[lookmark]

I'm sure everyone's noticed that Apple's been real quiet on advertising Mac OS X. It's becoming increasingly noticable as the Win XP ad juggernaut is becoming to roll into place.

Gene Steinberg has an opinion piece about it in his Night Owl column here.

The thing he's missing -- as I understand it -- is there's simply no way Apple can compete with Microsoft if they compete head-on.

Not only does MS outmatch Apple in budget and power ten (or more?) to one, but what Apple is asking for when they advertise OS X is to buy a new computer. All Microsoft is asking w/ XP is to pay $100 to upgrade to a new piece of software. This isn't something Apple can compete with head to head. They have to go about it sideways.

It's important to raise public consciousness of OS X, what it is and what it can do, but what result can tens of millions of ad dollars bring? Are people going to buy a new Mac solely because of OS X?
Some people will -- people really sick of Windows, UNIXheads, people who loathe MS -- but not your average consumer.

Apple's main hook to consumers is still hardware, its design, and its suite of iApps that are useful and easy and delightful to use. OS X is -- for the moment -- just the frosting on the cake. (Or the chocolately goodness inside? Pick your metaphor.)

That's why I think Apple is choosing the quiet campaign. Maybe we'll see a small blitz to balance the XP hype in the next few weeks, but by and large it seems they're quietly promoting OS X to the science and tech community, the IT community, higher ed., and to Mac users (via their site)... for the consumer market they're waiting.

I think what we'll see instead is OS X slowly work its way into ads campaigns for all Apple products -- for example, when(ever!) Apple releases a new iMac, OS X might be featured, if briefly.

But OS X, for a while, will be just another factor subservient to other, more (advertising-wise) graspable notions.

Unless 10.2/10.5 includes some very spiffy new iApp, of course...

[Keda]

I think the main reason is still a lack of Apps.

I use X at home, but at work , I would be in classic 90% of the time. This sux, but Im not even going to put it on my moms iBook until I can give wer Werd too.

As for myself, I NEED PhotoShop, Illustrator, DreamWeaver...the list goes on.

The circumstances are unfortunate, but I think Apple has a long way to go b4 they are ready to advertise OSX.

[lookmark]

Agreed. Same here. Apple can't even begin advertising OS X to design and professional until those apps are carbonized.

The average consumer, though, doesn't need professional design software.

Note that Apple's putting an emphasis on carbonizing on their own consumer apps (iTunes, iMovies, Appleworks, iDVD) before their professional apps (FCP, DVD Studio Pro, etc). They're definitely gearing up.

It's a good point about Word, though. They are forced to sit pretty quiet until Office is carbonized and available.

[Nonsuch]

Apple can't advertise an OS that isn't even the default OS on their computers. Apparently not even 10.1 is deemed sufficient: now we're hearing OS X will be the bootup OS with version 10.2 in January.

At that time Apple could conceivably make the effort to advertise to the general buying public. The XP hype will have died down by then, assuming it even gets that intense; many are predicting it's going to be a dud.

[Sven G]

Personally, I think that Mac OS X is the best desktop OS ever, and it has even some great potential to become a really viable Windows alternative (who knows...?). But...

... it's still *quite buggy* and incompatible with fairly recent peripherals (see external CD-RWs, etc., just to make an example): Apple should definitely be able to support almost *any* USB and FireWire peripheral before they can make any serious advertising about Mac OS X - so, I guess that the real thing will (hopefully!) be at the 10.2-10.5 release...

[ 10-11-2001: Message edited by: Sven G ]

[BZ]

There is good reason NOT to promote OS X (and believe me, I love it and have been using it since 3/24/01 on two machnies, full time) and that is b/c we are in a downturning economy. Why blow millions of dollars to an audience that is not going to buy something.

I think what they are doing is the right thing. Put it on every machine, go after the users who WANT it (there are millions) and wait till we hit Steve's 24th hour before launching major advertising.

The KILLER combination will be a new iMac (flat screen, G4, cool as hell) with OS X 10.2 (all features of 9 plus faster) as the default OS.

The first post was right in that they need people to buy boxes more than they need them to install OS X.

Personally I have seen some recent PC friends seriously considering a whole new Mac set up (Quicksilver or TiG4) for the applications like iMovie and OS X.

BZ

[dextrome]

Not only does MS outmatch Apple in budget and power ten (or more?) to one, but what Apple is asking for when they advertise OS X is to buy a new computer. All Microsoft is asking w/ XP is to pay $100 to upgrade to a new piece of software.

Actually, performance-wise, you're much better off with a 1-2 year computer with OS X than you are with XP. XP absolutely demands the latest PC for acceptable performance. As far as the end user experience goes, OS X is much easier to install than XP, many are even reccomending buying a new computer if you want XP over upgrading, as Microsoft has made it a real pain with the new 'call Microsoft before you switch your mouse to get a new serial' deal. But the OEM version doesn't have this restriction, XP just uses the motherboards serial number as an identifier, leaving you free to customize to your heart's desire (excluding the motherboard).