I really think the time has come to come up with a different ad campaign regardless. I'm not sure whether the 'I'm a Mac/PC' ads ever worked overall - I have found some of them funny but I'm not sure I would have if I was exclusively a Windows PC user.
That is a good point.
The ads are entertaining for the established Mac base. But, the thing is, we are not their target audience. They already have the loyal Mac users (which are the ones that will find the commercials funny). So, they only need to keep us happy to keep us buying.
To convince others to switch, it would make more sense to use the marketing methods that actually sell them on differences and advanced capabilities. Unfortunately, that may mean using some boring numbers and spreadsheets.
When buying a PC, I look at specs and price. The most for the least. That's the way I buy a PC.
Unfortunately, the Mac tends to give you the least for the most. By that, I mean that for the price of your average PC, you get a Mac with reduced specifications. For the price of a Mac Mini, I can get a PC that will just flat-out put the mini to shame when it comes to specs.
PC buyers are used to buying based on Specs and price. The last couple of PC's I purchased cost me $600 and $430 (the $600 one was purchased about 5 years ago, and the $430 system about 2 years ago).
The PC's tend to continue to decrease in purchase price while regularly advancing in specs. The system I purchased for $430 more than tripled the performance and specs of the system I had previously purchased for $600.
With the Macs, the prices tend to stay roughly the same, and comparatively high. You do see advancements in specs over time for little difference in price. But, you don't tend to see advancements in specs coupled with dramatic reductions in price.
Bottom line, is that you need a low-cost machine that is in the $400 to $500 range, and is not crippled if they want to cause a mass switch-over to the Mac.
You can argue superiority and all that as much as you want. But, you are not going to gain mass converts by arguing superiority alone. You are going to have to match price for spec and then show superiority as a bonus. That will drive mass converts.
They also need to acknowledge that all-in-one systems are not the desire of everyone. Look at the PC market, and it's clear and obvious that all-in-one's are not the preferred form factor.
There are some that like them. But, you need stand-alone systems that fit in multiple categories. As it is, we have two stand-alone systems and one all-in-one. That leaves some huge gaps. They are trying to cater to a huge number of people with only 3 basic system offerings.
I am a Mac user. So, don't think this is coming from a PC lover. I really would like to see Apple gain the market share. But, I think that they are going to have to truly "Think Different" than they have been to accomplish it.
At this point in time, I have 3 Mac systems. And, I have needs that go beyond what these systems can provide me anymore. Unfortunately, I don't fit in any of Apple's 3 boxes.
The mini isn't enough. The iMac is an all-in-one (which by design won't suit me - because I cannot customize it as needs change, it would only be useful to me for about a year before needing to be replaced). And, the Mac Pro is not only priced way too high, but is beyond the needs that I realistically have.
Sure, if you throw the portables in, then you get two more boxes to consider. But, I don't need a portable, and they would suffer the same short life as an iMac to me.
Additionally, I like the display I have. So, I don't want another one. I've been through two iMac G5 systems with LCD problems that made the rest of the machine useless. So, I don't want that same weakness again. I also quickly learned that I was just buying the screen over and over again each time I got a new iMac. So, that didn't make sense either.
Sure, for the defective screens, I could have plugged-in an external monitor to the iMac while waiting for a replacement LCD screen. But, that isn't ideal either. I'd basically have two monitors on the desk, and only needed one.
And, then when the screens were being serviced, the computer was gone. Other times, when the computer was gone, the screen was also gone. So, that meant I would need a substitute computer and screen.
It's like the old television and VCR combo issue. When the VCR broke, you lost your entire television while waiting for the service center to repair the VCR. When the television broke, you had to borrow not only another television but also a VCR because your VCR was in the shop with your television.
That is the long-standing issue with all-in-one systems.
So, with that in-mind, Apple gives me only two boxes to try and fit into. The Mini and the Pro. And, neither of them is close to a "right" fit.
So, by their limited offerings, they have limited their appeal to both myself and a number of other buyers. Especially PC converts who don't see a good fit for their needs either. Convincing a PC buyer to switch to a Mac is going to be a lot harder when they can get a PC that "fits" their needs for $400, but the closest Mac that at least "fits" is $2000. Sure, the $2000 Mac would offer more power. But, it is beyond what they need.
Sure, the Mac Mini is cheaper, but it is still more expensive than their target price, and still may not be a good "fit" either.
Bottom line, is Apple needs more system offerings than they have now to win mass converts. I am a Mac user, and even I cannot find a machine in their current offerings that "fit" me right. I have work piling-up while I await a machine to be released that both meets my needs and is affordable.
Fortunately, it is work I can put off a bit (it's a project for myself). All I need is a machine comparable in specs to the iMac, with at least one (preferably two) PCI-type slot(s), easy serviceability (I do need to be able to open it to blow the dirt out regularly - which you cannot do without risking the warranty on an iMac), the ability to easily replace the hard drive as future needs dictate, and a dedicated graphics processor, and no built-in screen.
If the software I intended to use were available for the PC, then I could find dozens of proper "fits" in the PC market for under $1000.
But, in the Apple market, the only offering that comes close to fitting, is the Mac Pro for more than a $1000 more. And, while it would fit (by meeting my minimum needs), it would fit very loosely because it is far more than I need. And, it is also much more expensive than my needs dictate or can justify.
For those who are not Mac users yet, the limited offerings is likely to help keep those users buying a PC. They can find dozens of systems in their target price range that meet their desired specs and needs. And, likely Windows already does what they want it to do. If Windows was incapable of meeting their needs, they wouldn't need Apple to tell them to switch. They would do it (or already have done it) out of necessity.
So, again, it goes back to offering more options so that customers can find a system that "fits" them, at a price that is extremely competitive, and then show them that it offers some bonus "superiority" as an extra benefit.
That is a system that would motivate switchers.
"Superiority," by itself, is not enough to win converts or switchers. That marketing strategy will not win the mass market that Apple needs to become more than a small player in the computer market.
Of course, 5% or so is still a lot of systems. But, to take on the likes of Dell, Compaq / HP, and others, they will need to adopt a much different tactic than they've ever used before. Perhaps they will need to think like a PC buyer (just a little) to convince more PC users to switch to Apple.
