Apple's "Get a Mac" Ad Campaign

[Ali C.]

Haha, I used to think Macs were Windows wannabees and were lame.

...Once.

Then I got to play with one a little while at a school the last week before vacation.

Ever since, I rolled my eyeballs at the fugliness of Windows.

That was further pushed on when I saw how Apples asked what to do when soemthing crashes.

A simple, no-nonsense box-Would you like to send Apple a report?

Meanwhile, we ALL know the long drawling box Windows has for asking about an error report.

Just compare the brief speech of a regular person compared to that of the 'brief speech' of a politician.

Perhaps they exaggerate a bit about the Mac side of it, but the PC/Windows side is terribly accurate.

Especially the crashing.

[Jack is cool.]

a bunch of my friends were like "why are macs so great"

so i showed em the apple store and my imac

now like EVERYONE at my school is in love with macs

i feel so great for getting everyone into em

actually, i think its like everyone's favorite store at the mall

i know its mine, im getting a job there when i'm 15 (theyre making age exceptions for me cause theyre looking for a pro app specialist)

[Guest Shayer]

So how did you want the commercial to be like? "Buy OS X rather than use Windows"? Because new-bs are going to think that you can just install OS X on a "non-Mac" (if you prefer that name.) So basically, that would cause more people to illegally install OS X on their "non-Macs". Or how about, "Get a Mac rather than a Gateway, Dell, eMachine, Alienware, HP, etc." that would make it just too long. So basically, the point is to get people to buy a Macintosh computer rather than a "non-Mac."

I’m arguing that the commercials are horribly done and with poor taste. What they should have done, I don't know, I’m not a marketer.

What I do know is that the commercials aren't accurate. They are comparing PC's and Macs as if Mac ISN'T a PC. That just isn't true. A Mac is a PC. This is even made apparent during one of the commercials where it says ""Finest desktop PC on the market at any price". That obviously, is referring to the Mac. Apple is trying to play it off as PC's and Macs are different and in competition with each other. Hmm, if Macs and PC’s are indeed different then how can it be the "finest desktop PC" when it's a Mac?

One of the commercial has the PC catch a virus and crash. That should be directed towards the windows OS, not PCs. I'll humor them and imagine for just one second that Macs AREN'T PC’s and PC's do suck as the commercials seem to indicate. Does that mean if you take Windows and install it on a Mac using boot camp; it wouldn't get viruses and crash like on a PC seeing as how Macs don’t get viruses or crash? No. It does not. It'll be subject to the same invulnerabilities as when installed on a PC (again, assuming that Macs aren't PC's). Therefore, the attack/ mocking should be against windows, not PC's.

In another commercial, the PC says "I come with...a calculator, clock. Seems like hours of fun, or at least minutes."

Ok, WTF? Again, this has nothing to do with PC's. Clearly, that's referring to the windows operating system.

[iGo]

Since long time... Windows world has been referred as PCs and Macintosh's has been referred as Mac... it has nothing to do with dictionary meanings of the words. It's just that it's been a general referrence like that since long time.

Obviously the ads are comparing between Windows and OSX, not exactly the makers (like Dell, IBM, HP vs. Apple).... but like I said earlier, since the "codenames" of both worlds have been like that PC & Mac, the characters are named like that. It's not Apple who made these names, not Dell or IBM. It's been like that among Computer Users. So when you look at it that way, I think the ads are made really well.

Now, like you said

Does that mean if you take Windows and install it on a Mac using boot camp; it wouldn't get viruses and crash like on a PC seeing as how Macs don’t get viruses or crash? No. It does not. It'll be subject to the same invulnerabilities as when installed on a PC (again, assuming that Macs aren't PC's).

It's true that the Windows XP installed on Mac hardware is open to attack as much as Windows XP installed on Assembled hardware or Dell, HP systems. Apple does clearly mention this on Bootcamp's page.

Why Apple's have made character as "PC" & "Mac"?? because Apple does not sell Mac OS X as general OS to be installed on any hardware, unlike Windows. It's sells OS X for Apple Hardware and with Their own systems. That's why Apple prefer to refer it as a whole Package Hardware+OS with all requires lifestyle apps as a complete package. Unlike "PCs" as they are generally referred where you buy a system or build a system, buy OS, buy 3rd party softwares (or you can pirate everything from OS and SWs). So instead of referring to Windows OS, they are referring to the general practice mentioned in latter. That's why instead of naming those guys "Windows" & "OS X Tiger/Panther/Jaguar" it makes sense to refer them as "PC" & "Mac". It has nothing to do with Book Terminology.

[Levi- The perfectionist]

ALL "GET A MAC ADDS" ... someone want to pin to start of thread?

http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/

for those who want to see all the adds!

cheers.

[iGo]

yeh... I downloaded all those ads..

Nice collection, you see !!

[tauhshi]

I totally agree with what Igo has said. For as long as I can remember, a PC always meant a Windows Box, and everyone has reffered a Mac as, well a Mac.

Concerning Apple's use of the character "PC". You think that it is really eveil and all, but how would you really feel if they said Windows eh? Apple would then get sued, and sued agian, and then go bankrupt and Bill Gates will own the PC market and thus, like RCA and companies in the past, be split up because he has a monopoly on the PC Market.

With the Windows World aside, Macs are better in the fact that Apple is an honest and well company. Mac OS X is bundled with the proper apps to where you do not need to buy 3rd party software to have it run efficently. Macs are not as prone to viruses, don't ask me why, so there is n need for antivirus software. Safari is SO much better that IE, so no need for Firefox (even though I use it on a mac for reasons I will not state). Apples OS is just so much more advanced than Windows, and still, Tiger will be more advanced than Vista.

Also, since OS X is preconfigured for propietry Apple hardware, you don't have preformance issues, unless you own an older machine that is. Just one of the many more ways Mac's are better than PC's . . .

[crazybrit4967]

wow dude, good grammar there. ^

It's also pretty immature to say one is better than the other; they both have advantages and disadvantages.

[tauhshi]

Well, I do not see any advantages for PC's besdie the fact that everyone uses them, so you have better compatibility. With programs such as Microsoft Office being produced for Macs, people can degrade their projects to the boring Word, Powerpoint, and other file types. Other than that, Mac still outweighs the PC . . .

If anyone needs it, would you like me to create a Pro/Con list comparing a Mac to a PC loaded with Windows?

[rjohnstone]

With the Windows World aside, Macs are better in the fact that Apple is an honest and well company.

If you actualy believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale.

Mac OS X is bundled with the proper apps to where you do not need to buy 3rd party software to have it run efficently.

When M$ tried to "bundle" their own apps with Windows, they got the **** sued out of them.

People screamed Monopoly!!! So how is Apple any different than M$??? They aren't. They have a monopoly on OS X. Who's gonna buy 3rd party apps if they are already there?

I give that a few more years and then SW companies will be lining up to sue Apple for the very same reason.

Macs are not as prone to viruses, don't ask me why, so there is n need for antivirus software.

Macs are not any more or less prone from a coding perspective. It's the lack of market share... target is too small... shall I continue?

As Apple's market share grows, so will the number of hackers attention towards them grow.

And read the news... little cracks in OS X's allmighty armor are starting to appear. The hackers are starting to pay attention.

Safari is SO much better that IE, so no need for Firefox (even though I use it on a mac for reasons I will not state).

Please... Safari blows compared to Firefox. Safari is so non compliant to W3 standards. It can't even render a simple DIV tag on page properly.

And Safari always implements it's own GUI control elements in page forms... even on pages where custom form buttons are explicitly declared. Hell even IE for Windows can render that properly.

And since IE doesn't exist for Macs any longer, comparing it to Safari is pointless.

Tiger will be more advanced than Vista.

That remains to be seen, but Apple does have the advantage for the moment.

Now remove your lips from around Steve Jobs' 3rd member and go read a few history books regarding the computer industry. Better yet, take a college course or two in business and marketing strategies.

[Slewed]

pwnt, although i'm not sure about the firefox thing, since opera comes out on top for most things...

[rjohnstone]

pwnt, although i'm not sure about the firefox thing, since opera comes out on top for most things...

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html

Good point, but I haven't really used Opera, so I cannot comment on it.

I was only comparing the two browsers mentioned.

[Slewed]

i've never used safari so im in the same position unfortunately, but i'd settle for opera if it could block ads like ff's adblock

[iGo]

rjohnstone, does make a good point there. It's actually required to balance things out when Fanboys on either side starts shouting or rather blabering...

I use both OSX and XP on regular basis, and the only things I would say to sum it up is... if I have to buy computer for my folks who are not computer savvy, I would buy Mac.... the only reason : It just works !!

From what I've learnt from my personal experience is that, Mac OS X is way simple to use out of the box than XP/Windows. Personally I prefer using XP over OSX in my daily routine 1) because my work environment demands it.... 2) the amount of customisation it offer, both in terms of Visual and how do you say it, total system tweaking (kinda lost finding proper word here.

Mac OS X is the reason why I have iBook, which I prefer using for my personal use (mails, photography and my own stuff), and that's why I can seriously think about putting money in upgrading it to MacBook. Windows XP never made me feel that way about upgrading my Compaq laptop, which I recently got rid off since It wasn't being used.

[tauhshi]

If you actualy believe that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale.

When M$ tried to "bundle" their own apps with Windows, they got the **** sued out of them.

People screamed Monopoly!!! So how is Apple any different than M$??? They aren't. They have a monopoly on OS X. Who's gonna buy 3rd party apps if they are already there?

I give that a few more years and then SW companies will be lining up to sue Apple for the very same reason.

Macs are not any more or less prone from a coding perspective. It's the lack of market share... target is too small... shall I continue?

As Apple's market share grows, so will the number of hackers attention towards them grow.

And read the news... little cracks in OS X's allmighty armor are starting to appear. The hackers are starting to pay attention.

Please... Safari blows compared to Firefox. Safari is so non compliant to W3 standards. It can't even render a simple DIV tag on page properly.

And Safari always implements it's own GUI control elements in page forms... even on pages where custom form buttons are explicitly declared. Hell even IE for Windows can render that properly.

And since IE doesn't exist for Macs any longer, comparing it to Safari is pointless.

That remains to be seen, but Apple does have the advantage for the moment.

Now, I do agree with you on the monopoly fact for Microsoft. and I do agree that because Apple has a monopoly on their own operating system, there is no need for 3rd party apps. THAt my friend, is good business, just keep all the revenue to the company.

Also, I agree about viruses. But just bacause there is low market share, it makes it less prone to them, which is good, really good.

About Firefox. I'm not saying Safari is better than it, believe me, it's far from it, but compared to IE Safari is in a whole 'nother ball game. Yes, Safari has some issues, but IE has more. And I compared Safari to IE because they are both the pre-installed Web Browser on the respective Operating Systems..

Now remove your lips from around Steve Jobs' 3rd member and go read a few history books regarding the computer industry. Better yet, take a college course or two in business and marketing strategies.

Now, was that REALLY needed, no. But, I write my opinions from a consumer point of view, the view that most people have when it comes to a company. Also, I do plan on taking some college courses, but at the moment, college is a far way off for a thirteen year old . . .

[rjohnstone]

Now, I do agree with you on the monopoly fact for Microsoft. and I do agree that because Apple has a monopoly on their own operating system, there is no need for 3rd party apps. THAt my friend, is good business, just keep all the revenue to the company.

Can you say hipocracy at it's finest.

Windows has no "need" for 3rd party apps either, the courts forced them into the "need".

How is it considered "good business" for Apple but M$ gets hit with federal injunctions and lawsuit after lawsuit for trying to do the very same thing?

Read what you're typing. You contradict yourself with every other word you type.

But your only 13... so I'll cut you some slack... this time.

[pwnzrzpat]

If you actualy believe that' date=' I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale.

When M$ tried to "bundle" their own apps with Windows, they got the **** sued out of them.

People screamed Monopoly!!! So how is Apple any different than M$??? They aren't. They have a monopoly on OS X. Who's gonna buy 3rd party apps if they are already there?

I give that a few more years and then SW companies will be lining up to sue Apple for the very same reason.[/quote']

apple wont get sued because there arent people who make competing software that apple bundles. most of the apps are system level apps and frameworks, and nobody makes better apps than iLife.

Macs are not any more or less prone from a coding perspective. It's the lack of market share... target is too small... shall I continue?

As Apple's market share grows, so will the number of hackers attention towards them grow.

And read the news... little cracks in OS X's allmighty armor are starting to appear. The hackers are starting to pay attention.

there arent any viruses for OSX... the one trojan[or worm or whatever] you can only get if you specifically download a file that you dont know what it is and open the application in it. osx would be more secure even if it gets bigger than windows.

Please... Safari blows compared to Firefox. Safari is so non compliant to W3 standards. It can't even render a simple DIV tag on page properly.

And Safari always implements it's own GUI control elements in page forms... even on pages where custom form buttons are explicitly declared. Hell even IE for Windows can render that properly.

And since IE doesn't exist for Macs any longer, comparing it to Safari is pointless.

safari is the only browser EVER to pass the acid2 test besides konqueror or something. which shows you how "uncompliant" it is. the webkit team has also been implementing further xml and css standards than any other browser.

oh just fyi the webkit team is already implementing custom controls on the webpage.

[quoteCan you say hipocracy at it's finest.

Windows has no "need" for 3rd party apps either, the courts forced them into the "need".

How is it considered "good business" for Apple but M$ gets hit with federal injunctions and lawsuit after lawsuit for trying to do the very same thing?

its like saying how can an old, ugly whorish prostitute be jailed while a beautiful young woman walks free

[juno]

The reason people say Macs suck is because before OSX they were really, really bad, at least in my opinion.(I'd argue that they still sucked until 10.2)

The Macs my school uses are so dumbed down by security they have pretty much all the cool stuff about Macs disabled (expose, all animation etc) so lots of kids think they just suck.

We also use purely eMacs which are shown to be the absolute worst Macs ever made performance wise.

[rjohnstone]

apple wont get sued because there arent people who make competing software that apple bundles. most of the apps are system level apps and frameworks, and nobody makes better apps than iLife.

Give it time... IF Apples market share climbs up there enough for it to be profitable for another SW company to make a competing product, Apple will get sued for "bundling" just like M$ did.

there arent any viruses for OSX... the one trojan[or worm or whatever] you can only get if you specifically download a file that you dont know what it is and open the application in it. osx would be more secure even if it gets bigger than windows.

Read the news man... the latest virus that hit a few days ago does not require you to download jack... and it executes without user interaction.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/04/30/apple.security.ap/

Apple's most recent wake-up call came last week, as a Southern California researcher reported seven new vulnerabilities. Tom Ferris said malicious Web sites can exploit the holes without a user's knowledge, potentially allowing a criminal to execute code remotely and gain access to passwords and other sensitive information.

Ferris said he warned Apple of the vulnerabilities in January and February and that the company has yet to patch the holes, prompting him to compare the Cupertino-based computer maker to Microsoft three years ago, when the world's largest software company was criticized for being slow to respond to weaknesses in its products. "They didn't know how to deal with security, and I think Apple is in the same situation now," said Ferris, himself a Mac user.

No, it won't turn into the viri hell that is the PC world over night, but to simply deny the fact that it is happening already or is even possible is pure stupidity.

safari is the only browser EVER to pass the acid2 test besides konqueror or something. which shows you how "uncompliant" it is. the webkit team has also been implementing further xml and css standards than any other browser.

Yet it fails to render a DIV properly... hmmmm... even IE can do that.

[Tagmaster]

Just going to say one thing, apple fanboys just keep saying that Macs are a lot safer than "Windows".

Only give OSX the same number of Window user and you will have just the same issues.

Windows and OSX are both great OS both with their PROs and CONS, the only reason i like OSX more is because of it simplicity of desing and interface (not to mention beauty) but aside from that is just another OS...

[Conner]

I don't believe that. It's true in the sense that there will be more motive to spread viruses to Macs, but that doesn't really increase the vulnerabilities. There are more holes in Windows XP than in Mac OS X, and even when Apple has more of a market share, there will still be less opportunity.

Just my $0.02.

Regarding the "Only give OSX the same number of Window user and you will have just the same issues." part.

[rjohnstone]

I don't believe that. It's true in the sense that there will be more motive to spread viruses to Macs, but that doesn't really increase the vulnerabilities. There are more holes in Windows XP than in Mac OS X, and even when Apple has more of a market share, there will still be less opportunity.

Just my $0.02.

Regarding the "Only give OSX the same number of Window user and you will have just the same issues." part.

You mean IF OS X gets to that level.

But that's a whole other debate.

As for XP having more holes than OS X, I have a feeling that if Apple were under the gun to produce at the level of M$, coding "issues" and deadlines might increase the number of "potential holes".

Also take into consideration the backward compatibility that M$ has to maintain to keep it's customer base happy.

Apple chose to drop backward compatibilty for older hardware and software.

This meant having a cleaner code base to work with... therefore there are less opportunities for "coding issues".

Imagine the revolt M$ would have experienced when they released XP if they had dropped all backward compatibilty for Win9x apps and removed driver support for hardware that was more than 3 years old?

It's this compatibility that makes Windows so bloated and buggy, but it's also that same code that keeps it flexible enough to run on almost any decent piece of hardware, regardless of vendor.

I'm not saying Apple will or would be in the same situation, but I have a feeling it would look very similar.

[nightcrawler1089]

Keep it (mostly) clean guys. That includes you, duyvan!

-NC

[Xyb`]

You know, apple was doing just fine without any ads in the first place. Aren't they slowly gaining on the pc?

[Slewed]

sorry wait didnt opera also pass the acid2 test? :confused: