Hmmm...
Back in reality there are no tricky times for Apple.
Apple creates products that create buzz and that regular folk want to buy. Whether it be the Mac computers, the latest iPod or the iPhone (which despite it's well documented problems has a captured a huge wave of momentum).
Apple might create products that 'regular' folk want to buy, but Apple's not pitching at 'regular' folk. The price point distinguishes that. You can argue till the cows come home about speccing out a PC, buying all the software etc., but the simple truth is that some folks will always take a look at it and go: "Dell Core 2 Duo w. 20" monitor and Vista £499, Apple iMac 20" £799. Mine's a Dell"
As far as the iPhone success story goes. Apple was admittedly taking a huge risk entering the mobile market. But, they entered a space with a proven business model (hardware/software tie-up of Mac & OS X, iPod & iTunes) at a time when competitor offerings were in a bit of a rut. No-one was chomping at the bit for Windows Mobile 6, and no-one out there gets the slightest bit passionate about Symbian OS developments, Palm were dying a death, and RIM, though not the slightest bit sexy, seemed to have enterprise wrapped up. Handset manufacturers generally had gone way too far down a particular road - network operator subsidies - that devalued the products they were marketing, and which gave their devices an undesirably short life cycle for the new revenue generating paradigm: mobile software and services. No-one is ever going to invest more than nominal sums in a device that they know they won't be keeping for any more than twelve months. Apple came in, tried to shake it up by not accepting network operator subsidies, and introduced a device at a premium pricepoint. Again, regular people might have wanted to buy one, but the iPhone wasn't originally pitched at 'regular' folk.
And, there will be tricky times ahead for Apple. They are a personality led firm. Steve is great. Steve is Apple. Apple is great. That is why the share price takes a wobble each time there's a whisper about his health, and why succession planning for his eventual retirement will be a much bigger headache than Ballmer taking over from Gates, which, when you look at it, really deserved to be a total disaster. Microsoft can take it because they've never really paraded Bill about in the same way Apple have Steve (or Steve has Steve).
They also seem to have no problem with ideas for campaigns which tell a compelling story and engage consumers.
You see aside from Get a Mac Apple has also had Think Different, Switch iPod Dancers or more recently the iconic Manila Envelope (look on YouTube for parodies, there are hundreds).
The last MS commercial that had any weight was start me up.
I'm not unaware that Apple has run ad campaigns prior to "Get A Mac", but this is a particular instance where they have a major competitor, one that dwarfs them in both market share and turnover, attempting to directly undermine what has until now been a succesful campaign. I don't doubt that there will be hordes of skillful advertising executives generating myriad novel ways that Apple can work their way out of this situation. It's just that its the first time in a long time that they will have had to. That is, itself, noteworthy and why this thread has generated so many posts.
This most recent commercial just picks up from Get a Mac. Where would Microsoft be without Apple to give them ideas?
Right, next you're going to be telling me that they somehow
owe the XBox sucess to
The Pippin.
They'd probably be in the same place as they would be with or without these commercials. Selling millions of software licences a year through their OEMs, the majority of which are purchased buy people who either don't understand what they are buying or don't care as long as they can get online and read their emails.
I'm a PC.
All Microsoft advertise is the PC, a PC doesn't have to run Windows or even come with Windows. Apple advertises the Mac, a Mac doesn't have to run Mac OS X, but (crucially) it always comes with Mac OS X.
You
know that, for all the difference it makes, PC might as well mean Windows. If you go to Tesco to buy a PC, and I can't imagine who would but they stock them so people must, then you're getting Windows. PC World, you're getting Windows. Dixons, Comet, Currys: you're getting Windows. Even if there is a Linux option how much of a push is it going to be given when (a) sales staff don't know as well how to sell it (b) tech staff don't know as well how to support it. Linux has got a long way to go before it gets any serious consumer foothold.
In actual fact, as the various Linux distros inch ever closer to being maintainable and usable by your average Joe it might not be such a bad move that Microsoft does try to re-establish that PC/Windows link.
So really it would seem Microsoft face the trickier times as these aren't very good adverts for Windows. Not that Microsoft needs to advertise Windows anyway. And they never ever give one single reason not to buy a Mac or look for alternatives.
Apple's "Get A Mac" ads are a negative ad campaign. They lord the virtues of the Mac over the PC. Not the virtues of the Mac standalone, but in direct comparison to those of the PC. The Microsoft ads are attempting to make Apple's look smug and childish by comparison. Its more sophisticated than tit-for-tat. Look at all those smiling faces and repeat after me "I'm a PC"...
Its a slice of fried gold, my friend.
It's a bit much to say "experts in the subject agree with me." Makes it sound like you've had them on the phone giving you the proverbial pat on the back, like you're bessie mates. Fairer to say that you find that particular individuals assessment of the situation persuasive.
*Grumble, grumble, experts, grumble, grumble*
