Aaron Adams’s Blowhard Blog

A few months ago, David Pogue told my friend Shawn King in an interview that Apple’s switch campaign was a failure. Pogue is usually a pretty sharp pundit, but in this case he’s flat out wrong. If the Switch campaign was a failure because a tidal wave of Windows users didn’t knock over the local Apple store in their rush to purchase new computers, then yes, it was. From a more realistic perspective, the Switch campaign was a success. The point of the campaign was primarily to get people talking, to plant the idea into peoples’ minds, to get a conversation started, to make the idea acceptable Ñ and it has certainly succeeded. The fact that Pogue even uses the word “switcher” while putting the campaign down is evidence of that: Very rarely, before June of 2002, did anyone use the word “switcher” in reference to changing preferences from any computer platform to another. “Switcher” is now part of the Apple lexicon, and is starting to take hold in the general computing world as well.

And now, 36 months later, the iPod halo effect takes center stage.

The idea behind the halo effect is that Windows users who purchase an iPod will investigate Macs and possibly purchase one. This idea has been met with quite a bit of skepticism, even on this page. And understandably so Ñ it’s a big jump from a music player to an entire computing platform.

There have been quite a number of articles published in the last month or so about the halo effect. The latest is this article from the Wall Street Journal. This article is a form of vindication for me. It contains some happy stories of Apple switchers and some people who are not convinced. Thirty-six months ago when I wrote at different places on the Internet about my reasons for switching, I was accused of exaggeration, drama, incompetence, and a thousand other unpleasant things. Now all the reasons I listed long ago are considered perfectly valid motivation for dumping Windows for something less painful.

There are people who want Macs, and there are some who don’t. That’s fine. Ultimately, every person must choose the computer that best fits their needs. At the end of the WSJ article, the columnists published a number of responses from people not interested in purchasing a Mac. There are valid reasons for not purchasing an Apple machine. However, confusion and blatantly incorrect facts are not among them. What I found interesting is that every response that was published was based on one or both of these concepts. From the WSJ:

Santo Cuollo writes:

I am looking to replace my aged Windows 95 machine, and the Apple products are attractive for many reasons. The problem with moving to an Apple? I can get a Windows machine from Dell, also reliable and reputable, for half the price. And when I visit an Apple store, or the Apple Web site, I see nothing to ease my wallet pain: no financing, no discounted bundling. Apple will not become a household name until they are willing to drive out cost from their processes and offer a “value” machine, and something more attractive than the years-old eMac. They have the better product — now they need to offer the better value.

There are only two manufacturers that make money selling computers: Dell and Apple. Dell has the low expectations market sewn up, and there is simply no room for any other computer manufacturer to compete in that area because survival means volume. Any move into the low expectations computer market by Apple would be suicide because Apple could never sell enough machines to be profitable.

Also, this gentleman is mistaken about his facts. In fact, Apple does offer financing. There is an obvious link to this financing on Apple’s store page, and I suspect this gentleman either didn’t do his research or didn’t care enough to really look.

Doug Williams writes:

The iPod won’t make Apple PCs cheaper and won’t help Apple PCs match the software selection of Windows machines. If I changed to a Mac, I would have to change professions too.

Here’s an example of yet another factual error; there is no shortage of Mac software. Look here or here for two examples. Some specific titles may not be available, and presumably some title related to this gentleman’s upspecified work is not available.

Charles Weaver writes:

I haven’t felt the need to buy a music player yet, but I do buy music online. I have stopped buying from iTunes because its songs can only be played on iPods and with iTunes. I would never buy an iPod for the same reason: I could only play music that I bought from iTunes on it along with MP3s that I ripped from CD’s. When Apple decides to join the rest of the world, separate its hardware and software, and embrace open standards, it will become truly successful. If it continues its elitist approach it will continue to appeal mainly to, well, the elite.

Guess what… more factual errors! Apple has embraced open standards. WAV is an open standard. AIFF is an open standard. MP3 is an open standard. Unprotected AAC is an open standard. WMA is not an open standard, as it is spec’d and controlled by a single company.

It’s true that only the iPod and iTunes can play protected AAC files downloaded from iTunes. Apple sells the iPod and iTunes as a package. The iPod iTunes can also play all the open, standard file formats mentioned above. And I’m not sure why being able to play MP3s ripped from this gentleman’s CDs is a complaint.

Michael Burns writes:

Did you contact Dell and ask them how the Dell DJ is selling? Currently they are on a one-month back order on all of their players and the are sold out of refurbished players. Oprah may have helped more than you suspect. I think Apple has a better chance of becoming the new Sony then it does of taking away significant market share from Microsoft.

A one month back-order is not necessarily an indicator of a product’s popularity, it may just as well be an indicator of supply. Apple has been forecasted to sell 4 - 4.8 million iPods during the Christmas quarter. I’d be very interested to compare those numbers to Dell’s DJ sales.

Dave Chomas writes:

You have succumbed to marketing hype. Apple preaches openness, but they’re more closed than Microsoft. They will never learn — they blew it by keeping everything in house with the Mac and now they’re doing it again with the iPod. They need to let people buy music from anywhere, not just iTunes. They make next to nothing on the songs anyway — if you could buy AAC-formatted songs from Amazon, Wal-Mart, etc. they would truly own the market for years to come. Once people truly begin to buy a lot of music online, they’ll begin looking at other technology/players. Eventually, the other guys will get it and come up with cool designs: The Rio Carbon and Creative Zen Micro are getting there. While bigger hard drives may not be cool enough for you, removable batteries like the Zen Micro’s should be. Apple, are you listening?

Um, sir, you’re writing the Wall Street Journal, not Apple. If you want Apple to “listen”, you need to write them.

Exactly how did Apple blow it? It’s a profitable 25 year-old company. The iPod is selling so fast stores are unable to keep them in stock. And again, Apple sells the iPod and iTunes as a package. You purchase them together, and that model has obviously worked very well for Apple. There is no reason to change it. Real started selling music for the iPod months ago, and I have yet to read any press releases from Real bragging about the number of songs that have been sold for the iPod. There simply isn’t a demand from iPod users for a music source other than iTunes.

The Rio and Zen may be “getting there”, but the iPod is already “there”. There is no reason to wait for other players to attempt to duplicate what Apple provides right now. And replaceable batteries are obviously not an issue for most people. Some part of the iPod’s appeal is its form factor, and designing an iPod around replaceable batteries would make the iPod larger and thicker, essentially a step backwards. It’ll never happen.

Mike Pisarczyk writes:

In 1992, as a senior in college, I bought my first Dell. It was the computer that nearly every company I was interviewing with used, and by then ran all the latest games. I just couldn’t stomach the idea of buying a Mac and having to buy new Apple software to replace my old Apple software. Since then I have bought another three or four Dells and had a raft of PC-compatible computers at work. Color me converted.

Until Apple licenses their designs and allows for some competition, they will languish with a small portion of the market. The cost difference is still too real. You might be right, Apple might have a real renaissance, but I will be following the revolution. Apple and its sometimes-foolish internal decisions fooled me once. I’m going to be waiting a long time to make sure that they don’t fool me again.

Why would you need to buy new Apple software to replace old Apple software? I don’t know what that statement is supposed to mean or how it relates to buying a Dell.

Apple did license their operating system in the mid-90s and it nearly killed the company. IBM manufactured the original Intel-based PC in the early 80s Ñ where is IBM’s PC sales division now? And what revolution are you speaking of? And how did Apple fool you? This blurb is unorganized foolishness.

Ignorance and confusion apparently aren’t factors for many people who are considering jumping platforms, as evidenced by the rest of the WSJ article. I think the iPod halo effect will turn out to be real. It won’t be the tidal wave I presume David Pogue expects for success, but it will be a measurable uptick in Apple sales. People are fed up with troublesome computers that they depend on to mange so much of their life. Apple is in a great position, with Switch in poeple’s minds and iPods in people’s ears, to take advantage of this aggravation to increase Macintosh sales.