John makes a number of points which are valid in isolation as an intellectual exercise but which in my view don't really explain why Apple refrains from advertising OS X. It's not about technical complexity. Plenty of products which have technical underpinnings not understood by the layperson can be effectively advertised. Cars are one example. They can be easily differentiated in a way customers understand without delving into engineering minutiae.

It comes down to return on investment and name recognition. Why do Coke and Pepsi advertise? Is the customer likely to understand the differences in the forumlas for these drinks and why the different ingredients in one product make it superior to that of another? Of course not. It's about name recognition. It's about raising the product profile and consciousness in the market.

Consider that for years Intel itself has had a successful advertising campaign, and it designs and manufactures a cpu -- something yet more obscure and technical to the non-engineer than an operating system. Do these adverts delve into pipelining and branching technology? Is this necessary in order to make an effective campaign? Of course not. This idea that OS X is not advertised on grounds that the public won't understand multi-threading and the like is a red herring.

Also, it appears you are talking about the home consumer market specifically. There are OTHER markets to advertise to. Apple may very well advertise OS X in the print media of certain IT-related publications, though it may also refrain from doing so on grounds of a poor ROI in the corporate sector. Apple does effectively sell its XServe and RAID products to its niche markets.

But getting back to consumers, at the end of the day, ordinary people buy COMPUTERS -- not operating systems. So this question of advertising OS X comes down to another Mac versus Wintel (or switcher) campaign. Been there, done that. It's more effective at this point to advertise the Mac chic and style cachet -- and Apple has to be careful not to overdo it because cachet is a tenuous thing and it can actually have an INVERSE relationship to heavy advertising.

For the end user, it's about results. It's about the use of a computer that they can notice and appreciate. Any skilled advertiser would have no problem in designing a campaign which could distinguish OS X in these terms. And if not, if Apple cannot differentiate OS X in these results-oriented terms to the layperson, then maybe OS X is not all its proponents (myself included) think it's cracked up to be.

In addition to the points in my foregoing post, there is another compelling reason that Apple doesn't advertise OS X -- the most obvious of all. OS X is not a product. It's a component. (I'm sorry if I have overlooked whether others in this thread have already brought this out.)

Now one might point out that the same is true of Intel cpu's as well -- except that this would be mistaken. Intel does sell its cpu's to customers -- albeit customers in the business/OEM sector. But the point is that Apple sells OS X to no one -- not to consumers and not to any manufacturer.

It's true that existing Mac owners can buy a shrink-wrap copy of OS X as a separate product, but they are OS X owners already and are sold on the value of OS X. It would not profit Apple to advertise OS X exclusively to OS X owners. That would make no sense.

So just which market would Apple advertise this (non)-product to?

Until Apple makes OS X available as a product in a horizontal market for any Intel/AMD hardware which meets its system requirements, Apple's marketing focus will be rightly on the Mac itself (of which OS X is only a part). It's the stability and security of the Mac which Apple needs to promote, and the ease of use and elegance of the Mac. It's all about the Mac -- not about OS X.

It's only Mac-heads or devotees of operating systems in general who might pose this question in John's article above -- all the while not stopping to think that there is actually no product here to advertise to begin with.

Jeff Mincey

This article is wrong. I haven't read all response so forgive me if I've duplicated.

In terms of popular media, yes: Apple doesn't run commercials. I recall hearing radio spots for MAc OS8 and "Sherlock" back in the 1990s, but since then, Apple hasn't really touted the OS. The author is write about the 'why' but missed the 'how.'

The #1 form of advertising is word of mouth. #2 is promotion from sources perceived as objective (e.g. the press - at least, the tech press).

If Apple can manipulate these two sources, all others really don't matter.

Apple has rabid fans and followings that rival Star Trek and Rush (take you pick: Limbaugh or the Candian power trio). There evangelism is unparalled: When's the last time you were sold on an HP or Dell from a friend or relative? It's painfully rare. Likewise, Apple is swarmed by blogs and sites (e.g. MacObserver). Where is MicrosoftOSRumors or HPInsider? Can anyone say DellBytes? No. This is merely an extenion of word of mouth.

When there's a lot of word-of-mouth, there's a following. That's hot. And it's largely free. It gets a life of its own, and Apple merely needs to keep fueling it by largely doing what it's already doing (innovation here assures us that disappointments won't last long).

Microsoft has a following. They've learned to feed the techie and developer communities, and that's great. Apple is trying to do this and more, it seems. HOW of even IF they have any direct connection with the following of word-of-mouthers (the 'Mac Faithful') is an unknown.

And, it doesn't hurt to have fans like Rush (both Limbaugh and the Canadial power trio).

Second, Apple hypes up product announcements very well, and because of their success in delivering the right blend of features and prices, they collect a lot of media praise from the hometown newspapers to the big name publishers, from the Detroit Free Press to Computer World. That's hot.

Why? It's free endorsement. Not "free advertising" but endrosements - which are better than advetising.

Ads say "Hey, WE are really great." Endorsement says, "Hey, now THIS is really great." Someone has looked into this thing for me and made a decision, objectively, that it's good. I don't have to think too much about it.

Sure, this can backfire. But even lemons can turn into lemonade. Recently Mike Wendland of the Detroit Free Press lamented the uninspiring iPod Hi-Fi. But after reviewing one directly, he changed his tune and published a near-retraction.

Between cultivating its cult following and courting the media for its products at large, Apple has a solid strategy. Customers don't think in terms of the OS anymore than drivers think in terms of buying a car based on the dashboard, steering wheel and foot pedals. No one ever buys drill-bits; they buy holes. Likewise, I don't want iPhoto; I want photo books and slide shows on my TV that I can share with family across the country.

And that's what Apple advertises: experience.

Apple would do well to run ads during high ratings periods just to remind people that they have cool hardware that delivers a great experience at exceptional value. But Apple is probably understanding more than we are where their marketing dollars generate the best return. They're in business to do one thing: earn a profit and have a blast doing it.

"The same is true for millions of people. As the computer matures you're going to see less newbies. Not to mention Windows users are easier to find when you need to ask a question--it's a simple matter of numbers."

I disagree with saying that simply because their are more numbers of users using the same os that their are more people to answer your question. In my experience meeting primarily 90% windows users and 10% mac users that the educated users who were able to help with tech questions were nearly all mac users. The windows users base is 97% uneducated.

I get asked several times a day about tech questions from windows users who can't answer each others own questions. So they ask me and I answer them giving them a polite simple response on how to fix it. Oh did I metion I am a mac user?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the current reason Windows is so much more like Mac X these days is because Windows actually uses many core technologies licensed from Apple during the infamous 1998-99 Apple / MS 5 year technology sharing deal. The real point of this deal was that the then struggling Apple was given $1 billion dollars and MS got to incorporate important technologies into Windows such as drag and drop. As a Mac user I don't see any MS technologies which have changed my life, while on the other hang Apple keeps inventing world changing technologies scuh as Quicktime. MS on the other hand is like a bloaded leach, sucking technologies from more innovative smaller companies who unlike MS can turn around on a dime. Heck, MS didn't even event DOS, Bill Gates purchased it (or should I say stole it).

1 billion dollars? Where did that figure come from?

The only deal I am aware of was $150M of non-voting stock in exchange for closing some infringement lawsuits (when Gates appeared on the big screen at WWDC). Microsoft has since sold all of the stock.

I would much rather manage 500 Apple servers that the HP wintel crap that I have to deal with running Server 2003. If you actually know anything, and you have used both, really used them, you too would know that windows is 10 years old compared to OS X. Nuff said.

Roger, your a goof.

Okay, stop the squibbling and the squabling, leave the my OS is better than yours at the front door.

We are discussing marketing here, so let's break it down.

Advertising is used by companies to create an emotional connection with a product.

Advertising is used to sell product, not educate people.

To enable someone to make an emotional connection to your product, you have to tell people about things that your product can do that the competition can't (without mentioning the competitors product).

To make someone who users their computer for web, email, photos and basic office stuff switch platform, you have to tell them why the experience is going to be that much better.

So Apple should stop shelling out for expensive ads of technicians looking at chip fab wafers and start doing more 'this is what mom, dad and the kids can do without breaking a sweat' type commercials.

Basic premise for a tv slot, would go something along the lines of a person sitting at their PC and not being creative. Just cut and pasting boring graphics into an amateur web/DTP package. Then a new iMac or mac mini is wheeled in and the world is shown just how easy it is to pull in the photos in iPhoto, edit a slideshow for the web, make a homepage and then upload it. Particularly showing the drag and drop media tabs in iLife.

Again you could do the same thing with iMovie + iDVD. Quick, cheap adverts, which would mean that they could afford better slots for more advertising.

A great example of how not to advertise is Apple with the chip fab plant, and microsoft with the unleash your potential ad campaign... Naff, Pointless and misleading (Fresh install of XP does not include half of the things suggested in the advert).

With regards to print advertising, a bad example is the extinct dinosaur ads we suffer in the UK, trying to encourage world+dog to upgrade to Office 2003.

A much better way is to again show off the iLife applications is as follows. Pictre of iMac/Mac Mini or Powerbook, with screen shots of the apps being used to create stuff. Far more engaging than a cartoon strip of a person in a dinosaur mask telling us that Office 97 is rubbish. Anyhow the ads should encourage people to go check out the Apple.com and Apple shops to see this software in action. Trust me the ease of use and creation of content blows people away every time, I have yet to see a very good example of this breadth of integration on the PC across a suite of applications.

Guy Randall is a Graphic Designer, Photographer, Videographer, IT technician and has been for the last ten years.

Anyhow that's me finished for another day. If anyone wants to contact me to discuss, check out www.guyrandall.me.uk.

I think that they should bring back the 1984 ad and replace the guy on the screen with Bill Gates. That would be a great ad, as we would all get to see him hit with hammer.

Ad:

If you think the iPod is great, You should check out the Mac.

"Give Windows users a Mac for a week and they'll hate it"

That's right, you unmatched genius.

I bet that's exactly why record numbers of Windows users have been switching to Macs.

You say, "...that's exactly why record numbers of Windows users have been switching to Macs."

And you know this how? Show me a URL or some data which demonstrates this. Apple is gaining some market share, but the legions of Windows users in the corporate realm, the high-end gamers, and the vast majority of home users are sticking with Windows. It's easy to have "record" numbers of switchers if the previous number was infinitesimal.

If you go from a percentage of 0.01 to 0.03, you have tripled the number -- and yet it would remain a fraction. This is the problem when people toss out statistics which they make up and which they don't really explain in context.

Jeff Mincey

There would be no point to advertise OS X as an individual product since it only works on a mac and leave the advertising up to the people who know how to advertise. Trust me that can sell an INTEL chip in commercials thats lasts 30 seconds.

"And you know this how?"

I pay attention to reality, that's how. Crazy, ain't it?

http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=4504
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1360

Considering how easy it is to find out that more and more Windows users are buying Macs, you're probably being ignorant on purpose.

Here's a hint: no matter how miniscule the "record numbers" are, they're continuing to snowball, and that's what matters most.

I wouldn't bother arguing with the mac haters. Reason being that people who have their minds made up and who refuse to see the strengths and weaknesses of various alternatives for what they are will just waste your time. Who cares?

Personally I've used and still use windows, os x, and linux. And they all have strengths and weaknesses. Regardless of what the zealots from any os camp will try to tell you.

Advertising OS X would not be a matter of "selling" the product.
It should be about building the Mac OS X "brand" as a sub-brand of Apple.
Think of what Intel did with "pentium inside" it wasn't about selling the features of processors, only of making people aware of the pentium brand.

Building the OS X brand could help, so that those members of the general public that don't even know what an OS is will not be surprised when they learn that the Mac doesn't have WIndows, they might not understand what it means, but they will know the OS X brand and see it as a good replacement.

Quote

madgunde wrote:
Back when Apple released the Macintosh, they did have a "test drive" program where people could take one home for a few days. It probably worked well, but the volumes were far lower 22 years ago than today.

Actually, it was one of the worst marketing promotions ever. From the Apple Macintosh article at Wikipedia, which echoes what I remember:

"Apple also ran a "Test Drive a Macintosh" promotion that year, in which potential buyers with a credit card could trial a Macintosh for 24 hours and return it to a dealer afterwards. It began to look like a success with 200,000 participants, and Advertising Age magazine named this one of the 10 best promotions of 1984. However, dealers disliked the promotion and supply of computers was insufficient for demand, and many computers were returned in such a bad shape that they could no longer be sold."

It makes forecasting a bear. Not only do you have to predict inventory against sales as usual, but you now also have to stock additional loaner computers that may not actually bring back any money, and you end up with all these Open Box items to somehow get rid of. God awful.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong...Windows actually uses many core technologies licensed from Apple during the infamous 1998-99 Apple / MS 5 year technology sharing deal....Apple was given $1 billion dollars and MS got to incorporate important technologies into Windows such as drag and drop...

You are wrong. I don't even know where to start. It's wild, ungrounded-in-reality folklore like this that makes the rest of the world think Mac users are utterly disconnected cultists.

Quote

Guest wrote:
Apple doesn't advertise for the same reason Ferrari doesn't advertise. They don't need to. It's pointless. They don't need to have a bigger market share to be a successful company. They ARE a successful company. Market share is meaningless. Apple makes high-end, quality products and they make lots of money doing just that. The vast majority of people don't want or need such products, so why bother trying to convince them otherwise.

Never better said!

"You are wrong. I don't even know where to start. It's wild, ungrounded-in-reality folklore like this that makes the rest of the world think Mac users are utterly disconnected cultists."

Hey, go easy on him.

Considering how much of a shameless knock-off every Microsoft OS since Windows 95 are of the Mac OS, it's an easy mistake to believe.


Also, it's years worth of lies and FUD from Microsoft's happy stable of dedicated zombies that're responsible for the stigma of Mac users.

Of course the stigma has been getting thoroughly erased in the last few years, so luckily it's not much of a problem anymore. I mean, these days with the Windows malware epidemic, a person has to be TOTALLY living in a fantasy world to take a look at Windows, then take a look at the Mac OS, and conclude that Windows beats the $#!% out of it and all Mac users are crazy for thinking their OS has advantages.

I believe that the option expressed by author here parallels my idea below:

Windows users, and likely most of their business model, appeals to a certain modern mentality, which I believe is, enjoy the steps of the task (no matter how many their are, or how much time it takes to get there) AND the more buttons, the better (or the more complex, the better value).

The Mac environment is ahead of this, and I wouldn't say ahead of it's time (since we are in the postmodern age) It is computing about the experience. Machines are the past, and Macs are personal computers (and have been since the 80s)

Eventually, people will realize that technology doesn't have to be so complex/unenjoyable/nerdy/unstable (any of those may fit)

John Gee

Actually the Software Publishing Association says that 16% of computer users are Mac users.

A 5% market share is not the same as active users.

I see you point mate, but the statement that you give a windows user a Mac for a week and they will hate it. Wrong answer. You see I was one of those Windows users, I didn't even consider a Mac. Until a friend of mine showed me what a Mac can do. So I bought a Powerbook, I thought atg the time I would keep my PC just incase I needed to use it. 1 month later I had stopped using it completely and about 2 months ago, I sold it. And have never regreted it. Mac OS X is so much better to use than Windoze. My windows machine used to crash ever couple of days. But I haven't had my Powerbook crash once. Now how can you tell me that Windows is a better operating system. And when it comes to Video and Graphics, there is no better machine than a Mac.

So don't go giving me that windoze's is better crap. Because anyone that has really used a Mac for any amount of time, would not go back to a PC. Oh and IE over Safari, huh, I got a good laugh out of that. IE is rated as one of the worst browsers of all time. Constant security flaws and all. I use firefox, but I would still say that Safari is better than IE.

If your former Windows computer was crashing every couple days, then you had a seriously malconfigured or corrupted system -- or perhaps you had bad RAM or some other faulty hardware component. Or you were using a very old version of Windows and not XP, SP2.

With bad hardware or corruption, ANY operating system can crash and become unstable.

Quote

jmincey wrote:
If your former Windows computer was crashing every couple days, then you had a seriously malconfigured or corrupted system -- or perhaps you had bad RAM or some other faulty hardware component. Or you were using a very old version of Windows and not XP, SP2.

With bad hardware or corruption, ANY operating system can crash and become unstable.

It also depends on what crap is being loaded onto it. I use an IBM thinkpad in my corporate environment and my IT guys load so much crap onto it, with custom versions of security patches, etc, etc that the thing is slower than hell and needs rebooted frequently. And it's not corrupted or misconfigured except in the sense that IT has no clue WTF they are doing. So it is possible to have a "properly configured" system, regardless of OS, that performs like crap.

The "it must be operator error" argument is handy, but often not helpful or accurate.

Having said that, I've never had any major problems with any of my personal windows systems, but I also know a lot about computers and am very careful. My friends and family that don't know much about computers frequently have problems with viruses, spyware, unstable systems, etc. And THAT is the main problem with windows - which I personally use and like - it requires someone who knows a lot about computers to keep it secure and running optimally. And that's hardly helpful for millions of people who don't have the time or desire to learn to be computer experts.

This argument is never going to go away - I wish more people were like myself (sorry, not trying to brag but at least I'm open minded instead of fanatical about one OS or the other) and would accept and appreciate the realities of the various OSes and the strengths and weaknesses in each for what they are instead of making them into a cause or crusade. And in that sense, many windows users are every bit as bad as many mac users.

People are inherently defensive, I suppose. Personally I don't need to justify my choices to anyone. If you don't like what I do, stay out of my way. Right now my personal favorite machine and OS are my mac and OS X. For many reasons. Doesn't mean I dislike my XP boxes and my Windows 2003 server. I love them for doing asp.net development and wouldn't give them up. I just happen to enjoy the mac for everything else even more.

Quote

jmincey wrote:


With bad hardware or corruption, ANY operating system can crash and become unstable.

This is true. But Windows succeeds where others fail. It can crash with perfectly good factory RAM right out of the box with a pristine system...or with an arguably "premium configuration" at trade shows and developers conferences. Remember the BSOD at the debut of Windows media Center? I have seen this happen many times.

Re point made by wings
If a lot of users think Macs are just prettier pcs but with same OS, that is good for Apple. I'd guess most users want windows OS and would be scared off by an unfamiliar OS so if they by a Mac by mistake thinking it has the same OS as any other PC then that is a sale to Apple they wouldnt get otherwise. (As to why users would want windows:- so software they already own will still work, want same os as friends, want familiar OS (if they dont know of apple os then presumably they've only ever used windows) and biggest reason most software available is windows only). I'm familiar to both OS's (written programs for both) and I've never consider buying a mac for myself and doubt that will change any time soon (for the last reason given above).

Indeed, to the layman, an OS is often overlooked and not really understood. Seen one OS, you've seen them all. So why bother to advertise them?

However, Microsoft advertises its OS. They make a very big issue that you can do all sorts of exciting things with Windows. Obviously they neglect to mention that you can do all those things with all their competitors OS's too, but to the non- computer literate, this could sound like all these whizz-bang things, only Windows makes it possible...

So when Joe Schmoe heads down their PC superstore, the Windows brand is going to be foremost in his mind. They don't know exactly what it is, but they know they can do all that stuff with it, cos the advert said so...

And a Mac... "Does that come with Windows?... no, it doesn't... so perhaps it can't all those things... nah, best stick with a Windows box, just to be on the safe side."

Apple has to start advertising its biggest asset, even if just to get the name in the minds of the Joes out there, and that Windows isn't the only game in town.

With so called experts like this NASA guy commenting on Os security..., it's small wonder that they crash.... Either the NASA needs to quit spouting bullshit or block it's members to quit showing their stupidity.

Who was the moron who said that the Mac is very secure? The only reason it is not targeted is because it was so far too small for the spyware/adware guys.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/08/apple_vulnerability/
or
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/Ancient_flaws_leave_OS_X_vulnerable_/0,2000061744,39234678,00.htm

Both come from Unix coding. So whatever Unix is susceptible to, these OS's too are liable. Atleast Windows has innovated by ofering compatibility with multiple developer programs. Let me know how many run on a MAC. Period.

There are SO many different products advertised on TV in that 30 seconds. I've seen ads from those five companies and there's no reason Apple can't do something of their own. I think you're misunderstanding the ad industry and underestimating Macs. They have print ads with the new white iMacs without too many words. Those ads I'm sure could translate very well into TV, with just a few simple words mentioning how easy it is to use a Mac and all the cool stuff you can do right out of the box (Photos, Chat, Movies, Music). People who love their iPods love how simple it is and does its job well. A direct comparison for a Mac mini ad (especially since people wouldn't normally recognize that the whole computer is in that little box even if they were standing in front of it!) would get people excited.

The modern Macintosh can do ANYTHING while operating in OS X that a modern PC can do while operating in Windows XP .
In fact, the Mac can do anything as well or better.
Os X is complete ,fully customizable , and easier to use.

IT Professional