MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Apple is groing at a pace they can handle. A company cannot grow so fast as to not support their current base. Part of the other issue is supply and demand. Apple is one company producing Macs, whereas you have umpteen-million or so companies producing PC clones. Gradual controllable growth is better than not being able to handle shortages of product.

Apple are growing fast enough, they're just about coping with iPod demands, mac sales are consistently going up, I see no problem. If they advertised heavily they'd really just end up with a load of customers they wouldn't be able to cope with, service or even supply machines to in the first place. If that happens they've then wasted advertising money and pissed some customers off.

It's true. The only way to find about about how cool Mac OS X is is to buy one and teach yourself to use it.

Apple never tells us a damn thing in their ads.

I agree with this analysis and have been saying this for years, on this site especially. That deal could not have been just a gift of cash to keep Apple afloat. There may be non-voting, but that doesn't mean there weren't huge conditions. No Office competition, no OS release to compete on IBM clones, even positive speak about M$.

The leadership of M$ has never been known for sportsmanship, even handedness, or compassion for competitors. There was a far bigger price to pay than we all know. Hopefully, it is not some sort of lifetime agreement.

And about Apple being able to grow fast enough. There is an awful lot of cash propping up Apple. iPod ramp up has been spectacular and could be matched in the PC arena if need be. Don't be silly, if Apple needed to expand, money talks.

I agree with Leo. One of Apple's strengths is their total control (of software, hardware, design, manufacturing, and user experience).

That same strength, however, is also Apple's weakness -- they will never be able to meet a flood of demand because they can't ramp up production fast enough.

iPods are significantly easier to manufacture than Macs, yet there's never been a Christmas season that Apple has been able meet demand, including this past one.

There's plenty of room for Apple to grow in the personal computer market but until they have the manufacturing and distribution infrastructure in place, there's no sense trying to juice demand beyond their capacity to deliver -- that would just lead to frustrated customers and pressure from financial types to raise prices.

Keep an eye on new Apple Store openings and announcements regarding increases in Apple's manufacturing capacity -- when a certain critical mass is reached, then watch for the advertising to follow.

Well he does have a point when it comes to the ads. I think the Mac Ads can be better at showing off what the Mac OS has to Offer.

I do agree with this line-
"Are Apple and their advertising agency (Chiat/Day) really so inept or are they just playing dumb for "undisclosed" reasons?"

I agree. I don't think it's a matter of not being able to sell the Mac, but rather choosing not to. I've said for years, being in Microsoft's position is great financially, but look at the problems they're having with Vista. Much of that is because they are so tied to legacy technology that they cannot change as much as they'd like because the entire world's infrastructure is built on top of it. They're stuck in a rut because they have the weight of the world on their backs, and it's causing them to sink. Apple, on the other hand, can pull off switching from from OS 9 to OS X, and PowerPC to Intel and the transition is like water off a duck's back. MS could never pull that off.

Apple's mission has always been about building the best products they can build, and they do. They've never been about selling the most. They're very profitable, and successful. If their sales increased suddenly they'd be inviting all sorts of other problems. They have trouble meeting they demand they already have.

Apple is growing nicely. Besides, some things are just difficult to show on TV. A PC can do almost anything a Mac can do, it's about experience. The Apple Stores have that covered like you said yourself: "visit their local Apple Retail Store and compare for themselves".

Every switcher I know had to see OS X for themselves and use it before buying.

I think you are wrong. What's your hurry anyway? You've got your Mac, why does everyone else in the world have to use one too? Sure it's better, but it's not the cure for AIDS or malaria.

Keep your perspective, man.

I'd like to see a general "Apple Technology" ad that showcases EVERYTHING Apple does. Right now people see Apple as mostly the iPod Company. I know, that's Apple's hot product, but people need to know that iPods are just the beginning.

Just pay the damn money back with a nice middle finger, too....

Screw MicroSuck.

Take a big step back, and think of yourself as a total (or nearly total) computer novice. Now, put OS X and XP side by side. Show people the dock and the start menu. Show them how to type in word, compose email, surf the web.

Now, really, ask yourself: is the average consumer *really* going to be able to tell a difference? The answer is no. There is no way in hell Apple could make a compelling commercial showing of OS X itself. Just...no...way...in...hell. Even something as cool as Spotlight, when condensed down to 30 seconds, would probably just cause the average consumer's eyes to glaze over. I think we all tend to forget that we live with our Macs, and study the differences between the two OSes, but most computer buyers don't do that.

Also, let's not forget that Apple has always been about what you can do with your computer, not what your computer does. Hence the "Rip,Mix,Burn" campaign, and the like. Now, why they don't advertise what you can do with iLife more often, I have no idea, but actually advertising the OS itself would be a waste of money.

MDN: Please organize a massive e-mial or letter-wrtiting campaign to Apple, and possibly major investment groups, that calls for advertising on the scale of the iPod.
Wouldn't these "analysts" ask questions during, say, conference calls about why Apple doesn't market the Mac?
Wouldn't shareholders like to know why?
Let's get this thing off the ground.
One headline on MDN may be enough to get us Mac users on a mission to spread the word, instead of having to do it on our own.
Help us MDN, you're our only hope.

Actually, hairbo, they can tell a difference, as long as they use them both a bit. I switched a complete techno-dunce to an ibook last year and she is flourishing on it because the computer simply does what she thinks it shoud do. Previously, she used Windows for practically nothing because it made no sense.

Even average users aren't dumb if given a chance.

I worked for an auto manufacturer in the 80's who used Chiat/Day.

Yes, they really are that inept.

At that time, and now with Apple, they seem to like to sell around the idea of "mystery"

Like: if I present you with the idea that I am mysterious, you will somehow be naturally attracted to me.

Well, if I want to buy a computer, I am not looking for mystery. I am looking for reasons why I should buy your computer (Operating System), and not someone elses.

Makes sense to me. But, If you don't have a clue who I am, or what I do, why would the fact that I am "mysterious" be attractive to you? I have no idea.

To give you a hint that may illustrate what I am talking about: the ad campaign that I refer to is the famous "Rocks and Trees" ads for Infiniti.
They never showed the car, just vague images of rocks and trees.

The rest is history. Lexus showed the cars, Infiniti did not, Infiniti almost did not survive, and only now is becoming a hot seller with a strong identifiable image.

Or like the old maid who never let anyone know how interesting she was, thus remaining an old maid. (if the truth be told, maybe that was what she really wanted, but then does not have the right to complain about it)

Production capacity; if there is reason to do it, production capacity can be increased if there is enough financial reason to provide the motivation to do it. It really is NOT rocket science. Build a new plant, contract someone to make the chips, etc.

Universal binaries could give Apple the chance to use anybody's chips, AMD, etc.

But it will NEVER HAPPEN unless people know the difference between Windows and OSX. Again, I don't think it is more complicated than that unless you are a person who likes to overcomplicate and overanalyze, and it appears Apple may have more than its' share of those people.

Someone will reply that Apple has a grand plan which is beyond the understanding of us peons on the street.

Possibly true, but I keep remembering the "rocks and trees" ads, and how long it took for Infiniti to recover. Great cars, had much more personality than Lexus, still does.
But it is only recently that people know that.

The original 5 year deal, was Microsoft investment and Office for the Mac in return for Internet Explorer being installed by default on all Macs. Microsoft dumped the stock all at once in Fall 2000, contributing to Apple's nasty trip that year that heralded the crash of the PC market (there was much ado about Apple's death, until earnings warning after earnings warning rolled in throughout the computer industry). Apple recovered the next quarter, Compaq was no more, Gateway lost most of its stores, and the deal was allowed to expire when the time was up.

This is a new deal. Internet Explorer for Mac is dead (but not mourned). Apple is strong and healthy, with a stock price nearly three times that of Microsoft, which definitely gives it the ability to bargain for a good deal this time, not just beg for help. From all the news on the subject, it is my understanding that the deal is simply that Microsoft will continue to develop Office for the Mac (and rake in the profits), while Apple makes available to them the development tools to do it with.

Saying the new deal with Microsoft is a continuation of the old is the same as saying the new deal between Pixar and Disney is going to put Pixar in the same bad position the old one did. Steve Jobs is too smart for that, and both of his companies are too strong for that now.

As for Mac sales, there have always been supply problems in the past. Core Duo is just ramping up production, no one else but Apple even has access to the new chips, and Apple has their hands full with a processor transition, with all the first version issues and software migration issues that entails. Wait for Core Duo to be available in the abundance Intel can provide, for the quirks to be ironed out, and all the software available, and watch Apple grow.

Besides, 20% growth in a year, during a period when people were expected to wait for the Intel based systems, is nothing to sneeze at. And PeeCees are dull, or Intel wouldn't have needed Apple to show PC makers how to make a computer using their chips. Poor Intel bunnymen are dying of boredom here, show them some compassion.

R,

Yes, you're right that people can start to tell the difference if they use the products. Hence, the Apple Stores. However, I'm talking about why we never see TV spots espousing the wonders of OS X.

Naraa Haras - extremely well-stated!

I totally agree with the analysis and have been saying this for years myself.
something was funny about that deal and M$ had the money to keep Apple alive. as much as I hate Windoze, Apple HAS to advertise the OS, thats the bottom line. The ads that apple produce are about revenge FOR MAC USERS...Windozs users don't give a Sh*t about the chip inside. its all about the Mac ego.

hairbo, gotcha'... I think we're on the same page.

Never suspect conspiracy if incompetence would achieve the same result.

"a product that is amazingly superior to the Windows platform"

Can somebody please explain to me, point by point, how an Apple machine is "amazingly superior” to a Wintel machine.

Even on http://www.xvsxp.com/ which offers a good blow by blow comparison...the differences are slight.

So true!!

"Never suspect conspiracy if incompetence would achieve the same result." BRILLIANT! =)

Apple, Think Different with your ad agency. Pick up a few copies of the last few Advertising Annuals from Communication Arts, visit the Advertising Cannes Lions website and you have your pick of international agencies big and small that are doing great work and would love your business.

1. Apple does not currently need to advertise the Mac. It is selling in large numbers and its marketshre is growing.

2. I don't see any TV ads from any computer company that shows what the computer can do. Dell's tried but now it is basically "Buy THIS for $500" It is hard to describe any product in 30 secs. (Actually I read once that the purpose of a TV ad is not to get new customers, but to maintain the current ones. This is not what Apple needs since its customer base is so loyal)

3. Does any Mac fan really want dominant marketshare? From what I've seen most of us are smug in our knowledge that our computers are better than the rest. How prestigious would driving a BMW be if everybody had one?

First! Rock on brother!

The "undisclosed" cash Microsoft paid to Apple in 1997 (not part of the $150 million in non voting stock purchase) was not in any way, shape or form, related to the "look and feel" fiasco.

The "look and feel" fiasco was settled in court a couple years before that. Apple lost. Apple got NO money out of it.

The undisclosed cash Microsoft paid to Apple was because Apple found Apple proprietary code relating to QuickTime in Microsoft software. (In Microsoft's defense... Both Apple and Microsoft used the same outside firm to develop parts of thier multimedia software. The firm re-used some code which Apple had paid them to develop [thus making it Apple's proprietary code] in their work for Microsoft's project. While Microsoft was clearly legally liable for having the QuickTime code in the MS software the the real screwup happened with the outside firm. -- Some conspiracy theorists would have us believe MS knew of the QuickTime code development and pressured the outside firm to include it in what they developed for MS. The general public will NEVER know if this is true or not.)

Effectively, Steve went to Bill and said, "You got caught with your hand in the cookie jar this time. We have clear proof. We can both pay lawyers millions of dollars, drag this through the courts and then you'll eventually have to pay us millions more. OR You can pay us XXX millions now [which, of course, we won't disclose] and this can all go away."

Because of Microsoft's exceptionally deep pockets they chose to make it go away by paying up.

This is not the first time MS got a late start on a software project, used somebody elses code, and then had to pay up because of it. It may not even be the last.

Yeah, it would be nice for them to advertise something besides the iPod. And even the mac commercial doesn't really feature the products or the software, it just shows a bunch of Intel guys in protective suits! In other words, the commercial is one for intel more than it is for Mac!

My God, Apple's made billions lately, how much does it cost to do a decent @#$@#$ing commercial?

"Even on http://www.xvsxp.com/ which offers a good blow by blow comparison...the differences are slight."

Not really. OS X easily outscores XP in their comparison. Besides, the way they have their scores weighted is very subjective. To some people, the fact that OS X has zero viruses is the only justification they need to show it is far superior.

They even say as much on their website...

"This scoring method sucks!
You're right, it does suck. The scores aren't weighted (web server vulnerabilities have the same weight as icons), and the scores don't take into account the fact that different people with different computing objectives will care more about different topics (One ambitious reader has created a weighted scores calculator). So unweighted scores is by no means meant as a definitive conclusion, but rather as a starting point for thoughtful discussion."

RE:"3. Does any Mac fan really want dominant marketshare? From what I've seen most of us are smug in our knowledge that our computers are better than the rest. How prestigious would driving a BMW be if everybody had one?"

What is good in any way about feeling smug that our computers are best?

I used to own a BMW, (worked for them also) and would have been happy if lots more people drove them.

So you use a Mac because of some prestige factor, not because they work better?

I want everyone to use the Mac because if they did, the world would work better than it does. We would all waste less time doing computer grunt work and have more time for important stuff.

Let TBWA/Chiat/Day know what we think of their supid ads for Apple. Write to . The guy is Director of Public Relations.

If TBWA/Chiat/Day almost killed Infinity (see kenh's post), do not let them do the same with Apple !

I say fire them !

Oh, I believe Chiat/Day is inept. Here's a story. I'll try to keep it as short as possible.

Because I need to watch my weight, I don't drink regular soda, but I can't stand the taste of diet. So when Coke came out with a diet version using Splenda instead of NutriSweet, I gave it a try. I liked it well enough, but I'd always preferred Pepsi, and I was bummed they didn't have a similar product.

Some searching on the web showed that they did: Pepsi One. "WTF?" I thought. I knew of Pepsi One. It came out in like 1998 or something and was considered by many of my friends to be the most disgusting cola ever created. I did some more searching. Pepsi One was reformulated in April of last year, using Splenda and creating a different taste. I bought some and I liked it.

So how the hell could this product have been on the shelf for well over six months and I hadn't heard of it? I did some more Google-digging. Pepsi made the "radical" decision to do absolutely no TV or radio advertising at all. Instead, they would promote the beverage through a "hip" website, oneify.com. I visited the website. It's full of "hip", "cool", "rad" cartoons, featuring dancing aliens and robots. These cartoons tell you nothing about Pepsi One. You have to dig to find one single boring page that describes the beverage. No wonder I hadn't heard of it!! It's amazing that anyone has!

What advertising agency came up with this useless crap? You guessed it: Chiat-fscking/Day. When I read that name, it all made sense. These idiots have no clue how to sell ANYTHING. All they know how to do is make 30-second art films.

Apple needs to ditch these guys before starting any serious ad campaign. (Oh, and give Pepsi One a try -- it's remarkably good.)

The "1984" Apple advertisment is considered one of the best, if not THE best ad of all time. So I find it hard to believe they don't know HOW to advertise the Mac to the masses. Unfortunately it also set the trend of not showing hardware when talking Mac.

It's hard to believe that the dearth of Mac ads is not deliberate, the question is, why? I can understand Apple being concerned about keeping growth under control so they don't expand like a balloon and burst. After all, this success is ten years in the making, very deliberate and methodical. Jobs' has played an amazing chess game so far and he could very well be within a move or two of checkmate.

Obviously the strategies they are using have worked for them so far. I'm happy to sit back to wait and see what Apple has in store for us.

Eric The Red: Bingo. Apple has been mostly using television since 1984 with the big brother Superbowl ad as non informational ads. I forget what that type of ad is called but it was taken to extremes in the mid 90's with the jean commercials that you had to spend time trying to figure out wtf they were pitching.

The only ads I've seen them do that seemed to work were the ones with kids using Macs to produce stuff. To see some of these http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/index.html

Notice that their ads comparing the Mac OS to Windows were just plain confusing not even funny or explanatory to anyone but a non Mac user. I think the Apple Stores are the best advertising so far with print coming in second. TV just does not do it for this subject matter unless you are simply selling image or form (iPod, iMac, etc.) not the OS.

I agree with ndelc -

Apple's mission has always been about building the best products they can build, and they do.

I think the best computers SHOULD be in the minority - if everyone had a Mac, we'd have no-one to pick on (M$!!) - but more importantly, if everyone had a G5 (and let's even say knew how to use it) we'd see a big water-down effect. If Apple doesn't push the bucket as hard as other 'clonable' OS's do - fine by me. If I can get by working in the minority (a proud little minority, if I do say) then great! The fact is, Mac users EXPECT MORE than our corporate-whore-MS counterparts - people are still using their computer as a means to end whereas mac users tend to step it up, and I think that's the reason that the 'creative' people are usually using Macs!

AppleReseller: Here's the thing: "mysterious", non-descriptive ads like the "1984" ad and, to a lesser extent, the original iPod ads, work if the product is something completely new. The Macintosh and the original iPod were two products that the public had never seen the like before, so all you need to do is fire up their curiosity.

But if you're selling something that's become a familiar product, such as a computer, an MP3 player, an automobile, or a diet cola, then the "mysterious" angle doesn't work. Everyone already knows what a Mac is (or more accurately, thinks they know). Everyone knows what an iPod or a Diet Pepsi is. There's no inherent excitement in the product anymore, no natural curiosity to mine. When that's the case, you have to show the product! You need to tell the buyer, "Yes, you know what a widget is, but our widgets are better, and here's why." Chiat/Day doesn't like to do that, which is why Apple needs to get rid of them.

"The gulf is very, very wide. And, yet, Apple seems wholly incapable of selling Macs to 80 percent or so of the world. Why?"

Because the rest of the world are just stupid, idiotic, talentless, evil, mindless, half-assed drones, sheep, monkeys.... etc.

Right?

C'mon Mac people - applaud that statement. You know you want to...

Uh, hello!?!? Has everyone completely forgotten the "Switch" ads?

You know, "5% down, 95% to go," or whatever. Complete with TV ads with regular people explaining the merits of the Mac.

That was only like, what, a couple of years ago.

How does that fit with your Microsoft conspiracy theory?

(Yes, I know the Switch campaign was discontinued but not before running for a decent little while. That's just as easily a "test run" as "someone made them shut it down")

Apple just gave cautionary guidance that it won't meet earnings expectations this quarter because it doesn't believe it can meet demand on the MacBook Pro.

Honestly, I think SteveJack needs to settle down a bit. He flew off the handle prematurely over the video content on the iTMS back in December and a short time later they announced the deal with NBC. Now today we have this.

As for advertising more, while I think it would be a good idea, I'm not sure really how necessary it is. Apple as a company is healthier now than ever and Mac marketshare has been steadily growing for over a year now. I fall into the camp of those that don't really care if the masses ever wise up or not. If they want to continue to use inferior Windows PCs then they can for all I care. Apple sells enough Macs now to keep them quite profitable and their share continues to grow every quarter.

If they were to ever undertake a massive Mac/OS X advertising campaign, now wouldn't be the time to do it. Once the Intel transition is complete would be a far better time to do such a thing. In the interim, there would be too much confusion over universal binaries for the uninformed masses to understand, and supply problems with the new chips as well.

Maybe Apple should revisit this a year from now, but this is not the time for it yet.

SteveJack!!!

I'm totally surprised you don't already know the answer, but of course if you didn't rehash the same old questions this site would be dead right?

The reason is that Apple always has a supply problem, the world settled on the x86 platform because IBM was big in buisness long ago and allowed their processors/PC's to be cloned by anyone, including Intel.

This opened the flood gates for anyone with enough money to build their own PC assembly companies.

Gateway, Compaq, Dell are just some of the recent large PC makers.

Microsoft Windows was the only OS that could be used with any PC.

Apple didn't license Mac OS, they continued with their hardware/OS only combination (aka "vertical buisness model) and lost market share rapidly.

Corporations settled on Microsoft, instead of the little hippie company called Apple.

The reason Apple doesn't advertise to heavily is because it can't meet demand that high at this time.

When Intel processors become more plentiful, that might change.

Remember when the PowerMac G5 first came out? Apple could not meet demand, in fact actually IBM couldn't meet demand was the problem.

IBM couldn't meet Microsoft's demand for X-Box processors either.

Apple will advertise the Mac more when they can meet the demand they create, just like it was with the iPod.

ITS A PLOT! THEY'RE DEPLETING OUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!

Apple should make a commercial showing a person filming their friend's band playing and then at home, making a cd of the music with iTunes, putting it on their iPod, creating a DVD of the footage using iMovie and iDVD and then using iPhoto/iWeb to post on the web and email pictures to friend's and family.
All with an iMac that looks like a flat panel monitor!

Lantzn, you got it. Ease of use trumps all.

Apple is wise to not overextend themselves at this point; Intel can't meet the demand for its chips, so Apple is holding back. Traditionally, Apple has had supply problems (and they still do). If they wait now, put some more infrastructure in place, then they can really hit the airwaves with some advertising.

I myself like "Mac. Now you have no excuse."

You know, I can see Apple waiting a few months, at most, to really start getting things rolling as far as advertising is concerned because not all of its computers are using intel yet.
The idea, though, that Apple doesn't want to sell Macs or doesn't want people chomping at the bit and standing in line to get them is ludicrous. This is just Apple's weak spot and they need to do something about it.
Again, I can't believe that someone at a shareholder's meeting doesn't stand up and blast them for being derelict in their duties.
Dell and Gateway don't worry about maving enough hardware or too many customers. The hardware is there and the only excuse would be not enough chips for the short-term. After a few months, though, Apple should be ashamed.
I, too, hate trying to spread the word and having to be on the defense when people ask me questions about Macs. They have NEVER heard of OS X or any of the iLife apps. NEVER! They've never heard of a Mac mini, either, which is supposed to be geared at switchers.
UGH! Come on Apple. Get your head out of your arse!
Oh, and the last ad I saw on TV was the Jeff Goldblum ad that showed a G5 tower blowing out part of a house. That's about as good as the Gateway fags running through the cow pasture.

Having been a Mac user since the begining (1984), I have to agree that, in my view, Apple has never advertised the Mac in an effective way to the braod audience. Generally, it seems to me that Mac ads to seem to be about establishing a certain aura and image, rather than providing information that would compel an average consumer to consider their product. In some ways, I get the feeling that Apple is too chic and cool to feel the need to condescend to the mass market. The result is the stereotype that Macs appeal to "arty" folks (graphics and publishing markets) who are in tune with "images", while the concrete, gritty, dirt-under-the-nails folks involved in the real world of production (i.e., business) opt for the tried-and-true, blue-collar, gets-the-job-done PC. In some ways, Apple's superior styling adds to these perceptions (refined, virgin white Macs that are design "statements" vs. the plain, utilitarian look of the average PC).

The irony, of course, is that Macs are arguably more utilitarian than PCs. Free from the ongoing headaches of virii, spyware, adware, configuration problems, hardware incompatbilities, etc., in most cases the average user could be more productive on a Mac. This is the core message that I think can and should be promoted in the Apple ads

Here's an idea that just occured to me.

Black screen: fade over black: "Some things about the Mac are just plain boring."
Fade to: rapid montage of newspaper headlines about Windows viruses and secrity holes. Audio track: sounds of guns firing, bombs dropping, explosions, and other battlefield related bits.
Then, imposed over the montage: "Number of Windows viruses to date:"
Underneath is one of those rolling counters, reading something like "102,257" The end digits, of course, would be constantly changing, like one of the national debt counters.
Fade to a peaceful, idyllic countryside with lots of deep blue skies. The only motion is a few flowers slowly swaying in the foreground. Audio track: a few birds chirping, slight wind sound, Overlay: Number of Mac OS X Viruses to Date:" Underneath, same rolling counter, that reads: 000,000" Image remains for 10 seconds. Fade to black. Fade in" Mac...It just works" (Alternatively, fade in "Yep. Pretty Boring.")

Well, uhm, how about Apple's financial report for last quarter and projection for next quarter available in Quicktime? Yeah, I guess nobody else listened to it...

Maybe I misinterpreted it, and that'd be easy considering how much they were dodging the questions, but there's two things that caught my attention that people here seem to be missing out on.

One is that Apple mentioned they were planning on advertising more this year, hence increase costs and a little bit lower overall profits starting next quarter. I believe they said it in a list of things they thought to be a worthwhile investment.

The other thing is that they practically said they didn't care about marketshare when selling. They just caring about making the coolest products on Earth.

Isn't that what really matters? Having a great product and people (us) who appreciate it? There's no OS wars or really ever was, or at least I never noticed it. I mean, you might as well say there's a cake war and argue about whether Betty Crocker is winning or not. It doesn't matter, let people eat what they want, even if it is cake and not a real meal.

So... Forget about marketshare because that's obviously not their goal but instead merely some (but not all) investors infatuation. And don't worry about advertising, it's on the way and it's just a matter of timing.

I'd say figure expect more ads about the same time they release the MacBook (p.k.a. iBook) and/or Mac mini with Intel. Then there would be more options for consumers (hardware options), Intel processors would hopefully be ramped up (hardware availability), and more Universal Binaries (native software availability), hence more enticing options and less valid criticism. The Mac Pro (new name for PowerMacs?) is really marketed toward the professional, so it's possible they won't wait for all of the hardware to transition.

"The reason Apple doesn't advertise to heavily is because it can't meet demand that high at this time."

Any why can't they? A real CEO would be demanding an answer from his company.

Of course I realize that Apple is very profitable right now, their stores are crowded, and there's high demand for certain products. But why stop there? Why limit yourself for the sake of being "cool"? In business you can NEVER be complacent, you can NEVER be happy with whatever market you have. You die if you do.

If anything, Apple is being quiet until the Macs have all gone Intel, and solid third-party (app and driver) has developed behind the new systems. THEN pull out the stops! Unfortunately that'll be right about the time MS's media engine will be revving up for Vista. It's a shame; this pre-Vista vacuum is such a golden chance to trumpet the Mac.

Gates and Jobs probably shot Kennedy, too...hell, maybe even Lincoln.

I agree that the folks at Apple probably know something we don't. Like, how to make boatloads of money and keep their customers pretty happy, and keep their business on an even keel and growing. Ain't that enough?

I can't quite figure out if you MDN folks mean this stuff to be taken seriously, or as a parody of nutzoid Mac-head-ism. If you're joking, you're good; if you're serious, you need to check out getting vaccinated for rabies...except I guess you have to get the vaccine before you get the disease, eh? Oops...

"The other thing is that they practically said they didn't care about marketshare when selling. They just caring about making the coolest products on Earth."

That's like Apple saying they should've stayed in the garage where they were founded. Jobs & Woz made some cool stuff there too.

I have to side with the conspiracy theories in that Apple seems to be intentionally grounding themselves. Buy why?? All we can do is trust that Apple see things in the market we don't.

Well, Microsoft does a great job with advertising, and they sell the most. So, by the standards set by this thread, I guess that makes them the best, no?

I can't understand why posters here are so obsessed with advertising and converting the unwashed masses and skyrocketing market share. Apple's on a tear. And I'm sure they know better than any of you what they're doing and how they plan to do it.

"Oh, Jerry, don't let's ask for the moon. We have the stars"
— Bette Davis
Now, Voyager