Some good advice for Apple

Actually this advice doesn't come from me.  I've read it recently and just for once it would be great to see Apple listen to something that come from the upper floors of 1 Infinite Loop.

First comes some advice from an article in the Washington Post that Apple needs to be more responsive to security experts.  I've actually heard some internal Apple people put forward the same argument. The article in the Post, "A Time to Patch III: Apple," by Brian Krebs has this to say.

Here's what I found: Over the past two years, after being notified about serious security flaws in its products, it took Apple about 91 days on average to issue patches to correct those vulnerabilities. I also found that almost without exception, open-source Linux vendors were months ahead of Apple in fixing the same flaws.

It's interesting that the author found the same difficulty in talking to Apple that most people do.

When I first began this project back in January, I put in calls to the Apple public-relations folks but didn't hear back from anyone for a couple of weeks. At first, I was told that Apple executives were not interested in talking with me for this story. Two months later -- after I shared my initial findings with Apple -- the company changed its tune...

Probably the most distressing comments in the article are ones that were echoed by a couple of researchers.

Tom Ferris, a researcher who has reported numerous security flaws in Apple applications, said sometimes two to three weeks elapses before a live person at Apple responds to security flaws he submits.

"I've been dealing with Apple since late last year and I just get the impression they're basically where Microsoft was at years ago,"

It would be a real shame for Apple to squander its true security advantage by refusing to cooperate with the security community.  I hope Apple reads the Post article and fixes the process where no one responds to security vulnerabilities in less than "two to three weeks."

The second article which I hope someone at Apple reads is by Jerome Holman over at Microsoft.  Jerome has a great post, "Dear Apple and Steve Jobs, Finish the Boot Camp Trojan Horse and Help the Mac Become Better at Running Windows than Windows."  Jerome has been a long time user of Apple hardware.  Before he joined MS, he was also one of the student reps who helped put together Va. Tech's Supercomputer System X.  His first piece of advice makes a lot of sense.

Bite the bullet, become a Windows OEM Partner

Why not make sure Apple users get the best deal on Windows?  His second point is close to my heart.

Create a true Enterprise AppleCare and train them to Support Dual Booting

If Apple really wants to make an impact on Windows users who might potential move 100% to the Mac platform, this is actually the best way to get them on the platform and eventually using the Mac OS X.  Show them how well Windows XP works on a Mac, and it will do nothing but increase Apple credibility.

Jerome's last comment really hits home.

Let this concept of running Windows on the Mac take Apple as far as it can go because if Apple can make running Windows on the Mac better than running Windows on PC hardware, Apple may not only have the iPod to credit their stock price to!

There's one last article that I saw which also has good advice for Apple.  Unfortunately it is marketing advice which is the hardest kind of advice to give Apple.  The article, "Apple lifestyle campaign misses the point," is simply stating what has been obvious about Apple's marketing for years.

Yes, the Mac is easier to use, more reliable, much better for music and movies and, despite recent controversy, much less of a security risk. Hasn't the general public known about most of these things since 1986? So how come the horribly unsophisticated, virus friendly Windows PC gets the nod 96 times out of 100 times someone walks into a computer shop?

The answer is really quite simple. Most people use a Windows PC at work or school, so usually they don't want something different at home...

The new Intel Macs now have the capability of running Windows natively. So what does Apple do? It alienates the fellow with the glasses, a potential new customer, by telling him he's not cool. The message for all those boring, stuffy, spectacle wearing, accountants, lawyers and middle managers is "don't come to us - the Mac isn't for you; it's for the hip guy."

This isn't something that is new to Apple, they have been marketing to their faithful for years.  Many people who leave comments on my blog have this vision of Apple being like BMW or Acura.  I don't remember ever seeing either automaker make fun of potential customers.

Usually a potential customer comes to you because they're experiencing some pain or perceive that your product will solve some of their problems not because you've joked about how dull they are.  I guess we'll see if Apple's approach works. 

Apple has a lot of Macs to sell if they're going to grow units as much as they did last year. Just to match their last year's growth Apple needs to get to 5.8 million units which means that need to sell 1.7M units each of the next two quarters which is a daunting challenge considering they only sold 1.11M units last quarter.

I wish them luck, perhaps some outside advice just might help make the challenge a little easier.

 

Comments

[BK]

Apple's base. I have been a Mac user since 1988, even using them at my place of work which is 100% WinTel. But since I am a 54 year-old white male, everytime I walk into an Apple Store, I get ignored. When I ask for help, I can see the clerk's eyes start to glaze, hoping that I will just leave. Thank goodness for on-line stores, or I would never be able to buy a Mac. I love the stores and the way items are displayed and merchandised, but I hate dealing with them.

[Louis Wheeler]

I can see reasons why Steve Jobs might not want to follow Jerome's advise, because that would bring Apple into a head-to-head competition with Microsoft. And Apple can't afford to start up the OS wars again.

Also, I don't believe that Boot Camp is intended to appeal the enterprise (IT) market. Businesses need predictability and compatibility to ensure that their workflow's are not interrupted. Big business IT departments, long ago, settled on Wintel and are unlikely to change no matter how crappy the Windows experience is. The enterprise market is not interested in innovation, because that would require inefficiencies while learning something new. Consequently, the benefits which make the Macintosh experience great (ease-of-use, flexibility and style) do not appeal to them. Hence, Steve has written off the enterprise market, for now. It may be true that the business market is the fastest growing segment now, but that will not be forever because individuals will always out number businesses. The next paradigm shift will be when all computers become consumer computers.

I suspect that Steve Jobs has his sights aimed at a far longer range than most people perceive. He needs to grow the market carefully by out innovating the PC market. But, he's doing this in the consumer space which also includes Small Office/ Home Office. He needs to reestablish dominance in the education market and to chip away at disgruntled PC users by overcoming their fears of switching. This was the point of Boot Camp. Apple must be subtle though, because Microsoft can turn on the FUD machine in an instant.

I don't see the current ads as being more than a gentle kidding. Only a PC fanatic would get upset at them. The ads don't sell features; the normal way in which PC's are sold; they don't include a checklist. Apple sells benefits: it's freedom from computer virii, it's ease of interconnection, it's great bundled software, and it's respect by computer pundits, etc.

The point is not to overwhelm the PC market, but to build mind share. Most people don't realize that it often takes years for an ad to change public perception. It wasn't long ago that Apple was perceived as being incompatible with PC's, because it didn't have any software, was a niche market, couldn't connect with anything, was too expensive and wasn't as up to date as windows. That has changed in the mean time. Apple is increasingly perceived as being stylish, cool, friendly and innovative. These things especially appeal to 18 to 25 year non-geeks.

Apple gets no benefit from playing to Wintel's strengths; It has strengths of its own that it needs to capitalize on, and is. Apple will be taking over the consumer market slowly, while the consumer market expands until it is the largest portion. Why? Because 40% of adults in America do not use computers now, but will eventually. Apple will catch them as customers while they are still young and flexible enough to perceive Apple's benefits.

[ocracokewaves]

Now there is a pipe dream if I ever saw one. That's like thinking the people in the US who don't have cars are going to start out on Lexus SUV Hybrids.

Apple is priced out of the market for most people who don't already have a computer. Apple has shown no indication that they want to sell to those people who basically can't afford current computers. Does your average Apple Store get located in low income areas? You don't even get Apple Stores in blue collar cities.

Since computers other than Apple's are pretty inexpensive these days. Apple would have to deliver a sub $300 computer to attack the market of those who haven't bought one already. They've never had an interest in that market.

What Apple has gone after is the trendy high end of the consumer market. Even Dell is giving that a shot now days.

However, if Apple is going to get them while they are young, perhaps they might start with the education market which sources tell me is still collapsing for the Apple K-12 folks.

[Cameron]

To jump on in with my perceptions, Boot Camp is nothing more than a nod to the Windows camp. Something for those to "need" the Windows environment for something specific - one app once a week (read games), or consultants that need a windows test/dev box (saves me a second machine). The Mac is not intended as a Windows machine - the minute they do that Mac OS X is done ... the momentum will just be too much. I can see future options for running Windows "within" the Mac OS - ala "classic mode" - this would be the biggest attractor. However, I don't see them ever OEMing Windows or even selling Windows via their store. It would add confusion to their customer base and add to their support costs.

As for their commercials, I personally found them to be a bit harsh at times and a bit mocking. And I don't like that kind of marketing ... however, I see what they are doing. They are pitching that Macs are "cool" ... and "cool" sells - just look at the iPod. Now, with the iPod they were instant leaders driving that market - with the Mac they are way behind. So, pitch the status-quo as old and dated and the Mac as "new", "hip", and "cool". And it doesn't matter who you are or how old you are ... people in the "western world" want to be cool ... they flock to name brand goods in droves with the desire to be associated with big name stars or to be part of the "in" crowd. Apple is going after that desire. It will backfire on those people that really like Windows and the Windows software - but they are not the target market.

The campaign appeals to the faithful with humor and marks the Mac as the cool new thing. Could work ... we will have to see. Personally, I would like to have seen a more "energetic" thrill ride ... but this could be just the first step - an initial differentiator. They could be building these as "characters" that will stretch across future ads.

[pauldwaite]

I don't think Apple's new TV adverts are trying to make fun of PC users. They're trying to make fun of PCs. They say PCs are bad at the fun stuff, not their users.

I'm not saying people couldn't interpret it differently, but they do say it right at the start of each advert. "Hello, I'm a Mac..." "... and I'm a PC". Not "I use a Mac". I AM a Mac.