« License to Compute | Main | Tablets Revisited »
The Personality of Computers
By sparky | September 3, 2009
I was reading an article by John C Dvorak about the difference between Apple & Microsoft – and, critical as he usually is, he raises some good points.
He made a single point that I thought relatively brilliant:
Where is the Microsoft personality?
In summary, he’s referring to how Apple has played the marketing game brilliantly. It’s never been afraid to push itself. They make snide (albeit true) comments about the PC and Windows systems in their I’m a Mac advertisments.
Steve Jobs is a passionate man. A little too passionate at times, if the rumours are to be believed. However, if you have a dream – a goal – and have no burning passion, the likelihood of reaching that dream is slim-to-none.
Whilst I’ve had my fair share of Apple related problems (From a hardware – and always a hardware level), they’ve always sold themselves as being ‘better’.
And, as basic psychology tells you – if you’re told something enough, you’ll start to believe it.
Sure there are forums, and groups out there that criticise Apple because their iPhone blew up, or because they wont replace the casing that seems to crack from normal use over time – but these people bought an Apple product – either to be different, or because they firmly believed that the product was superior in some way.
The other issue is that most other non-Apple companies marketing departments don’t know how to sell something with a subtle push. Microsoft has recently sent out advertising posters claiming “Windows Vista: Now Future Proofed“:
As you can see, it’s nothing more than offering a free upgrade to Windows 7 for computers bought between 22nd July 2009 and 31st January 2010.
A similar thing happend before Vista was released with people who bought computer with windows XP (However, I’m sure many people went back to XP after they found their systems to be inadequate for Vista, or had issues with Vista’s performance and/or operation).
So, tell me Microsoft: Why are you ‘better’ than Apple? Is it because you’re cheaper? Because, if you sincerely believe that – you’re misguided. Apple at least has multi-System licenses for their operating system, because they realise many people have more than one computer.
Microsoft was clever in bringing out a 3-PC License for Microsoft Office Home and Student, but will they do a similar thing with Windows 7? And will it be just as cost effective?
The computer may be cheaper, but the software isn’t.
Apple operates in reverse: It’s software is cheaper, but the hardware isn’t.
So, if the old addage goes “You get what you pay for” – Which is the ‘better’ product?
Topics: Blind-leading-blind, Hardware, OS, Personal, Software | 2 Comments »
September 6th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
OSX is a very nice OS. Objectively speaking it is very hard to deny it is the best operating system if you don’t take external factors (eg; learning curve, market share) into account. Mac hardware is also very nice, but certainly nowhere near as easy to ‘DIY’, and way more expensive.
The difference of course being that Apple can be described a hardware company versus Microsoft as a software company.
Windows is improving in leaps and bounds, but for the money asked for it (I’m an honest kid who doesn’t rip stuff much) I would never use it. It could still use a little touch of genius, which OSX has (and I don’t just mean in trendy marketing way).
As it stands now, my first preference is Mac. This is simply because I personally get a better deal paying lots for Apple Hardware than I do for paying lots for Windows. Just a case of which expense you’re happier to be stuck with.
November 1st, 2009 at 8:55 pm
As someone who uses both, I personally wish that Apple would drop the “I’m a Mac” ads entirely. At the base level, Macs are technically PCs now too– there is no hardware difference between Apple computers and Windows machines now, only what OS is running on them. A Mac is a PC running OSX. So they confuse criticism of Windows with criticism of PCs, which, technically, they also are.
Secondly, I think advertising one’s self via really insulting ad campaigns reflects very poorly. When so often their criticisms against Microsoft are complete mischaracterizations that are nevertheless eaten up by “fanboys” it is so extremely annoying to watch. It also contributes to the atmosphere that people who use Macs aren’t just buying a computer but buying into a cult.
Regarding expense, one metric I was surprised to learn about Windows 7 was Microsoft saying that only 5% of users actually purchase a new operating system in the box. Overwhelmingly, people upgrade by virtue of buying a new computer. That was unexpected to me, but makes sense given that if you buy a PC, it’s coming with Windows. So in that context the criticism of cost is irrelevant– it’s more expensive in the box because Microsoft doesn’t expect most of their Windows users to buy the OS through anything than a new machine. Conversely, they also support their older operating systems with service packs far and above what Apple does. Snow Leopard aside, point revisions of OSX have necessitated 100.00+ upgrades, with Apple discontinuing support for older OSes in a few years. Meanwhile Microsoft has only just announced when XP will be losing its official support, and by then the operating system will be older than ten years. XP has already received three service packs (Vista is on its second), so it’s not quite the same comparison to me when Apple charges you the same charge to upgrade to what constitutes a service pack as well.