$500 million in advertising??? Did I use the Jump the Shark joke already?

Let’s recap.

Apple has spent the last 2+ years mocking Windows Vista in advertising. God knows what they’ve spent on these ads over this time, but whatever.

Microsoft, to their detriment, failed to respond to these ads for almost two years. They did, however, spend this time improving Vista, most notably with Service Pack 1 (SP1) and the many other updates that shipped before and since. It’s worth noting, too, that the biggest problems with Vista were caused by third parties in the Windows ecosystem, but whatever.

This year, finally, Microsoft decided to respond to Apple’s ads—many of which made untrue claims, by the way—with their own series of ads. These include The Mohave Experiments ads, the Gates/Seinfeld series, and, of course, the excellent I’m A PC ads, which celebrate the diversity of the one billion plus PC users worldwide and what they accomplish every day with Windows. These latter ads, especially, make the Apple “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” ads look arrogant and out of touch. Because they are.

Apple responded, as only they can, with more “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” ads. (Hey, stick to what you know.) These included some ads that focused, inexplicably, on Microsoft’s advertising campaigns and how the software giant should have spent that money—$300 million, supposedly, though Microsoft has never confirmed that number—on “fixing Vista” instead of advertising. As noted above, Microsoft had “fixed” Vista a long long time before the ads appeared. And as I noted at the time, too, maybe Apple itself should have fixed its own incredibly buggy recent products—MobileMe, iPhone/iPhone 3G, and Leopard among them—instead of hypocritically and falsely calling out a competitor. (The Apple Way, incidentally, is ship first, ask questions later. Apple customers are all beta testers. It’s the reverse of how tech products are typically developed.)

Well, guess what?

Apple spent $486 million on advertising last year, $467 million the year before, and $338 million in 2006.

Ahahahaha.

Here’s the thing. Microsoft and Apple both spend a ton of money on advertising. They’re both big companies with big reach. Of course, Microsoft has more reach globally while Apple plays mostly in the US and other rich nations, which actually puts the numbers in even better perspective. But if the notion of Apple actually producing insider ads—in which it rags on a competitor for, get this, advertising—ads that, by the way, the typical consumers who seem them won’t even get—didn’t rile you at the time, they should now that we know how much it spent.

BTW, Microsoft spent $959.5 million in advertising last year. But then they’re considerably bigger than Apple, compete in far more product segments, and are in far more markets worldwide. So that makes sense. And let’s be clear: That budget is for all of the company’s many products but didn’t include any Windows advertising at all. If Microsoft did spend $300 million on advertising Windows this year, that was a first. And it must have spent about, what?, $17 to $19 (not a typo, just a joke) advertising Windows Mobile and Zune combined in the past year. Those are the only two other Microsoft products that compete with Apple products.

So. Apple spent more on ads over the past three years at least than Microsoft did on its competitive products. And it was Apple, not Microsoft, that then released ads mocking the other company … for spending money advertising.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Thanks to the many people who wrote in about this.

Discuss this Article 140

tayme
on Nov 22, 2008
Amazing...companies that have advertising budgets. Truly spectacular news. Thanks Paul...Oh, and speaking of advertising, this should generate a ton of hits for your site over the weekend. mikegalos and robertsjoe will make sure of that for you...nice job!!! --tayme
Delmont
on Nov 22, 2008
I am just glad whenever the actual truth is reported on Apple. Again, I use both Windows and a Mac. But I'm sick of the Apple lies. The continual Apple lies just keeps making it harder for me to support Apple. I will keep using a Mac. But to keep supporting the company...very tough.
Delmont
on Nov 22, 2008
Tayme: Does it come natural for you to always apologize for Apple?
tayme
on Nov 22, 2008
@Delmont - I don't see an apology for any company. You might be surprised, but I am not an Apple fanboy. In fact, I prefer MS products. Go back and read this site and Wininfo and you will figure it out. It is mikegalos and robertsjoe and those types of blinder wearing fanatics that I try to egg on here. They just don't get it. If you are saying that because I push mikegalos buttons, then you must be as single visioned as him. --tayme
jcstene
on Nov 22, 2008
With all due respect, Paul, I think you missed the point entirely. Apple was not mocking Microsoft for how much (total) money they spent on advertising, the point of the ad was Apple pointing their finger at Microsoft for spending money on advertising Vista rather than spending money on fixing the problems with Vista, which is in IMO, an entirely different message than the one your referring to.
shark47
on Nov 22, 2008
Yes, Paul, Microsoft had all of $300 mn. in the bank that they decided to spend on advertising. How will they fund their R&D program now?
kalewallace
on Nov 22, 2008
The thing is: most people who see these ads are glued to their TV during some ridiculous NBC primetime programming. These people don't know any different than to see how 'cool' having a mac or iPod really is. Last time I checked, these ads have been pretty popular and effective. I reprimand people on a constant basis that say Vista is horrible and they can't wait to buy a mac. I think Microsoft needs to step above the mudslinging and get back to relating to the customer. This is something that Apple has failed to do as of late (app store clusterf*ck). Getting personal with the customer and showing exactly what all your products/services can do is the only way to go in my book. Don't stoop to the level of Apple, Microsoft. You're much to good for that.
nutts
on Nov 22, 2008
I guess it's a slow news day Paul, and you needed some traffic viewing your hideous ads. Thank you jcstene for pointing out where Paul went wrong in completely missing the point, so at least I don't have to.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
You can tell what a company values by where they spend their money. The problem isn't so much the raw amount spent on advertising, it's more a matter of how they split the pie since that tells us what they value rather than just how deep their pockets are (and both of these companies have very deep pockets) Let's look at the amount of money each company has after operational expenses to spend on income versus R&D versus advertising and see how they allocate that money. R&D Microsoft puts 31.7% into R&D, Apple puts 15.2% Advertising Microsoft puts 5.9% into Ads, Apple puts 9.1% Income So, basically, when both companies decide where to spend their profits, Microsoft puts twice as much as Apple into R&D and Apple puts twice as much as Microsoft into Advertising Source data from Robert McLaws at Windows Now http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/apple-should-count-its-own-beans...
lehenbauer
on Nov 22, 2008
The Apple ads... helped to generate billions in profits for Apple. Seeing Paul wax apoplectic? Priceless.
RunTimeError
on Nov 22, 2008
Come on Paul. I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't spend their entire advertising budget on just the I'm A Mac/PC ads. There are also the iPod and iPhone ads to consider. In comparison, MS is spending 300 million of their 959 million (read: nearly one third of their budget last year) on a single product. You're just as good as "twisting facts" as the ad guys at Apple are.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
Or, in really simple terms (using the same data as I used in the previous post) Apple's Ad budget is 60% as big as their R&D budget Microsoft's Ad budget is 19% as big as their R&D budget or Apple's R&D budget is less than double their Ad budget Microsoft's R&D budget is over five times their Ad budget
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
btw: It could just be they've stopped targeting my demographic but has anyone noticed a pleasant lack of "I'm a Mac" ads lately? Its almost as if Apple got their two "Microsoft is spending money on advertising" ironyfests out there, saw that the polling numbers, realized that the joke was on Apple and cancelled their November ad buys. I also notice that ads for new laptops now all seem to have a Windows logo tag at the end similar to the old "Intel inside chime" so I'd guess Microsoft is spending some money on comarketing with PC vendors.
lehenbauer
on Nov 22, 2008
@Mikegalos: You assume the companies get the same R&D value per dollar spent on R&D (and advertising, for that matter.) Few would disagree that Apple's advertising has been more effective than Microsoft's in the last few years. Certainly it's *possible* that Apple's R&D could be more effective as well. Said another way, you could put 100% of your income into R&D and produce nothing if your R&D processes are ineffective.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
lehenbauer I just posted the numbers. There are lots of ways to draw conclusions that aren't based on actual data. For exampe, I could say that Microsoft's advertising and R&D mix have given them 96% of the global market to Apple's 3.5% and conclude that Microsoft's advertising is clearly more effective since they don't spend 27x as much as Apple but get a 27x greater return. I could draw the conclusion that Apple's advertising program is effective at keeping their existing base amused but terrible at driving sales. Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily true. It IS, however, as valid an interpretation as the one you posted as a "few would disagree" factoid. Either way, though, the facts are: Apple spends a higher percentage of their cash on advertising Microsoft spends a higher percentage of their cash on R&D
DRWAM
on Nov 22, 2008
Actually, MS doesn't really need to advertise Vista as much since other companies sell their product in their computers, such as Dell, Acer, HP,etc..So I'm not impressed, although a 300 million dollar new campaign is in addition to prior money spent within the 1 Billion dollar budget. On the other hand, Apple needs to market as they have no computer company [except Psystar :)] to sell the OS. Apple is their own hardware company. The ads aren't fair, but they are satire and sarcasm, and don't seem to be hurting Microsoft even a little. I have seen worse ads by MS partners [recently, HP] to sell AV software and malware protection, by stating that Vista systems are getting attacked in and infesting and 'taking over your entire infrastructure' of the entire company in a few minutes, in less than the time to call IT support. These were on TV and the radio. Apple is laughing all the way to the bank, and MS is still spending more on something that costs much less to manufacture [Vista vs Apple computers]. But Mike, there are plenty of Apple commercials on the SciFi channel, but A real nice Vista commercial [a better Mojave one than the first ones] was on as well as Nice Zune commercials.
clindhartsen
on Nov 22, 2008
Awhile back, probably a few months, it seemed like there was a Zune ad between every program on [adult-swim] (Cartoon Network late night). Rather cool, shirting movement over records exchanging hands or something, mentioning the Zune Pass for 15 bucks a month. Still, the Apple ads don't seem as plentiful lately, though maybe that's my lack of TV watching as of late. Truly though, have we seen more out of Microsoft Research than many may think, and for that matter, have they actually contributed more to the computing world than Apple? If anyone has any examples to list, I'd love to see them (and to note, I am not against MS if that's how the way I phrased it sounds)
DRWAM
on Nov 22, 2008
I guess another bottom line is that if Microsoft stopped advertising Vista, they would still sell millions of licenses to Dell, Acer, HP and others. If Apple stopped advertising Macs or leopard, they would close shop as they would not be selling them anymore, or at least to any degree as they see now. So this post is a little unfounded. No Macs ads, no money. No Vista ads, big money. Dang, I just remembered a little about the SciFi ad the showed 'mojaveexperiment' at the end. It showed some charity stuff that Vista was involved, but I can't remember specifics. Then A Dell and HP ad showed the hardware and Vista software's ability, one with Fergie, and the other with another celeb. But MS didn't need to pay a dime for them obviously. So Obviously, there are billions of dollars advertising Vista by other companies. Duh! But at least they show what the hardware and software can do.
DRWAM
on Nov 22, 2008
Clind, I see an iPhone ad on almost every channel I surf, a few each hour sometimes. You would think that showing the abilities of the iPhone proved a great method for driving sales. So why don't they do it Leopard, iMacs,MacBooks, etc... Also, MS Live stuff,which is free, has some wonderful offerings. And now Mesh for Leopard! Exchange support for iPhone. MS sounds like a good partner for Apple, and I almost forgot Office in that respect.
DRWAM
on Nov 22, 2008
OK gents, I have been posting in between sets while lifting, but I'm done now. So be nice while I'm gone. PS Our grade school uses XP on most machines, but they still have the COA sticker for Windows 98 on all the boxes!!!! I guess if they can't afford new computers, they couldn't afford Vista upgrades, which probably could not be installed on the ancient computers. All the ads in the world most likely wouldn't get them to buy a Vista PC or a Mac. Sales are gonna get tight out there now. Peace, Doc
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
DRWAM Actually, if you see a Windows logo at the end of a Dell or HP ad then Microsoft did spend money on the ad. The hardware company paid most of it but the Microsoft bit at the end wasn't done for free. It's like when you see a newspaper ad from a local camera shop featuring the latest Nikon. While the shop paid for the ad, Nikon wrote the shop a check in exchange for featuring their product and probably provided the artwork. The best example was intel paying for inclusion of the 4-note Intel Inside chime. They didn't pay that much to get it added to all those ads and that little 4-note tune is one of the most recognized songs in the world (according to an Advertising Age article I saw a few years ago) btw: I've been watching SciFi as well and while I've seen a few Apple ads, I haven't been seeing Macintosh ads like "Bake Sale" or "Bean Counter" in a while or any ads on the new laptops. Most of the "Apple" ads I have seen have actually been AT&T ads for the iPhone. Come to think of it, while I've seen some iPod Touch ads, I also haven't seen any of the nano ads in a while, either. On the other hand, I've seen a bunch of the new MojaveExperiment ads from the tour and a bunch of the new "I'm a PC" ads featuring people's home video.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
clindhartsen The thing about Microsoft Research is that when their stuff shows up in a product you generally don't know about it. While some are visible (like Surface or ClearType or the disk system in Windows Home Server or Photosynth), most of them are improved algorithms that show up in things like HPC Server or SQL Server or the caching in Vista or the enhancements to Live Photo. And, of course, a lot of them end up in competitor's products as well since MSR's mission is to publish academic papers and getting code into Microsoft products is only a secondary part of how the researchers are evaluated. (In fact, getting some of the researchers to talk to product groups is a tricky task that takes a fair amount of finesse since that isn't their mandate and they'd rather be in the lab)
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
DRWAM "OK gents, I have been posting in between sets while lifting, but I'm done now. So be nice while I'm gone." What? Leaving without a single mention of the $400 Vista laptop? Doc, are you feeling OK?
whiplash55
on Nov 22, 2008
Love them or hate them (as I do) the Apple commercials have been effective even if they generally exaggerate or outright lie. Microsoft wasted 2 years by not responding and now the Vista name is poison. Microsoft needs to deliver and they need their partners to offer products that deliver a decent computing platform. A low end laptop with integrated graphics, 1 gig of ram, old drivers, and a load of crapware isn't going to cut it. People get the computer home and when it runs like crap they blame Vista.
chuckb84
on Nov 22, 2008
When you want to change the subject from numbers you don't like, use percentages. You can do ANYTHING that way. Look at the raw numbers: Microsoft spends over twice as much on advertising as Apple. Normalizing that to the size of the company, the markets they're in, the products they sell, what's bundled and what isn't, captive or non-captive audiences, etc, isn't going to change that. Microsoft spend $1B on ads and Apple spends under $0.5B. So, Apple got it right in their ads. And, fellows, it has been obvious all along that the Apple ads are using those apparently-too-sophisticated techniques of irony and sarcasm to make a marketing point. This is also sometimes called "humor". Try it sometime, you might like it. What frosts Paul and Mike is that the Apple ads are EFFECTIVE, and the late and lame rejoinders from Microsoft have been ineffective. (For example, there was an obvious attempt at humor in the Microsoft ads; it just didn't work.) And, for the nth time, don't get your panties too much in a twist: Microsoft still outsells Apple in desktop OS by 30:1 :). This is as much faux outrage as all that twaddle over the "lipstick on a pig" during the late, unlamented presidential campaign.
Lindy
on Nov 22, 2008
I dont get it? Why is it a big deal? Apple had 25 billion in sales last year, 2007 and is project to hit 40 billion for 2008 and spending 500 million on advertising is bad somehow? Microsoft had 55 billion in sales last year probably will make 65 this year, and so they spent 1 billion on advertising. A giant so what! How is that "jumping the shark" whatever the hell that means anyhow. The only reason this is a topic at all was because news was made when someone at Microsoft said they were going to finally respond to Apple and then it leaked out that they were adding an extra 300 million for this cause and going with a new add agency for this effort. It was blog about all over the place. Many thought it was to repair Vista's over all negative image, right or wrong. "It’s worth noting, too, that the biggest problems with Vista were caused by third parties in the Windows ecosystem, but whatever." I would agree with you Paul, that some of the problems were caused by third party vendors but NOT the biggest problems. Vista changed so much over time, got delayed many times to the point that those vendors just said "whatever ship it then we will support it". One only has to read this article which is full of Microsoft management emails, so facts not speculation, to know that even Microsoft dropped the ball and was to blame for at least 50% of the problems. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/352993_msftvista28.html Microsoft will pay a price for those emails. As far as Apple adds, sure I think they are using hype about Windows/Vista PC problems and playing off that. Often its not totally true, but when is advertising totally truthful? I have seen way more iPhone, iTouch, Nano and the Macbook Air adds, than I have of those PC vs Mac adds. So out of the 5 types I have seen, only one attacks Microsoft and the other 4 are showing off their product line. Funny Mike and the MS gang here would have you believe that Apple never shows off their products only bashes MS products. I personally think those PC vs Mac adds are lame, but I can see that they have been very effective as I recently read that of the massive Mac sale growth something like 50% of that is from switchers. Those adds are quick, and drive home a point. Compare that to the Jerry and Bill adds???? The I am PC adds are really good by the way they need to keep hammering away at them. I have read you say many times that MS makes most of its money off of corporations through Windows Server, Windows XP/Vista, and Offices sales. I agree. However in those areas they almost dont even have to advertise, corporations are so locked in that many stick with it because A it works well and B to change to something else would be very costly. Mike you logic once again tries to twist this down another path, R&D. Does Microsoft have more products than Apple? Is Microsoft in more areas of the computer/IT world? Answer is way more, so it would make sense that Microsoft must spend more on R&D. Microsoft if waging battles across the board. Sever OS against the UNIX/Linux world. SQL against Oracle, Exchange against Lotus and Novell, Xbox against Sony and Nintendo, Zune against Apple, and consumer desktop against Apple. In some cases their competitors cant stand them and take it to them anytime they can, example Oracle. So MS should/has to spend way more on R&D.
dovella
on Nov 22, 2008
dovella
on Nov 22, 2008
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
Actually, you measure how effective an ad is by how it drives sales. With the huge amount Apple spends on advertising and the tiny increase in market share they've gotten, they could probably have given away a few million Mac Minis for the same money and gotten a better return on their investment. What the Apple fans fail to realize is that while the "Get a Mac" ads amused you, they didn't improve Mac sales enough to justify their expense. While it's possible the negative tone drove down the entire industry (just like negative political ads drive down voter turnout for all parties) that's only an effective tactic if you are the leader and figure you'll survive lower sales better than your competitors. Using a political campaign analogy, Apple's done the equivalent of taking their campaign war chest and spending more of it on TV spots than their opponent while their opponent spent more on research and policy plans and local offices and local canvassing. And then Apple used most of that TV time on negative attack ads that were effectively, "Vote for Apple - all computers suck but we suck less" which is hardly a way to get those undecided types to invest. You don't get voters to the polls (or people to the stores) by denegrating government (or the computer industry) Basically, "Get a Mac" did a great job of "firing up the base" but did nothing to get the undecideds to the polls which is fine if you like the status quo but not so good when you've got a 3rd party size base.
lotsamystuff
on Nov 22, 2008
" Funny Mike and the MS gang here would have you believe that Apple never shows off their products only bashes MS products." That's what makes Paul the Rush Limbaugh of the tech world. He spews stuff like this, his nodding sycophants suck it up, and it becomes accepted as "known truth". It's brilliant, but it's all a lie. Apple spent a fortune on non-Mac advertising for the iPhone and iPod, but since they don't break that out, Paul just makes a blanket statement about their total budget and spins it like a top. Then he dismisses the amount Microsoft spends on Zune advertising as insignificant when clearly it's not...there was a time when you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a Zune ad. Then there's this: Statements like, "Microsoft spent $959.5 million in advertising last year...That budget is for all of the company’s many products but didn’t include any Windows advertising at all." Give me a break. Microsoft didn't spend ANY advertising dollars on Windows? None? Nada? Zip? Then either Paul is lying or "mikegalos" is (to quote his buddy "Waethorn") a "LIAR!!!" when he says, "Actually, if you see a Windows logo at the end of a Dell or HP ad then Microsoft did spend money on the ad. The hardware company paid most of it but the Microsoft bit at the end wasn't done for free." Paul's fake outrage would be laughable if his fanbois didn't take it so seriously.
BrightrevCarl
on Nov 22, 2008
That's a lot of consternation in substitute for a sense of humor. I'm primarily a Windows guy and I think the Apple ads are clever, funny and not a big deal.
lotsamystuff
on Nov 22, 2008
"Actually, you measure how effective an ad is by how it drives sales." That's only one metric, "mikegalos". Come on, you know better.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
Lindy, The reason I went with "how does each company spend their money" rather than "how much money does each compay spend" was precisely to avoid making the comparison unfair in favor of Microsoft. R&D is how you invest in the future and Apple spends a tiny percent of their cash on that (and a tinier real dollar value but I didn't bring that up since that would be an unfair comparison that would make Apple look worse) Advertising is NOT geared toward the future, it's strictly about the present. That might explain why OS X is having a refresh rather than new features despite being mostly stagnant for the better part of a decade, why there's been no new iMac or Mac Pro or Mac Mini in years, why there's no Apple Cloud despite years of trying with .Mac and now with Mobile Me, why iTunes crashes computers rather than being well tested, why iPod's big change this year was to add new colors and unfortunately the list goes on and on. Fixing this would take investing in the future and Apple's allocation of resources shows that they would rather amuse their fans with ineffective attack ads than drive the industry forward. As I've said many times, I find it very sad that the company that did Lisa and LaserWriter now thinks "nano-chromatic" is innovation and perhaps even more sad that their base is so complacent that they applaud this disgrace rather than burn Steve Jobs in effigy for what's happened to a once world-changing company.
lotsamystuff
on Nov 22, 2008
"I'm primarily a Windows guy and I think the Apple ads are clever, funny and not a big deal." Ah, but you don't make your living running a Windows website, writing books about Windows, producing Windows-related podcasts and writing for Windows-centric blogs and publications. You can imagine that, if you did, you might take a contrariwise view simply as a matter of survival.
Lindy
on Nov 22, 2008
"What the Apple fans fail to realize is that while the "Get a Mac" ads amused you, they didn't improve Mac sales enough to justify their expense." Mike do you really believe that? Honestly I will try not dig on you here, but for the last two years Mac sales are way, way up quarter over quarter. Those numbers are real. Sure world wide market share is only up a tiny bit, but since the add campaign started us sales are up. Even in this god awful economy you have this... http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/11/17/apple_flirting_with_anothe... In the US Apple notebooks have risen to number 4 now? So you seriously think that add campaign has not contributed to Mac sales growth?
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
Lindy Yes. Mac sales are up but not enough to justify the money spent on the ads. For the money Apple spent, they could have given out a couple of million Mac Minis for free and gotten a bump just about as big for the money spent (based on costing the Mac Minis at true manufacturing cost and giving them to existing Windows 9x users willing to give up their 6 year old PCs for a new Mac Mini). When the return on investment for the ads is roughly the same as giving people your product for free, I'd say that's a pretty ineffective ad campaign.
Lindy
on Nov 22, 2008
Current iMac is 1 year old as of August. It has however gotten CPU/GPU refresh. My wifes has a .45nm CPU with the 2008 refresh. The Mac Pro has the latest Xeon CPU's as of a few weeks ago, which is got in Jan of 08, and probably will get the i7's or whatever they are called in Jan. The mini is finally rumored to be updated in Jan as well, there is some email from an Apple exec floating around saying please be patient its coming soon, it could be fake. The mini is way over do.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
Lindy Changing the color of the case really doesn't make it new. At least not in the sense that it drives sales more than as a fashion accessory.
Lindy
on Nov 22, 2008
Ok so how far do they have to be up to justify it??? http://www.macobserver.com/stockwatch/2008/11/05.3.shtml http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2008/04/01/analyst-apples-us-consum... http://www.osnews.com/story/19676 http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39317/98/ Those are some fantastic numbers even in a good economy. In this economy its beyond fantastic. They are effectively double the rest of the market. They spent 500 million on all advertising this year and are projeted to pull in 40 billion in sales. That ration does not look to bad to me. I would be if you could guarantee HP or Dell, double growth rate if they spent 500 million in advertising they would not even blink an eye. Of course 500 million is not all for just Macs. Like I have said I have seen way more iPhone adds, to the point of being to much lately.
Lindy
on Nov 22, 2008
Come on Mike, they have faster CPU/GPU, that runs cooler and uses less power. They have wireless N, bluetooth, and gige, it was more than just a color change. If the mini gets an update, it will basically be the new Macbook parts in small box. Hopefully it will be easy to open up and upgrade the RAM/HD.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
Come on Lindy, those are tweaks and not a new model. HP and Dell do revisions like that every month on their existing models. Now, I do expect that Apple will upgrade their all-in-one and desktop lines with Intel Core i7 versions in the Spring to coincide with Snow Leopard so Apple can talk about 8-thread processing in the iMac and 16-thread in the Mac Pro but it's been a LONG time since we've seen any real investment in either of those lines. What is surprising is that with the Core i7 already out and selling on the PC side now in time for the holiday shopping season, Apple chose to try to sell Core 2 for another year. Either there's something in Leopard that gives really bad scores on Core i7 or Apple doesn't want their laptops that much slower than their all-in-one since there isn't a mobile Core i7 yet.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
Lindy, Odds are that despite the rumors, the Mac Mini is dead. And I can't see why you'd think that Steve Jobs would allow for an easy open case and user upgradable RAM and HD when that's completely against everything he's every stood for. (Think original Mac, his fight against the "open Mac" Macintosh II that cost him his job, the difficulty in user replacable components in iMacs or Mac laptops) If the Mac Mini does survive, and I doubt that, there's very little chance of it being anything other than a sealed box.
chuckb84
on Nov 22, 2008
"What the Apple fans fail to realize is that while the "Get a Mac" ads amused you, they didn't improve Mac sales enough to justify their expense." Mike, with all respect, I'm pretty sure that Apple judges the effectiveness of their ads very carefully, much better than your off the cuff opinion. They'll quit running the ads---as Microsoft quickly pulled the inscrutable and ineffective Seinfeld/Gates road show---as soon as the ads stop working.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
chuck I agree. And that's why I was noting that I haven't seen "Bean Counter" or "Bake Sale" in a while nor any new "Get a Mac" ads. I suspect that "I'm a PC" effectively killed "Get a Mac" and that "Bean Counter" and "Bake Sale" tested out so badly with the public that even Apple recognized that they were making them look both mean spirited and whiny.
chipwinter
on Nov 22, 2008
No matter who's spending what, it looks like this spending by Apple is working. In fact, it looks like Apple could actually outearn Microsoft beginning with the Christmas quarter next year (2009). Using analyst Andy Zaky's guidance for Apple, and Microsoft's guidance from it's last conference call ($17.8 billion), we find that Apple's earnings for this upcoming Christmas quarter might be 86.8% of Microsoft's. And here's a look at how this percentage has changed in the past five Chrismas quarters: Apple's Revenue as Percentage of Microsoft's 2004: 32.2% 2005: 48.7% 2006: 56.8% 2007: 59.1% 2008: 86.8% I hope Microsoft's advertising has an answer for this ...
DRWAM
on Nov 22, 2008
When I see a 'Get A Mac' commercial, I just don't see how it would inspire any one to buy, unlike that Fergie commercial for HP, showing everything that she does with Vista. She's hot and the ad is informative. Having friends tell me that they have not experienced any of the [alleged] Vista problems, shows that they bought it even with the FUD. Therefore, the Mac ads did not convince them to Get A Mac. [They admit to seeing them too]. Interestingly, most of the FUD came from non-Apple sources, so they say. Warnings from other PC [XP I suppose] sources. I actually don't think that MS needs to advertise at all, but the tiny amount [300 MIL ain't nothin' to them] is also good for image as well as showing good will [I think a recent ad was about supporting or donating to education]. Maybe they need a Mac user to appear amazed that his $400 Vista laptop can do so much. [Is that better Mike?] Every man has his price, and comparatively speaking, I'm a cheap whore. The old Mac ads actually showed people making DVD's and stuff. I would bring them back.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 22, 2008
chip GM had Billions of dollars in gross sales, too. For ever dollar Apple takes in, they keep less than 22 cents For ever dollar Microsoft takes in, they keep 44 cents So, if Apple managed to sell as much as Microsoft they'd still only have half the actual income to spend on cash reserves, shareholder return, R&D and advertising And even that's with Apple eating the seed corn to make that return on investment look better in the short run. Of every dollar Apple takes in, they spend 3.3 cents on R&D. Of every dollar Microsoft takes in, they spend 13.9 cents on R&D. As I said, even GM has billions in gross sales...
johnpapola
on Nov 22, 2008
Oh the hypocrisy!  Paul, the energy you expend in umbrage taking about Apple's advertising is truly insane.  I'm not saying that Apple's spot about ad spending isn't hypocritical. It clearly is. On the flip side, the perception out there is that Vista is broken and Leopard is solid, so that spot still resonates. That it clearly personally bothers you a great deal, I find that hilarious.  Then again, you may be one of the few people not officially on Microsoft's payroll (as far as we know) that has universally praised The Mojave Experiment, The Seinfeld Fiasco campaign and this brand-eliminating "I'm A PC" campaign. The very idea that Apple has "Jumped the Shark" is so ludicrous it's downright bizarre. Did you even stop for a second to consider that, for the past two years, Apple has been in the process of launching the iPhone?  That this is a brand new business for them in a very competitive environment?  That you might just need to advertise like crazy if you want to be successful in such a venture? . And would you look at that!  The iPhone is a skyrocket success, surpassing RIM to become the #1 smartphone last quarter in just 15 months.  I'd call that a worthwhile and effective use of all resources especially advertising. Oh, and let's review the actual broader numbers here for a minute: Apple Annual revenue: 2005: 13.9 Billion 2006: 19.3 Billion 2007: 24 Billion 2008: 32 Billion And these are GAAP numbers. Counting the iphone revenue in the quarter that they sold would push up 2008 by something north of 5 Billion MORE. I believe that Mac unit sales mirror this revenue rise. So... Jumped the shark? JUMPED THE SHARK? Only in your dreams, Paul. Oh... and we don't know the breakdown of Get-a-mac vs iPhone ad spends. Apple may have only spent $150 million on Mac advertising. Never mind the fact that you're ignoring print and other media buys. Apple is using targeted, effective messaging in their ads.  That these ads are effective is indisputable, which is why Microsoft has responded directly to them (a big strategic mistake).  That Microsoft is so utterly inept at branding is what you Redmond shills should really be spending your energy on.  Then again, clearly you and Mike have no clue what advertising or business in general really involves. "Yes. Mac sales are up but not enough to justify the money spent on the ads.  For the money Apple spent, they could have given out a couple of million Mac Minis for free and gotten a bump just about as big for the money spent" - Mike Galos. First of all, the numbers above make everything that comes from you about Apple a joke, Mike. A total joke. But I gotta love your business model.  Instead of maximizing your profit while driving awareness, just give your product away for free in pursuit of "market share" as if that has any inherent value at all (it doesn't).  I guess this is in line with your generally socialist outlooks, Mike.  I realize that price dumping has been a staple strategy for Microsoft for decades, but it is a strategy dependent on a monopoly income source.  Don't expect a call from Forbes look for new business analysis, Mike. Here's a little mental experiment. Imagine a campaign by GM where John Hodgeman plays a Toyota and and Justin Long plays a Chevy. Let's assume the comic timing and production is the same as the Apple ads. Now, imagine a spot where Chevy mocks Toyota for having terrible construction quality and poor resale value. Again, imagine it was done in funny, clever way. Would that ad work? Of course not. Ads don't resonate unless their message rings true. Apple's ads work because there are plenty of people having trouble with Vista out there. For those people, the "I'm a PC" ads fail. Well, the I'm a PC ads fail in general in everything but production value, but I digress. ps: Mike, you're really living in another dimension. Seriously.
johnpapola
on Nov 22, 2008
"I can't see why you'd think that Steve Jobs would allow for an easy open case and user upgradable RAM and HD when that's completely against everything he's every stood for." Um... except that both the Macbook, Macbook Pro, iMac and Mac Pro all allow precisely that. So, again, what planet are you on?
Lindy
on Nov 22, 2008
Here is the Mini rumor... http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/11/05/apple_tells_mac_mini_fan_t... Its demise has been long rumored. Only time will tell. If its going to be upgraded I would bet in would be in Jan at the Apple event. Also I bet the Mac Pro will get the new i7. All Macs use notebook CPU's, except for the Mac Pro, so that is probably why no iMac with i7 right now. The ram and HD in are consumer upgradable in the Macbook and Macbook Pro, have been for a while. The iMac is the same for RAM, the ram slot for the iMac is at the bottom of the screen, tilt up, one screw and pull out.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use