The New Apple Adverts

Well, Apple have come out with a new set of their (in)famous Mac/PC adverts. Surprisingly, this time round I find that I’m not paralysed with rage — just mildly disgusted and disappointed — and can write about them. Obviously, I should make it absolutely clear that, as adverts, I hate them. They’re patronising, confrontational and almost exclusively focus on perceived shortcomings of the opposition. But, as usual, they also make some claims that are generating some … debate around the net, and I thought — as user of both Macs and PCs without (I hope) any particular partisan leanings — I’d be well placed to pick them apart and give an objective review of their claims.

So without any further ado, here are my thoughts on the ads:

Legal Copy

This one is weird. I’m not quite sure what it’s trying to claim. That Apple machines don’t auto-update? Not true. That they don’t make you agree to click-through licenses when they do so? Also not true. About the only justifiable claim I could see here is that PCs tend to have a higher volume of auto-updates. But then the vast majority of them are Windows Defender updates that don’t have a click-through anyway. If I had to make a call, I’d say I do more clicking-through of licenses loaded with Legal Copy on my Mac than I do on my PC.

As far as I can see, this one is out-and-out dishonest.

Biohazard

This is probably the most contentious issue raised by the new (and old) PC/Mac ads. Apple have always insisted that Macs don’t have viruses, and that PCs are much more at risk of infection or being hacked. But then they do things like quietly post advice to run anti-virus software on their support forums, and PC users are understandably quick to jump on that as evidence that Macs aren’t so safe as Apple would have us believe. So what is the deal? Can a Mac really hang around in his casuals while nearby PCs are forced into isolation suits?

I’m going to say yes, but with a honking caveat. The fundamental truth of the issue is that there are almost no malware threats to the Mac; there have been about five actual cases of OSX malware making any headway at all in the wild. Compare that to the thousands of different PC malware threats released into the wild every month, to the tens of millions of PCs actively enlisted in botnets and the difference is so stark as to almost make Apple’s complacency justified. Almost.

The point is that the reason OSX is largely safe from malware attack is that there is no malware to be attacked by. It’s not that OSX is some magical virus-proof wonder-OS; it’s that it has too small a market-share to be worth a cyber-criminal’s time. If Apple continue to grow their market-share then sooner or later someone’s going to go for them, and I suspect that when that happens Apple, and the wider Mac community, will be woefully unprepared. There’ll be a few hectic months while everyone and his dog gets infected, Apple rush to get a fix out, play catchup for half a year and finally get on top of the problem. At least as much as any other platform has.

I’ve heard it suggested that telling people they don’t need virus protection is irresponsible because it means that when a threat does arise, people won’t be protected. I don’t really agree, for a couple of reasons. Firstly and most generally, I’m not convinced of the utility of anti-virus software on any platform. Consumers spend millions of dollars a year on Windows anti-virus software, and infection rates are still through the roof. Not only that but anti-virus software itself feels a lot like malware to me; it insinuates itself in every corner of your OS, gives you no control over what it does or when, often kills a machine’s performance, and all for what seems to be very little gain.

So given that anti-virus software is expensive, ineffective and detrimental to a machine’s day to day running, I fail to see how advocating it’s use on a platform that doesn’t currently need for it would be a responsible act. Especially given my second point, which is that no-one really know what Mac malware will look like when it appears, and until they do, how can anyone write software that has a fighting chance of countering it? It’s true that there are certain standard patterns to malware design, and by looking out for those existing software might get lucky, but my guess is that it’ll take six months after the first real wave of infections for the anti-virus companies to get up to speed on the sorts of exploits real malware takes advantage of and how to close the security holes.

Those six months should be plenty of time for Apple to reverse its message on viruses and get started on what will, in all likelihood, be a continent-sized pile of humble pie.

So, er, to get back to the point of the advert, is it true that Macs don’t have to worry about viruses? I’m going to say yes. But with caveats.

Stacks

Another odd one this. I get the feeling they were just trying to advertise that iPhoto has this neat new feature, but had to dress it up in their usual confrontational format to make it fit the ad-campaign. I mean, everything they say and imply is sort-of fair enough; iPhoto does ship with every Mac, and does have facial recognition, where an out-of-the-box PC is much more limited; it’s just that that’s not a particularly convincing point to make. Yeah, I guess organising photos by facial recognition is sort-of neat (when it works,) and it’s nice that it ships with Macs by default, but it’s not like the technology is unheard-of on the PC; there is free, easily available software (Picasa), that does it just as well.

This also is my favourite of these four new ads, because it highlights the overarching mistake Apple has made with the whole campaign; the PC is just a much more likeable character. It’s always true, but I think doubly so in this one.

So are the advert’s claims true? Yes, I think so, just also pointless.

Time Traveller

Appalling.

This sort of mud-slinging just pisses everyone off. It effectively says “PCs hang and crash all the time,” which, without justification or stats, is just the advertising equivalent of “PCs smell of poo!”

Having said that, I have to add: subjectively, my experience has been that my Macs have been more stable than my PCs. That’s not to say that I’m a typical case, or that my experience is necessarily representative; it’s just what I’ve noted over the past half-a-decade or so.

I’m not going to let my subjective experience colour my judgement on this one though; it’s just not justifiable to make these kinds of claims without support. False.

The End

So there you have it. I reckon roughly a 50% hit rate on truth, only one advert that actually has a convincing argument for buying a Mac, and even that one is so heavily caveated as to make the statement in isolation borderline dishonest.

It’s a real shame Apple insist on sticking to this advertising campaign; as far as I can see, all it does is alienate people. It’s doubly frustrating to me because Apple make great products that I really like. I love both my Macs, and while not everybody is going to like them, they are definitely good enough to sell on their own merits without needing to constantly bad-mouth the opposition. Now, if only Apple would actually tell people what those merits are.

Comments

That PC guy is awesome. I'm not sure why they chose Justin Long to play the mac he typically is associated with slacker geek roles. It just comes off as condescending and elitist.

Beyond the issues with the content I really don't see who they are trying to hook with this stuff. Everyone seems to hate the adverts they as you say they are extremely negative. At least with the old switch adverts they were saying what it was people liked about the thing and why someone might want to use apple instead of something else. It's interesting that the "I'm A PC" adverts that Microsoft is now churning out basically do exactly that they have normal* (*who are probably actors) people talking about what they like about the platform. Those adverts still annoy me a little but at least they are positive.

I mean not that the pc side of the equation hasn't done odd advertising choices (I'm still trying to work out that bill gates and jerry sienfelt thing and what the hell they were thinking) but they tend to bury stuff that doesn't work and by it's nature the pc stuff tends to be more random since there isn't one overriding master control ruling the platform with an iron fist bar maybe microsoft who even then are pushing one bit of the system.

These adverts are very american in their construction since they directly attack their competition only the fact that the competition is the nebulous non single source PC makes them legal in this country. But directly attacking you competitor in advertising is allowed to do and is something american tv seems to love doing.

Apple are already associated with what I like to call the fisherprice My First PC end of the market. Computers for people who can't use computers because they are too young or old or what have you. They stake their reputation on being easy to use and while I have arguments with that it is the prevailing opinion they have insinuated in the collective conciousness. But that's not a big market and they would need to expand their target audience to include something other than hardcore fans and casual users if they wanted to gain more market share. Plus given they tend to be on the expensive end of things and given the current climate they would need to do a lot more to convince people they were worth the premium they carry.

I'm not sure these adverts gain them anything.

Evilmatt's picture

They need to grow up.

I agree with everything you've said. How would Apple deal with an outbreak of seriously evil malware? They'd probably issue a security fix like any other software company and continue to go on about how virus-free they are in the adverts.

Perception is truth and this is not more true anywhere than in the eyes of a consumer.

brainwipe's picture

I was struck by an interesting analogy this morning. Once the swelling had reduced I gave it a bit of thought, and I think it holds true...

Apple are the left-handers of the computer world (with respect to desktops, at least). The comparative market shares are similar (on or about 5% of the total populace), and their benefit comes almost fully from that low, yet steady percentage.

Looking at left-handers first, there is a lot of shit and counter-shit thrown around about the differences between left and right handers;

  • More artistic
  • Sinister
  • Creative
  • Clumsy

...and so on, and so on. Ultimately, however, being left-handed comes down to 2 differences.

  • Due to economic factors, most stuff is designed with right-handers in mind
  • You get a free cheap shot

The second point there is really the sole evolutionary factor as to why left-handers exist...their very rarity means that pretty much everyone (including other left-handers) is hard-wired to react to a right-handed opponent, and thus is caught off-guard.

Lets compare this to Apple vs PC. Apple's are equally rare, and there are very little viruses out there. It's their cheap-shot...they are so rare it's simply not worth preparing for them. If they had a 50% market share it would be a completely different story, and they would undoubtedly be shown to be just as leaky as a PC.

The other side (market factors) also shows itself, and most software companies cannot be arsed to re-release software for Apple, as the returns are so much smaller due to the limited market.

Everything else is effectively bullshit and fluff...there is virtually no difference, and any there is can very much be seen as subjective. What Apple do insist on trying to do, however, is claim that Left-Handers are better, rather than different. It would be like me proclaiming with absolute certainty that as a left-hander I am superior to all right-handers both artistically, morally, sexually and atomically...

...I am, obviously, but thats nothing to do with being left-handed, it's just the way I am.

babychaos's picture