Those Microsoft Ads
In my most recent Brief Notes, I commented on the first of the Seinfeld Microsoft adverts and suggested that it wasn’t going to convince anyone to go out and buy any Micorsoft. The second one came along a few days ago and was just plain confusing. Something about connecting with ordinary people, maybe? Whatever, it’s four and half minutes that I’ll never get back, and it still didn’t make me want to go out and buy any Microsoft products.
It seems that I was not alone in not getting what these adverts were trying to achieve, as despite supposedly originally being planned to be a longer series, the Seinfeld ads have now been canned. Allegedly, with a third one already in production. I’m sure Jerry isn’t upset - $10m for a few hours work? Nice!
But Microsoft have another ace up their marketing sleeve - the “I’m a PC” ads. And it’s here where I find myself in the unusual position of actually coming to Microsoft’s defence. I read several tech blogs and, being a Mac user, I tend towards the ones that are Mac-centric. Without exception, all of these blogs have commented on the new adverts and have torn them to pieces for jumping on Apple’s bandwagon, missing the point of the “Get a Mac” adverts, having to rely on spoofing an existing, successful campaign, and so on.
If you’ve only heard the basic premise of the adverts, and not seen them for yourself, then you might be inclined to side with these commenters so why not go and watch them? There are three - Pride, Not Alone and Stereotype - and they’re only short so it won’t take you long.
Done? OK. So, to me, what these three new adverts are showing is the diverse range of people that currently use a PC, as opposed to a Mac. It gives an insight into the sort of things that these people do with their PC and it helps to show that PCs can, actually, be a lot more than a biege box that sits in a corner being hated by everyone. I think it shows, much more than Apple’s “Get a Mac” ads do, that the PC can be used in many different settings, by people of differing abilities, and with a wide range of different goals that they want to achieve. Apple and Mac, I’m sorry to say, still have not overcome that image of being for artsy-fartsy graphic designers and too-cool people with money to waste.
But, say some, Apple are giving reasons to buy a Mac, which is their computer, but Microsoft are trumpeting the joys of being a PC, which is not their computer; why aren’t they talking about being a Window? Firstly, of course, Apple made the association between PC and Windows / Microsoft in their own adverts so - as these are intended to spoof the Apple ones - Microsoft have continued that association. But secondly, and more importantly, public perception is still very much that if you’re talking about a PC, you’re talking about Windows. Yes, Linux is making in-roads but the majority of PC users will be running Windows. So it’s a fair comparison.
Let’s face it, most people are perfectly happy being a PC. It does what they want it to do, it doesn’t cost an arm and a leg and if they don’t mess with it then most of the time it won’t fall over. (So often, the reason Windows falls over is because the user has decided to delete vital files, or change settings he knows nothing about. Trust me, voice of experience). Mac’s don’t fall over, either, but that’s because OS X doesn’t let you get at the vital files so easily so they can’t be accidentally deleted. And, of course, OS X doesn’t have to support multitudes of different hardware in the way that Windows does.
On the whole, I think Microsoft have done something good with these new adverts and I’d hope to see a few more in this vein. Apple, on the other hand, need to think about retiring the “Get a Mac” ads - they were never as funny as Apple seemed to think they were, and they’ve gone on for too long now.
If Apples were.. well, Microsofts, actually
Just came across this story at TUAW, reporting that an anti-trust lawsuit has been filed against Apple for monopolising the online music industry with their tie-in of iTunes to iPods.
Most of the commenters seem to be of the opinion that this is a frivolous lawsuit that has no merit, and that the law firm that took the case should be despised for taking a case that will obviously fail. The contention is that just because Apple have been successful at what they do, why should they be punished?
It’s a valid point; why should a business be dragged through the courts just because they happen to be better at what they do than anyone else in their market? Why should they be forced to open up their systems to allow other companies access to the consumer-base that they’ve worked long and hard to build up? It makes a mockery of building a successful business.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment being put forward; but it does seem that these opinions are held because it’s Apple we’re talking about. Don’t get me wrong, I like a lot of the stuff that Apple do (I’m typing this entry on an iMac, whilst listening to music through iTunes) but there does seem to be a commonly held belief in the wider computing world that Apple = Good and Microsoft = Bad.
But let’s face it. Microsoft have become as big as they are because they succeeded where others failed. And they get slapped down in courts all over the world and forced to give up their proprietary information for no other reason than other companies can’t do it as well as they can. But everyone seems to think it’s right they should be slapped down. And now Apple are being hit with some of the same treatment, but it’s suddenly different. I’m not sure I really see how.
Working for the Apple dollar - Updated
I wrote a post about the UK pricing of Leopard the other day, complaining that the price of £85 was way above the $129 being charged in the US. Since writing that, I’ve read in a number of places the argument along the lines of “the £85 includes VAT (sales tax) but the $129 doesn’t, so when you factor that in, it’s the same price”.
On the face of it, this seems like a fair argument but the numbers don’t really work out. At today’s exchange rate, $129 is £62.87. VAT (sales tax) runs at 17.5% in the UK, which is £11, making a total of £73.87. So, £11.13 cheaper than the £85 RRP, which is an extra 15%. OK, so it’s only £11 but why does it have to be even £1 more expensive?
Of course, this is all probably just sour grapes because I’ve had to spend the money I was hoping to spend on Leopard on getting my bike fixed instead and I feel like I’m missing out!
BBC - TV for the nation? Um…
So we all know that the BBC launched their iPlayer earlier in the year only for Windows users. (The iPlayer allows licence holders to download certain TV programmes for up to 30 days after broadcast, to enjoy at their leisure on their computer.)
Today, the BBC announced a new deal with wi-fi providers The Cloud to make BBC programmes available through 7,500 wi-fi hotspots around the country, so that viewers can download and stream programmes while they’re out and about. At the same time, a streaming-only service was announced for Mac and Linux users “by the end of the year”.
It’s about time that the BBC (which, let’s remember, is a public service broadcaster that enjoys an unprecedented and unique funding arrangement, whereby you have to pay a licence fee for operating TV reception equipment - regardless of whether you use that equipment to watch BBC programmes or not) included Mac and Linux users in its online services. But why only streaming, when Windows users can download?
According to Ashley Highfield , director of Future Media and Technology, it’s because “We need to get the streaming service up and look at the ratio of consumption between the services and then we need to look long and hard at whether we build a download service for Mac and Linux. It comes down to cost per person and reach at the end of the day.”
I’m sorry but I don’t agree. As a licence-fee payer, I fund the BBC. Therefore, I should be able to access all of the BBC’s services, irrespective of the equipment I choose to use. For an Internet-based service, it shouldn’t matter whether I’m using Windows, Mac, Linux, or any other operating system; the service should be available. There’s quite a difference between being able to stream a programme and being able to download it; just because I use a Mac, I shouldn’t have to feel left out in the cold.
The biggest annoyance about the whole issue is that to help them with the streaming service, the BBC have signed a deal with Adobe. If you wanted to pick a company that had more experience writing software for Mac’s, you couldn’t. Would it have been so difficult to go that one step further and make the download service available?
All of this comes on top of the fact that much of the BBC’s expenditure these days seems to be on digital stations. This is not good news, as I live in an area that currently cannot receive the Freeview signal. But I also I can’t receive Sky because the block of flats I live in does not allow dishes to be fixed to the building and the communal system is too expensive (and too limited) to be viable. This leaves me with a grand total of four TV channels to choose from. At least if I could use my Mac to download programmes through iPlayer I might be able to enjoy some of those digital-only programmes that the BBC puts out. But no.
I’ve thought for many years that “the unique way the BBC is funded” does not serve the licence payer well and needs to change. The half-hearted iPlayer just makes me more convinced.
Working for the Apple dollar
I’m a fan of Mac OS X and I love my iMac. When I was using a PC at home, my favourite app was iTunes - by far the better media player for that platform. I like the look of my iMac; I like the ease with which I can do things with OS X; I like the look of the 300+ refinements and new features that are coming in Leopard (finally announced for 26 October).
What I don’t like is Apple’s pricing.
Don’t get me wrong; I think $129 is a good price - especially when you consider that this gets you everything, including the 64-bit version (Leopard Ultimate, if you will), unlike the Windows experience where if you want the 64-bit version you basically have to mortgage the children. $129 is a good price and I’d be happy to pay it.
If I want Leopard, though, I’m going to have to pay more like $172 because here in the UK the price is going to be £85. At today’s exchange rate, I should be able to buy it for around £63 but because of the way Apple price their goods I can’t. And this is what I can’t understand; it’s the same product - probably the supposed “regionalisation” of the UK edition could be achieved by changing a couple of system preferences - so why is it a third more for us in the UK? It’s a global product, so why isn’t it a global price?
Well, you might say that we’re talking about a physical product here, which needs to be manufactured and shipped out to the various different markets. You may have a point there - but I work for a company that ships products all over the world and the price in our local market is the same price we charge for every market in the world. If it sells for £4.95 in the UK, it will sell for the dollar equivalent of £4.95 in the US. If we, as a small company, can manage it then why can’t Apple? And we don’t have to be talking about a physical product in this case; this is software. It could be made available for download - in these days of broadband connections, it’s certainly feasible. Linux distros do it all the time, so why not Apple?
But Apple don’t just alter the price when it comes to physical products, they do the same with iTunes. US downloads are $0.99, which equates to £0.48. UK downloads are £0.79, which equates to $1.60 - a US iTunes user gets three tracks for less than the price of my two. And with iTunes, there is no physical product. I can understand that they have separate stores for different countries because of the way that the content they offer is licensed, but why different prices?
Of course, Apple are not alone in this practice but - because of the current frenzy about Leopard - they are probably the most high profile example. If we’re all living in a global village, shouldn’t we all be able to shop at the same global price?
Wolfs Stuff
Wolfs Helpers
-
