid. But attach some OSS angle to it, it's nothing but sheer genius.
  • by jsse ( 254124 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @04:49AM (#5300434) Homepage Journal
    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!
  • Well, it was certainly inspired by Pixar. But honestly, when the LCD iMac first came out, one of my first thoughts was that that design itself was probably inspired by the Pixar lamp. I mean, the CRT iMac was clearly an attempt to anthropomorphize the computer and make it seem more friendly and acceptable, just as the with the redone VW bug. For instance, there was the nice little eyes of the speakers and face of the CD-ROM. When the time came to switch to an LCD, Apple clearly wanted to retain the same level of humanity in their product. I really think that seeing the lamp hopping around was a lesson to everyone about how articulation and motion can convey friendliness without visible facial features, and I think that was part of the reason behind the iMac as we know it today.
  • by money_shot ( 301137 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @04:59AM (#5300453)
    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
  • by SHiFTY1000 ( 522432 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @05:02AM (#5300462) Homepage
    The problem is that designers minds work differently to that of the average tech- for a techy kind of person, its information first with look and feel a distant second...

    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....)

  • by money_shot ( 301137 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @05:07AM (#5300468)
    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.

  • My theory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by inkswamp ( 233692 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @05:10AM (#5300475)
    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.)
  • by shepd ( 155729 ) <slashdot.org@nOSpAm.gmail.com> on Friday February 14, 2003 @05:16AM (#5300486) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by HalfFlat ( 121672 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @05:26AM (#5300507)
    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.
  • Re:Of course! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Vadim the Conqueror ( 591652 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @05:27AM (#5300509)
    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.
  • by WhiteBandit ( 185659 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @05:31AM (#5300518) Homepage
    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.
  • by JimDabell ( 42870 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @05:32AM (#5300519) Homepage

    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.

    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.

  • by Pyrosophy ( 259529 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @06:10AM (#5300594)
    Ok, so I don't like marketing departments any more than you do. In fact, if you think marketing for software (especially games) is annoying, try the marketing department for a university.

    But for all the simple-mindedness, there is theory to marketing and a large corporation like Microsoft can't just start running "switch" ads. Microsoft by and large uses its advertising to sell products and features. This is probably because tech people are at the helm.

    Switch ads don't sell products or features, which Microsoft is used to. They sell "lifestyle" or "experience". Think of car commercials for any mainstream sedan "four doors, power steering" versus the VW bug. And Apple is a company and brand that is built on lifestyle and experience. They're good enough to have somewhat decent tech to go along with it, so their product actually fulfills people's desires created by the commercials (mostly).

    But Microsoft is not even remotely a brand that people associate with experience and lifestyle -- their pathetic attempts at trying have resulted in a portly fellow dressed as a butterfly. Because a) their company is branded as tech-features and b) their marketing department is hopelessly held hostage by the techies, they presently cannot pull off an experience related marketing scheme like "switch". They have a lot more work to do in order to change their company's image -- and I believe they're spread to thin to do it. Apple, on the other hand is right in the home desktop and artsy market and can pull off such a campaign.

    Microsoft is trying to fight a two-front image war, getting cozy with home users and flexing technical might with server-types, gamers, etc. It can't win this fight with only one product without making marketing history.

    So in short, pretending there were MS people who switched from Apple and liked it, just because the ads worked for MS does not mean Microsoft should try them. First of all it probably won't work, and it creates just more confusion in the average consumer's mind. I don't like MS anymore than the rest of you MS-haters, but you still have to admit that there are independent reasons why this is not a good idea for their company.

    They're damned if they run the ads (weird branding and potential of perception of deceit) and damned if they don't (more MS --> Apple swtichers). Sounds like a rosy picture to me!
  • by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @06:16AM (#5300607) Homepage
    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%?

    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

  • by iamacat ( 583406 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @06:21AM (#5300620)
    Think about it this way: if you are switching from Windows to Apple, you do it because you love the OS. It might hurt your finances or limit your life options (software), but you are happy with the things you do have.

    If you switch from Mac to Windows, basically you agree to get screwed to improve your finances. You might be able to have a particular piece of software, but your OS will just crash after coming home every day. It will interact with other web sites without your permission and infect you with resulting viruses. It will install software in "your" computer that sends your private information over Internet without telling you. Finally, if you hardware changes too much it will threaten to dump you unless you pay more money.

    Apple's switch commercials work because they remind people to do the right thing. MS switch ads will have no effect because everyone already knows that they could sell out, but most people who have the good stuff just refuse to do such a thing.

  • Mother of God, NO! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by migurski ( 545146 ) <mike@@@teczno...com> on Friday February 14, 2003 @06:29AM (#5300643) Homepage
    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.
  • by Scarblac ( 122480 ) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Friday February 14, 2003 @06:33AM (#5300662) Homepage

    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.

  • by zogger ( 617870 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @06:35AM (#5300672) Homepage Journal
    ---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
  • by Sauron23 ( 52474 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @06:36AM (#5300673) Journal
    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.
    Mindshare and retention. If your not actively pushing your brand, logo, product your dropping off the radar. Never, ever, stop selling the product

  • by kyrre ( 197103 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @06:54AM (#5300717)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14, 2003 @06:56AM (#5300726)
    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.
  • Hmmm, (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PhilHibbs ( 4537 ) <snarks@gmail.com> on Friday February 14, 2003 @07:05AM (#5300741) Journal
    So when does it just stop being the sincerest form of flattery and just become utter, pathetic laziness?
    You could say the same about Linux GUI design, in fact, just about any Linux software design. I don't usually complain about MS bashing, in fact I usually join in, but this is just pathetic.
  • Let me see. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14, 2003 @07:40AM (#5300807)
    "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.
  • by feldsteins ( 313201 ) <scott@sco t t feldstein.net> on Friday February 14, 2003 @08:54AM (#5300994) Homepage
    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.
  • by jotaeleemeese ( 303437 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @09:00AM (#5301022) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by RobotRunAmok ( 595286 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @09:13AM (#5301056)
    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?
  • by mbourgon ( 186257 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @09:21AM (#5301081) Homepage
    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.
  • by afantee ( 562443 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @09:38AM (#5301166)
    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.
  • bah, bandwagons (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mandrake*rpgdx ( 650221 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @10:08AM (#5301384) Homepage
    The MAC switch ads work for the same reason teh MS ones will never work. It's the same reason why all teh MAC users "love" their MAC. It's the idea of community. MS users have no sense of community. It's far too big to get that kind of following, and far too engrained into our social mind frame as being standard. MAC's are unique on purpose, because it gives the users an US verses them mentality. Linux users are the same way. Linux users love their OS's. It's a community thing, and has nothing to do with actual viable greatness of said products, just silly mob mentaility community thinking. /dons flame retardent suit
  • by The Wooden Badger ( 540258 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @10:19AM (#5301451) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by Vantage13 ( 207635 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @10:40AM (#5301612) Homepage
    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
  • by nsayer ( 86181 ) <nsayer@kfu.cRABBITom minus herbivore> on Friday February 14, 2003 @11:18AM (#5301905) Homepage
    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. :-)
  • Why I switched: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14, 2003 @11:34AM (#5302020)
    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 ...
  • by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @12:01PM (#5302221) Homepage
    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)
  • by phillymjs ( 234426 ) <slashdot.stango@org> on Friday February 14, 2003 @12:34PM (#5302572) Homepage Journal
    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
  • Your explanation of that ad sounds eerily like how you see people try to get others to use Linux.

    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!

  • by Planesdragon ( 210349 ) <slashdot@noSpAM.castlesteelstone.us> on Friday February 14, 2003 @12:57PM (#5302817) Homepage Journal
    Don't you think that people who 'feel' things about their computer need to get out in the sunshine a bit more?

    Nah. They're just placing comparable importance on their third most expensive purchase that they do on their first two most expensive purchases--their house and their car.
  • by Reziac ( 43301 ) on Friday February 14, 2003 @02:08PM (#5303551) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14, 2003 @07:21PM (#5306179)
    > 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.

"Life begins when you can spend your spare time programming instead of watching television." -- Cal Keegan

Working...