Microsoft Uses "I'm a PC" Character In New Ads

arcticstoat writes to tell us that in the wake of their largely unsuccessful Jerry Seinfeld ad campaign Microsoft is setting their sights directly on recent Apple ads by featuring the "I'm a PC" character in their new advertising campaign. "He then follows this with another phrase, such as 'and I've been made into a stereotype' before the advert shifts to a range of people performing a diverse assortment of jobs, all of which also say they're a PC. Among those featured are astronaut Bernard Harris, as well as religious author Deepak Chopra and 'Desperate Housewives' actress Eva Longoria. The ad also features a wide range of anonymous people, including a shark diver, a teacher and a guy with a beard."

Ad Video

[The Moof]

I'm a PC [youtube.com]

Re:New ads

[UnknowingFool]

In the Apple ads, both characters personify the machines and not the users. Most people unfortunately are extrapolating that Hodgeman represents the average PC user. It is clear that he represents the average PC machine and Justin Long represents Mac. What Apple is doing is just classic advertising. "Our product is better than that other product. It has these strengths. . ." It's no different than the old commercials where Brand A floor cleaner was compared to be more effective than Brand X. But just like any other product some people identify with the product and miss the message. "Hey I'm Brand X! I'm effective not matter what that commercial says! I'm offended!"

Re:Guh.

[SydShamino]

Because "false advertising" depends on the definition of "false". In this case, true or false depends on the definition of "PC".

The common definition may be (lifted from Wikipedia): "A personal computer (PC) is any computer whose original sales price, size, and capabilities make it useful for individuals, and which is intended to be operated directly by an end user, with no intervening computer operator."

But here's another definition, from Business Dictionary: "A computer designed for use by a single user. Although other Microcomputers preceded it, the IBM PC was the first to use the name specifically. As a result, the term PC now applies to an IBM-compatible computer as contrasted to the Apple Macintosh, these being the two standards that emerged from an abundance of competitors in the early 1980s."

This definition has certainly ignored the transition of Apple to Intel processors, but it's not a long stretch to consider the definition of "PC" in some circles to strictly mean a computer in the IBM legacy chain, meaning something running DOS or a DOS derivative or successor, including Windows.

I do find it disingenuous, though, that neither Apple nor Microsoft distinguish between "PCs" running Windows and those running Linux, and I've never seen a definition of PC that contrasted or excluded Linux systems (since of course the have always run on IBM-legacy hardware).

That didn't happen.

[argent]

From TFA: "Mr. Gates and Mr. Jobs announced that Microsoft would inject more than $150 million into Apple and take other steps to guarantee Apple's near-term survival."

From reality, this was a face-saving way for Bill Gates to close a legal settlement between Microsoft and Apple. More details:

On August 6, 1997 Steve Jobs announced that Microsoft would be investing $150 million in Apple and was committing to producing Microsoft Office for the Macintosh for at least five more years.

Q: The deal included a technology sharing agreement between the companies. What was that all about?
A: The driving force in this deal was the resolution of a long-standing dispute over patents.

Q: The investment was in non-voting stock, which Microsoft was committed to holding for a minimum of three years. If the investment was a "gift" on Microsoft's part, why the three year minimum term?
A: Because it wasn't a gift -- this is how the companies worked out their legal differences. Additional cash was quietly exchanged behind the scenes. How much was not disclosed.

Q: Microsoft committed to Office for the Mac for five years. If this commitment was completely voluntary, how can the five year term be explained?
A: It can't be explained that way, because it wasn't voluntary. These were the agreed-upon terms.

A few of most common myths about the Microsoft-Apple deal debunked:

Myth 1: Without Microsoft's investment, Apple was doomed.
Reality: Apple had lost over $1 billion in the 18 months before the investment, but in August 1997, they still had $1.2 million in cash on-hand and annual sales of around $7 billion. The $150 million investment did not "save" Apple, though arguably the positive publicity did.

Myth 2: Microsoft was acting to preserve their market for Mac Office.
Reality 2: A nonsensical argument. Was the Mac's 5% market-share worth $150 million to Microsoft? If Apple went out of business, would Apple's former customers revert to yellow legal tablets and pocket calculators before they'd buy a Windows computer and Office for Windows?

Myth 3: Microsoft invested in Apple to give them "cover" in the on-going federal antitrust investigation.
Reality 3: This assumes Microsoft's commitments were essential to Apple's survival. If this is so, does Microsoft's ability to issue a life or death sentence over their only competitor make them look MORE or LESS like a monopoly? In fact, within weeks of the announcement, the deal was investigated by the Department of Justice. If this move was intended to give Microsoft breathing room in the antitrust case, then it certainly didn't work. It didn't, because it wasn't.

Myth 4: This deal was a "big win" for Bill Gates.
Reality 4: Apple gained at least $150 million, Microsoft's public endorsement, and a lot of positive press. What did Microsoft gain? Bill Gates appeared on a big screen at MacWorld, where he was roundly booed by the audience. They also got Apple to call MSIE the Mac's "default" browser, even though Apple would still be distributing Netscape. This fabulous deal only cost Microsoft $150 million, and then some.

Myth 5: Microsoft owns a big part of Apple.
Reality 5: At the time it occurred in 1997, the $150 million investment amounted to roughly 5% of Apple's market capitalization, but was held in a special class of nonvoting shares. According to the terms of the deal, Microsoft was allowed to liquidate these shares in three years, which they've almost certainly done by now.

You = AstroBoy

[greg_barton]

Nice cover story there, AstroBoy! Way to go, TurfSmurf!

Re:New ads

[TobyRush]

The trouble is Apple doesn't get it either. John Hodgman's "PC" over time has developed a sympathetic cachet; everyone I know loves the apple ads, but we are all rooting for the poor PC who just keeps taking the hits.

Of course everyone is rooting for Hodgman -- he's the star of the commercials. But people are watching the commercials, laughing at them, calling their spouses in to the living room saying, "Hey, there's a new one on"... that's advertising success. The point is to have people remembering how cool those commercials for Apple were when they are thinking of buying a new computer.

The new MS ad actually appeals to them, its a little vindication for 'poor PC'.

I disagree. If Charlie Brown started repeatedly kicking Lucy in the head in a fit of long-suppressed rage, we might sympathize, but I'm guessing readership would probably drop off a bit.

Re:Guh.

[Aphoxema]

1: excessive or blind patriotism
2: undue partiality or attachment to a group or place to which one belongs or has belonged
3: an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex ; also : behavior expressive of such an attitude

Re:New ads

[oatworm]

Actually, they have 18 MS distributors [microsoft.com].

The more you know.

Re:New ads

[synthespian]

Yeah! Me too! I went out and donated my Mac to the Salvation Army and my Unix boxen got sent to Africa, and I got me THREE BRAND NEW COMPUTERS WITH VISTA INSTALLED!

Oh, boy! Talk about eye candy!

Couldn't get the wireless at the hotel lobby to work, though...

Re:New ads

[MadMidnightBomber]

Peep Show: http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/P/peep_show/ [channel4.com]

Re:"Hi, I'm a PC, and I run Linux"

[RocketRabbit]

I wouldn't say that Linux is "just like" the Mac. From 1994 until 2000 I used Linux to a greater or lesser degree. I also occasionally used BeOS and always had a Windows partition around for gaming. In 2000 I switched to using FreeBSD and that was an upgrade in my opinion. In 2002 I got a Powerbook G4 and never looked back. Until this year, when I got the Mac Pro (finally replacing the Powerbook after 6 years!) I didn't use anything else, except a bit of gaming on the Windows Media Center my wife won at the state fair. I recently installed Ubuntu in Parallels, and noticed that it's decent, but X.org still has some serious shortcomings.

Color profiles still are not implemented in any meaningful way for starters, which for me is huge. Audio is nowhere near Apple's standards. I use Audio Units Lab quite frequently, and there is no real analog on Linux that I can get worked out straight. Quartz composer also has no rival on Linux. These are just fairly basic features that you get free with the OS. The argument that programming for the Mac is easier than anything else out there except maybe Smalltalk could be brought up. Additionally, I have plugged in a whole bunch of peripherals from heaven knows where, and they have all worked with no drivers or configuration needed.

I really still miss the /proc filesystem, though there are some similar features with the Mac. Also Apple for some reason neglected to take the jail facility from FreeBSD which blows my mind. OS X is not perfect, but Linux still has a long way to go and will never be "just like" OS X.

Re:New ads

[GaryPatterson]

The Mac ads have always been arrogant and condescending, and this is a major "up yours" to Apple.

The Mac ads may be considered arrogant and condescending to some Windows users who identify far too closely with their OS of choice. Step back a little, and look at them for the light-hearted ads they are.

And the tagline is absolutely perfect: "Life Without Walls". That's a direct hit on the most obnoxious characteristic of the Apple world -- the lock-in.

The tagline is atrocious. The next thought I had was "If there are no walls, why would I want Windows?"

The new ad from Microsoft is nice enough, but since Linux runs on PCs, it works every bit as well for Tux. Hell, it more or less works for OS X.

What was said about Windows in the last three ads? Buzz is nice enough, but when you're already the monopoly player you hardly need to get the word out. What reasons do people now have to buy Vista that they didn't know about before the last three ads?