Why Apple's new ad campaign is genius, and why Microsoft can't win as 'PC'

Why Apple's new ad campaign is genius, and why Microsoft can't win as 'PC'

Summary: I just got off the air with KCBS San Francisco, speaking about Apple's new ad campaign against the PCs of the world (which I wrote about yesterday) on the morning show. I made a few points about Cupertino's strategy in the short segment, but I thought I'd flesh out my view a bit more here.


I just got off the air with KCBS San Francisco, speaking about Apple's new ad campaign against the PCs of the world (which I wrote about yesterday) on the morning show. I made a few points about Cupertino's strategy in the short segment, but I thought I'd flesh out my view a bit more here.

The most notable takeaway from Apple's new ad campaign is that it completely ignores Microsoft's own "Laptop Hunter" advertisements. Instead of chasing Microsoft down the path of absolute cost, Apple is staying above the fray -- and taking potshots from above.

Many people forget that Apple is, especially with regard to their PC arm, a premium company. The branding of the company is supposed to feel "cool" and "exclusive" (but not out of reach exclusive....think "coveted"). We all know this, and yet we debate endlessly about an Apple tax. It doesn't make sense.

Neither does it make sense to pit Apple's ads against Microsoft's, foremost because each company is attacking the other on different fronts. Microsoft is spotlighting value, while Apple is spotlighting quality. They're nearly at odds with each other -- apples and oranges, as the old saying goes. Both companies are debating straw men.

Microsoft's take

Is it any surprise that Apple is being attacked right where it enters the laptop category -- $1,000-$1,500? By that measure, the company only has one model to offer -- while there are a veritable army of PCs with different configurations and price points. Thus reveals Microsoft's straw man: the $1,000 Apple laptop. It doesn't exist, but Microsoft wants you to think that Apple is too snooty to fight at that price point. In a sense, it is -- because it fits the company's brand and portfolio not to.

But Microsoft Windows doesn't have that option. It must be everything to everyone.

The unspoken sentiment is that you can buy a sub-$1,000 PC that has the capabilities of a $1,300 Macbook. Perhaps that's true part-for-part, statistic for statistic. But as has been previously noted by other critics, there are the unsaid costs of service, quality, design -- all of which are undeniably in Apple's favor at the moment.

However, it's too difficult to put a price on those elements. Those are Apple's signature touches. So...

Apple's take

What Apple wants you to believe is that, whatever the price point (but especially if it's lower), PCs do not deliver on quality. Sure, you get the parts you get on paper, but you'll be loaded with trialware, a million confusing configurations, probably poor design and doubtlessly a shorter lifespan.

But Apple can pull of taking potshots at PCs and still seem like it rises above the fray. Why? It is attacking a non-entity; the company "PC," which is really an amalgamation of vendors.

No doubt that Macs are made from other manufacturer's parts. But Apple stands behind it all, from OS X to the keyboard. Microsoft can't do that -- it can only stand behind Windows.

This is why Apple's ad strategy that ignores the Microsoft ad campaign is genius. Because if it engages in a fight over just the operating system -- and why would Apple do that, when it has so much more to offer? -- it may very well lose.

Windows vs. Mac in terms of operating systems is simply a matter of preference, barely more.

It's at this point that KCBS anchor Stan asked me, "But is it machine versus machine, or operating system versus operating system?" noting that Apple is a closed system. Both companies are looking at that fact to their advantage -- Microsoft is attacking Apple because it won't give the consumer freedom of choice (and thus cost), and Apple is attacking Microsoft because it can't ensure quality control like Apple can with a closed system.

Both sides of this point is true.

The same goes for the inverse problem: Microsoft only makes the operating system, and can't vouch (beyond an agreement) for the quality of the umpteen million PCs out there. That goes to show how hard Microsoft's job is -- it must guarantee a quality experience on a zillion different configurations with a zillion different parts without having any say in the process. But it also goes to show how misleading each company's argument is against the other.

The reality

The problem for both Apple and Microsoft (as stand-in company for "PC") is one of image, not actual quality -- though PC manufacturers are understandably less consistent than Apple. Apple has cemented its image and brand identification because it has more to control, from OS to system to service to stores. To date, Microsoft has only the OS: it doesn't manufacture systems, it doesn't service PCs that run on Windows unless the problem is distinctly with the OS, and it doesn't have a store presence (yet...).

Again, that shows you how hard Microsoft's fight is, but it also shows you why Microsoft can't win if it argues about hardware or service or physical presence.

Simply stated: Microsoft can't win if it embodies the PC role. Big as the company is, it simply doesn't control enough of the process to make arguments on behalf of OEMs.

Which is how we arrived at the price point argument. Problem is, Microsoft doesn't set the prices for PCs...just its own operating system. So it's a bit of a false pretense; a valid point shouted from the room next door. Which is why the "value PC" argument may stick with consumers, but the "value Microsoft" argument does not. Microsoft is simply not enough PC to make the argument versus Apple, through and through.

Which brings me to my last point: by the end of this year, we should expect to see next-generation operating systems from both Microsoft, in the form of Windows 7, and Apple, in the form of OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. Both versions are "updates," and not radical reinterpretations of, their predecessor OSes.

If Microsoft wants to make up some ground, it should attack Mac OS X, and leave HP and Dell to assault Apple hardware.

The problem, of course, is this: when you're on top, the only place to go is down. Microsoft has everything to lose. The biggest argument it can make is by simply maintaining the quality of Windows and insisting on the quality of the systems it ships on.

Topics: Software, Apple, Hardware, Microsoft, Operating Systems

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is a former writer-editor for ZDNet and contributor to CNET. During his tenure, he was the editor of SmartPlanet, ZDNet's sister site about innovation.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Good Article

    I'm a PC and I don't like the Apple ads. Mostly because they poke fun at the stereotypical "geek", which is me and it wears on me. Nonetheless Apples strategy is a firm one and that is control quality (or perceived quality) with a closed system. Many people will choose the stability of the operating system over choice. Choice does eventually bring innovation, because vendors have to improve their products in order to stay competitive.
    This is why the MAC was losing ground until it moved to the x86 platform. Now it has the ability to pick the best from all of the chip makers striving to compete in the PC arena yet still lock in on a closed system. The fact is the MAC would not be a very good computer without the existence of the PC.
    I continue to stay loyal to the Microsoft OS and PC architectures because of other reasons. Microsoft is the prevailing OS on the desktop in the Business world, and is arguably the top server OS (although it can be, and is argued the other way). I'm a .NET developer and I've made my bread and butter with Microsoft.
    • Hey genius...

      MAC stands for Media Access Control. Mac is short for Macintosh.
      • Wow...

        I've heard of Grammar Police before, but I've never heard of the Capitalization Police.

        Hallowed are the Ori
        • It's irritating

          After a while it feels like we're being shouted at (Mac users that is).
          It's also incorrect.

          Your quip about the Capitalization Police not with standing, the term
          MAC has a very specific meaning in the IT realm. Those of us who
          work with Macs, and PCs, and network accessed resources may wish
          for actually accurate syntax, FOR A CHANGE. (btw: See what I mean by

          You see, every computer with access to a network has a MAC address.
          This means that every Mac has a MAC, but not every MAC is in a Mac.
          When you work all day long with both, it matters.

          Pedantic, yes. However, when did proper communication skills
          become unimportant?
          • When DID proper communication skills become unimportant?

            @ macadam: <i> Your quip about the Capitalization Police not with

            I'd just like to note for the record that "withstanding" is one word.
            Pedantic, yes. But still fun.
          • Um....

            I do beleive the word you both are looking for is "notwithstanding".
          • ...

          • re: irritating

            [i]It's irritating. After a while it feels like we're being shouted at (Mac users that is). It's also incorrect.[/i]

            Sure it's incorrect, but you, I, and everyone else knew what he meant. With so many mistakes made in talk backs, and blogs in general... is correcting MAC vs Mac really worth the effort?
          • Well...yeah

            I just get tired of morons needlessly capitalizing it.
          • Overreaction

            It was a seemingly inappropriate amount of malice for a simple mistake.
          • I get tired of...

            people that feel the need to pick on other people's simple mistakes like that because they're overly defensive and have some need to feel superior. Grow up. Replying to blogs and forums is often an afterthought. It's not getting the same attention as an email or letter. Deal with it.
          • re: irritating

            I just can't move on to 'notwithstanding' and 'MAC vs Mac' until we get this 'looser vs loser' situation sorted out. 'Your vs you're' might even trump MAC vs Mac.
            Dell-Bill B
          • Umm... K

            Macawineassbitch period.
        • It's still grammar

          "MAC" is an acronym. It stands for (and is pronounced as) "Media Access
          Controller". "Mac" is an abbreviation, it is short for "Macintosh".

          Would you care if someone kept confusing "Obama" with "Osama"?

          • okay..."Mac"...I stand correct...now give it a rest

          • I mean I stand corrected....sheesh

    • MAC is a brand of cosmetics


      A Mac is a computer from Apple.

      And, yes, Virginia, there are majuscule police. See http://motivatedphotos.com/?id=10572
      • dave has one thing right here Mac is cosmetic

        Mac's are like that pretty little piece of ass at the office. Nice to look at and play around with but overall freaking useless.

        • It's a computer

          I can get anything done computer wise on a Mac,
          as I can on a Windows or Linux system. They're
          the same things, you just don't understand other
          operating systems, your loss.
          • Not Mine.

            There not the same the business world where the big boys work. Need various apps etc. Not the limited apps that is available for macs