Alex, Oracle's advertising in the '8os was a yawn, and made Microsoft's look interesting. Iirc, it was big-business stuff with a dull, opaque high-tech finish. (And the CEO can be as colorful as he wants, as long as he doesn't drive his Maserati off a cliff.)

Frankly, I don't recall Apple's advertising from before the Mac. (Can't store everything online anymore.) Their break-though stuff certainly came with the Mac launch in 1984, but they were ramping up for it in '82-83 with promotions for Lisa and the Apple III. They had a good design team and an openness to innovative communications early on. Microsoft definitely did not.

What was intentional is that Msft set about to look like the safe business choice, while Apple was looking like the Anti-IBM. You can disagree all you want, but it's not really a matter of opinion. I was there.

In point of fact, there was a major struggle in 1982 to see what would be the major operating system on the PC: MS-DOS or CP/M. CP/M had the share of mind. D/R had unsophisticated marketing, and they were also asleep at the wheel (or taking the afternoon off) when opportunity (IBM) called. It was not a done deal, and it's only hindsight that makes it seem so.

You seem well enough informed that I assume you didn't read all this stuff in a book, but neither did I. (I'm not "seeing the effect," as you put it -- it's more like I'm having a combat flashback.)

But you do have some of the facts wrong -- i.e., the clones didn't "arrive," they were actually in production at the same time as the first IBM-PC. IBM just didn't care enough to pay a little more for an exclusive license to MS-DOS, making it possible for others to license it (though initially CP/M held the edge). A lot of what happened was the result of the contempt that IBM held for its own PC division, and, as you say, Microsoft was the beneficiary.

Apple, in refusing to license its operating system to other manufacturers, sided with the past, and lost a huge opportunity. It saw its operating system as a way to sell computers, rather than as an end in itself, and it was hobbled by the '60s-'70s concept of the proprietary operating system. (They literally failed to think outside the box.)

In the main, I agree with you -- the quality of Microsoft's marketing and brand-management were not the determining factors in Msft's success. But I think that Apple's marketing approach, which was clear and consistent, and elegantly done, may have contributed to its failure to thrive.

Gunn

The Infinite Matrix
http://www.infinitematrix.net/

Re pre-Mac Apple ads: apple-history.com has loads of stuff on all the different machines, including this print ad for the Apple I.

Great ad, Emma! Though I haven't checked, I believe this ad was done by Chiat Day, which was undeniably the greatest American technical ad agency of the '70s and the '80s. (May still be -- won't go there.) Apple had the sense to sign up with Chiat early on.

It's nice to see that, even though I personally don't have access to everything in neuro-chemical storage, some of this stuff is on the Web.

quote:

---

Originally posted by emma:
Re pre-Mac Apple ads: http://www.apple-history.com/ has loads of stuff on all the different machines, including this print ad for the http://www.apple-history.com/images/apple1.gif.

---

Gunn

The Infinite Matrix
http://www.infinitematrix.net/

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunn:
What was intentional is that Msft set about to look like the safe business choice, while Apple was looking like the Anti-IBM. You can disagree all you want, but it's not really a matter of opinion. I was there.

---

Of course, it looked like anti-IBM, but at that time IBM was entrenched for decades, anything that is not IBM had to be either supporting IBM, just like IBM, or anti-IBM. *BSD and Linux weren't developed to be anti-Microsoft either, they just happened to enter a market with a large player already being a "safe choice", and look what happened.

quote:

---

In point of fact, there was a major struggle in 1982 to see what would be the major operating system on the PC: MS-DOS or CP/M. CP/M had the share of mind. D/R had unsophisticated marketing, and they were also asleep at the wheel (or taking the afternoon off) when opportunity (IBM) called. It was not a done deal, and it's only hindsight that makes it seem so.

---

CP/M was ok until IBM made a decision to go with Microsoft's OS (that, ironically, at the moment was nothing but a CP/M port, that only later turned into what we know as MS-DOS). It's not clear for me if DR was really to blame, but IBM that didn't do their homework when making their choice certainly is.

quote:

---

You seem well enough informed that I assume you didn't read all this stuff in a book, but neither did I. (I'm not "seeing the effect," as you put it -- it's more like I'm having a combat flashback.)

But you do have some of the facts wrong -- i.e., the clones didn't "arrive," they were actually in production at the same time as the first IBM-PC. IBM just didn't care enough to pay a little more for an exclusive license to MS-DOS, making it possible for others to license it (though initially CP/M held the edge). A lot of what happened was the result of the contempt that IBM held for its own PC division, and, as you say, Microsoft was the beneficiary.

---

I mean, the moment when non-IBM x86 PCs got IBM-compatible BIOS. It's my impression that it was something that IBM did not anticipate.

quote:

---

Apple, in refusing to license its operating system to other manufacturers, sided with the past, and lost a huge opportunity. It saw its operating system as a way to sell computers, rather than as an end in itself, and it was hobbled by the '60s-'70s concept of the proprietary operating system. (They literally failed to think outside the box.)

---

The model where OS sells the hardware is not always a bad thing -- look at Sun. Of course, Sun is in a completely different market, where compatibility between competing vendors is an accepted tradition, Sun won its market from Digital by making cheaper yet still high-quality product, and Digital was not in a position to build artificial barriers (I should omit Digital behavior's reasons for brevity).

quote:

---

In the main, I agree with you -- the quality of Microsoft's marketing and brand-management were not the determining factors in Msft's success.

---

I believe, insipidness of Microsoft is absolutely genuine -- it's consistent through all its engineering, marketing, support, business and pretty much everything else.

quote:

---

But I think that Apple's marketing approach, which was clear and consistent, and elegantly done, may have contributed to its failure to thrive.

---

If it did it would be still irrelevant because Apple had no choice but to oppose the incumbent monopolies, first IBM, then Microsoft. Right now some people claim that Linux popularity is being hurt by Linux users being anti-Microsoft. Hello? What are they supposed to be, pro-Microsoft when Microsoft spent the whole 90's and good part of 80's making things that deliberately break interoperability with all other systems?

Alex, from your comments, it's obvious that you have an excellent grasp of many of the principles at work, but contrary to my earlier impression, you were not around at the time.

A couple points:

(1) Apple's 1984 introductory ad for the Mac was very clearly anti-IBM. It was daring, it was creative, and there was nothing like it up to that point. Only from a stand-point 20 years in the future could that be unclear. They carved that territory out deliberately in that ad.

(2) The IBM-PC was available with either PC-DOS or CP/M. IBM did not make a decision to "go" with PC-DOS: they simply asked Msft to provide a non-exclusive OS tailored for the PC. (MS-DOS is the term for the non-IBM-specific instances of Microsoft DOS.)

(3)Digital Equipment Corp is a case in itself, and shot itself in the foot more times than I can count (I've been counting since 1968). It did not lose to Sun so much as it lost to having too many fingers in too many pies. Sun is only one of the competitors that beat out DEC. Sad loss to me, because DEC was a technology-driven company, not marketing-driven. Byzantine bunch of bastards, but they loved creating a great hack.

Sorry I haven't made my points clear to you, but I've run out of time to reminisce. To some extent, these stories can be told many ways with many morals. Mine, of course, are the truth, but not the only way to tell the truth.

Gunn

The Infinite Matrix
http://www.infinitematrix.net/

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gunn:
Alex, from your comments, it's obvious that you have an excellent grasp of many of the principles at work, but contrary to my earlier impression, you were not around at the time.

---

I wasn't in the middle of that, merely watched the results, my serious involvement with programming started in 1986.

quote:

---

A couple points:

(1) Apple's 1984 introductory ad for the Mac was very clearly anti-IBM. It was daring, it was creative, and there was nothing like it up to that point. Only from a stand-point 20 years in the future could that be unclear. They carved that territory out deliberately in that ad.

---

In 1984 there wasn't much left to do but to carve things out -- PC already were widespread by then,

quote:

---

(2) The IBM-PC was available with either PC-DOS or CP/M. IBM did not make a decision to "go" with PC-DOS: they simply asked Msft to provide a non-exclusive OS tailored for the PC. (MS-DOS is the term for the non-IBM-specific instances of Microsoft DOS.)

---

Or PC-DOS is IBM-branded MS-DOS. I remember that CP/M 86 existed (though I only used CP/M on 8080), however I have never seen an IBM-branded computer with it (obviously, early x86-based non-IBM boxes could have either). As I understand it, IBM-compatible PC market quickly replaced non-IBM-compatible 8088-based boxes market, and CP/M was popular only on the latter. DR made its own DOS, but [almost?] no one distributed it preinstalled.

On the other hand, in Russia, as late as 1992 I have seen a huge number of PC clones with DR-DOS, obviously pirated and installed by technicians in place of the dreaded MS-DOS 4.x, that no sane person that I knew then, would touch.

quote:

---

(3)Digital Equipment Corp is a case in itself, and shot itself in the foot more times than I can count (I've been counting since 1968). It did not lose to Sun so much as it lost to having too many fingers in too many pies. Sun is only one of the competitors that beat out DEC. Sad loss to me, because DEC was a technology-driven company, not marketing-driven. Byzantine bunch of bastards, but they loved creating a great hack.

---

No doubt about that -- DEC history is littered with mistakes, arrogance, NIH, etc., as well as with some great and weird engineering. However Digital vs. Sun workstations war was more or less isolated from other kinds of stupidity, and Sun made some mistakes that one would expect from DEC (ex: X vs. NeWS, Motif vs. Openlook).

Did somebody say "having a combat flashback"? Surely you meant "dot-combat flashback".....yo ho.

in the life of EVERY forum I have ever posted on since 1992, there is at least once instance where a thread transforms into the silly platform PC/Mac debate....

Please for the love of all things holy don't let this one do that...rise above it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianmcc:
in the life of EVERY forum I have ever posted on since 1992, there is at least once instance where a thread transforms into the silly platform PC/Mac debate....

Please for the love of all things holy don't let this one do that...rise above it.

---

Someone is defending PCs here? Or Mac?

Yeah. Ian, I think we're having an on-topic exchange of ideas here. Aside from a little marketing-dept bashing, and what's the harm in that?

Gunn

The Infinite Matrix
http://www.infinitematrix.net/

I ran across this while reading my newspaper today:

An ad for a conference about children and branding.

As a parent, I immediately hoped that it was about protecting children from branding....but No... check out the conference topics:

Tweens of the Futue: Santa's nightmare
Hasbros experience with tweens
Kellogs Real Fruit Winders
Toolbox - "Peer to Peer" and "viral marketing"

The conferences point of departure is Martin Lindstrøms book, "BrandChild"

Although I do not have the same sort of reaction Cayce has to logos, this just makes me want to PUKE!!

New York Times (3-16-03)

The Tommy Hilfiger Corporation has announced that it is moving away from its logo after many of the company's earlier urban constituencies abandoned Tommy for designers they call more "authentic": Fubu, Ecko, Phat Farm, J. Lo and Sean John.

[unbranding as branding?] haha, if only.

BERKELEY, California (AP)excerpts -- Computer scientist Jon Kleinberg is taking a virtual stroll down the information superhighway, surfing cyberspace for verbal megatrends.

Prabhakar Raghavan, chief technology officer of the Sunnyvale-based software company Verity, has used Kleinberg's software to analyze Weblogs, online journals commonly known as "blogs."

Seeking emerging trends among cutting-edge bloggers, Raghavan looked for bursts of references and links to other people's Web sites. Raghavan found the software successfully identified such bursts, which could ultimately help advertisers target their sales pitches.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/03/14/word.bursts.ap/index.html

Quote from Fashionpolice "The conferences point of departure is Martin Lindstrøms book, "BrandChild""

That has to be one of the worst books I've heard about. They might as well name the book "How to Brainwash the Children of the World into Buying your Crap". It really makes you wonder if people in marketing have a conscience. Yes, children do dictate how their parents shop to some effect, and ads geared towards children are always present. Some are harmless, but that does not mean it doesn't make an impression. Personally, I can still remember the jingle for a carpet company that was played during my youth. I think a backlash, to some extent, towards marketing can be seen in today's world due to the constant bombardment of advertising.

Look at McDonald's for an example. Their business model relies on speed of service and advertising, and I don't remeber the service being that good. Their profits have been sliding in the past few years. I do believe part of the slide can be attributed to the amount of advertising without backing it up with quality. In my youth I remember a plethora of advertising from the franchise, but my parents wisely did not patronize it on a regular basis. The few times I have been in said establishment I have rarely had a good experience or good food. Now I simply detest the organization more with every advertisement I see or hear. Really, I dislike this organization to the point that I almost hope they go bankrupt. If it did not mean so many people would lose jobs and savings, I would probably take that "almost" out of the statement. Sorry about the rant, but McDonald's is one of the worst parts of American culture in my opinion.

I also have to agree about toy and cereal companies' advertising. Many cereal companies use cartoon advertisements which are almost as entertaining as the actual program with a nice reminder to buy whatever cereal. While the advertising companies bombard the youth of today, they are ruining their advertising chances of the future. To some extent, adults tune out the advertising which is forced on them. Take the naming of sports stadiums after companies. Most of these companies already are pretty well known. Frankly, I think people ignore the names. To me the Chicago Bulls play at the united center without any real connection with the now bankrupt airlines. While spending by parents is motivated by children, they are more motivated by their own needs.

There are some decent forms of advertising. When a company is trying to let it's name be known, advertising can serve the consumer and company. Advertising becomes the wicked step-sister when a company replaces quality for advertisement or aims advertisement at vulnerable members of society.