[Vincent Ferrari]

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/...-regulator.html

"Britain's strict ad-standards regulators offered a Christmas gift to Apple yesterday: it ruled that ads claiming Windows is less stable than OSX--and more vulnerable to infection-- were truthful. Despite a history of correcting Apple's hyperbolic marketing, it did not uphold a round of complaints filed against the "I'm a Mac" campaign. 'We considered that people would understand [the ad] to mean viruses that infected Windows based PCs would not infect Macs and that Macs were less likely to be infected by viruses than those PCs; not that Macs would never be infected by viruses and did not require virus protection. ... We concluded therefore that the ad was not irresponsible or likely to mislead.'"

Most people using their God-given common sense understand the distinction, and thankfully so do the regulators in the UK.  The key in their ruling is that the ads do not give the impression that viruses never would infect a Mac.  Most Mac users know that it's only a matter of time before we have to deal with viruses just like our Windows brethren, but that time isn't now and may not be for a long time.  It could also be tomorrow.  It just isn't today.

I think it's time we stopped arguing the truth of ads, lest I haul out the utter stupidity of the "Mojave Experiment" where users were advised to watch an expert use Vista instead of using it themselves and then show how they formulated the conclusion that it was "easy to use."  I mean, if you want to go deceptive, isn't it a bit deceptive to have someone say something is easy to use when they never laid their hands on it?

Just sayin'.

For more insight, hit up the link above.  The ad standards folks had a thing or two to say about those ads and their voracity.

[Vincent Ferrari]

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/...-regulator.html

"Britain's strict ad-standards regulators offered a Christmas gift to Apple yesterday: it ruled that ads claiming Windows is less stable than OSX--and more vulnerable to infection-- were truthful. Despite a history of correcting Apple's hyperbolic marketing, it did not uphold a round of complaints filed against the "I'm a Mac" campaign. 'We considered that people would understand [the ad] to mean viruses that infected Windows based PCs would not infect Macs and that Macs were less likely to be infected by viruses than those PCs; not that Macs would never be infected by viruses and did not require virus protection. ... We concluded therefore that the ad was not irresponsible or likely to mislead.'"

Most people using their God-given common sense understand the distinction, and thankfully so do the regulators in the UK.  The key in their ruling is that the ads do not give the impression that viruses never would infect a Mac.  Most Mac users know that it's only a matter of time before we have to deal with viruses just like our Windows brethren, but that time isn't now and may not be for a long time.  It could also be tomorrow.  It just isn't today.

I think it's time we stopped arguing the truth of ads, lest I haul out the utter stupidity of the "Mojave Experiment" where users were advised to watch an expert use Vista instead of using it themselves and then show how they formulated the conclusion that it was "easy to use."  I mean, if you want to go deceptive, isn't it a bit deceptive to have someone say something is easy to use when they never laid their hands on it?

Just sayin'.

For more insight, hit up the link above.  The ad standards folks had a thing or two to say about those ads and their voracity.

[gmontielh]

Oh my gosh!... To our UK PC friends please get a life and buy a Mac as a New Year resolution. All the best for 2009!

[doogald]

I never really understood how the Mojave ads help Microsoft. Basically they seem to be saying that the only reason you did not like Vista is because you were too dumb to use it properly? But then I did not get the Seinfeld ads, either (though the ten million dollar cupcake Mac ad otherwise never would have been made, I guess.)

As for checking the veracity of ads, I'd rather they be truth checked than not. Otherwise we'd never see those entertaining ads about some new drug for rheumatoid arthritis that causes fatal lymphoma in rare cases. Where's the fun in those drug ads otherwise?

[Vincent Ferrari]

Originally Posted by doogald

I never really understood how the Mojave ads help Microsoft. Basically they seem to be saying that the only reason you did not like Vista is because you were too dumb to use it properly?

And that you're just being mislead by the evil media and evil Apple, the big bad bully with 1/10 the market share ;-)

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by Vincent Ferrari

I mean, if you want to go deceptive, isn't it a bit deceptive to have someone say something is easy to use when they never laid their hands on it?

You mean like every iPhone and iPod Touch commercial every made, where a hand shows you how easy it is to use, with faked 3G speeds showing you an experience that isn't close to reality? Yes, quite deceptive. I'm glad we agree on that point.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by doogald

I never really understood how the Mojave ads help Microsoft. Basically they seem to be saying that the only reason you did not like Vista is because you were too dumb to use it properly?

I think it's fair to say that the people reading this site are several notches in technical knowledge above an average person. I know lots of average people, and more than a few of them have told me they "hate" Vista and without exception none of them have any real reasons beyond "Well, I heard it wasn't any good". Apple's attack ads have been DEADLY effective - some of the best smear campaigning I've ever seen. And let's face it, Microsoft made some major blunders with Vista that, when run through the echo chamber that is Web tech pundits, seems like a deafening roar - but the reality of the marketplace is quite different than what we see here.

Mojave targets people who are ignorant about Vista, and shows them at a high level that Vista isn't the operating system they thought it was. Is it a perfect representation of reality? No, but what marketing ever is?

Are there legitimate reasons for people not to like Vista? Sure, you bet. I know other, more experienced computer users that have tried Vista and gone back to XP or switched to OS X. They made an informed decision about Vista, just like I imagine most everyone here has. The reality is that a good portion of the opinions out there from Joe Consumer about Vista is based on ignorance - and the Mojave campaign is simply pointing that out.

Originally Posted by doogald

But then I did not get the Seinfeld ads, either (though the ten million dollar cupcake Mac ad otherwise never would have been made, I guess.)

I thought the ads were funny, but they certainly didn't go anywhere meaningful - definitely a waste of money seeing as nothing has come out to build upon the ads. As teasers, something to get your attention, they worked - but they needed to be followed up with something that made sense...and they didn't, so it looks like it was a waste.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by Vincent Ferrari

And that you're just being mislead by the evil media and evil Apple, the big bad bully with 1/10 the market share ;-)

Apple 'aint evil, but they are a company that spends more marketing dollars, comparatively, than Microsoft - despite their smarmy commercial indicating otherwise. Apple has some of the smartest, most effective marketing in the world, and if you think that's 100% truthful and didn't impact public opinion about Vista, you need to drink less Jobsian Kool-Aid my friend.