So, Apple has officially punched back at Microsoft’s attempt to punch back at Apple’s successful albeit controversial “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” ads (well, controversial if you’re an oversensitive PC user.) And predictably, some of the more sensitive elements in the geek-o-sphere have come down with a severe case of jerky knee syndrome, including the overseer of Paul Thurrott’s Supersite for Windows where the site owner has announced that “It’s Official: Apple Jumps the Shark”.

Paul’s overreaction is precious.

After Microsoft released its wonderful “I’m a PC” advertisements,

Paul, can we agree on at least one thing? No advertisement, no matter how close to perfection it gets, is not wonderful. Ever. Not Microsoft’s “I’m a PC” ads. Not Apple’s ads. None of them. They are what they are: an attempt to get you to buy something or color your view of a product. There’s nothing “wonderful” about that. George Orwell once called advertising the “rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket” and that’s pretty much all it is. It’s like seeking wonder and enlightenment in the shouting of seller at the local farmer’s market. There’s nothing there to take personally or overreact about. If you want wonderful, buy a Hallmark card.

I wondered what was next for Apple. After all, it’s ingenuous and libelous “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” ads were instantly rendered moot by Microsoft’s more human and humble ads.

Libelous?

That’s a stretch. See, the last time I checked, for something to be libelous, it had to be actual libel which is a recorded statement, published in a permanent medium, presented in a context intended to defame a person, organization, product or business. Generally speaking, it’s most applicable when directed at a single individual.

For example, if someone were to write “Paul Thurrott is a reactionary, whiny Windows fanboy who has nothing better to do with his time than to sit around watching PC advertisements seeking personal enlightenment and deeper meaning in life,” that would be libelous. It’s a defaming, on-the-record statement presented in a context intended to appear factual.

Oh wait a minute! There’s that whole inconvenient context thing. Yeah, that’s right. It only counts as a libelous statement if the inaccurate or defaming statement is delivered in a context intended to push the statement as truthful. You would find such context in, for example, a news broadcast or a newspaper or some other source for ostensibly factual information.

I’m sort of betting that any claims made in the context of those oh-so-hurtful Apple ads aren’t going to be construed as defamation and won’t be presumed to be factual statements. And do you want to know why I think that, Paul?

BECAUSE IT’S AN AD.

How could Apple respond and not look like a bunch of arrogant jerks.

There you go, Paul! Now you’re getting it. That looks a lot like libel.

It’s official. Apple has jumped the shark.

Apparently when Paul Thurrott uses the phrase “jumped the shark” he means to say “has increased their market share and grown at a rate of more than six times the industry average and has announced fourth-quarter profits of $1.14 billion including more than 2.5 million computers sold in that same period.”

Gee, if that’s considered “jumping the shark,” sign me up for lessons.

The fact is that the “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” ads are actually working. No matter how you feel about the ads, computer users are moving to the Mac and these ads are no doubt part of the reason. Apple has tried polite, informative ads before. And guess what? They didn’t work. That old ad about the guy on the airplane popping open his Powerbook and showing off what he could do in iMovie to the utter fascination of the passenger on either side of him was completely ineffective. Apple’s market share didn’t budge when those kinds of commercials were the norm. Apple’s market share for years languished around the 2-3% mark (dipping precariously at one point to 1.9%) and no amount of traditional advertising made a difference.

But these ads do. And in record numbers. The Mac is actually approaching a market share it has never previously attained.

Now be honest, Paul. If you were in charge of Apple’s marketing department, would you change course right now?

Here’s why. In this pathetic ad, Apple is actually criticizing Microsoft for spending dramatically more money on advertising than on “fixing problems with Vista.” That this is demonstrably untrue never bothers Apple, so we can just skip over that nicety immediately.

If Microsoft is putting so much money into fixing Vista, then explain why are so many Windows users have been so vocal in their opposition in switching to the newer version of Windows. And before you fall back on that old line about users being afraid to try something new outside the cozy confines of XP, try reading what PC World or InfoWorld have to say about it. Explain why so many businesses have purchased Vista but are loathe to deploy it or why Microsoft finally relented and granted XP a stay of execution.

For the past two years, Apple has been spending money on advertising designed to make Windows Vista look bad, while not spending money fixing the many problems in their own products.

Paul, Paul, Paul (insert face-palm here.) Fact-checking is your friend.

In the formal study of logic, what you just did is called a tu quoque fallacy. That’s Latin for “you, too.” Even if it were true that Apple wasn’t updating their operating system (and it’s not) how would that justify Microsoft’s behavior? Hint: it doesn’t.

And besides, Apple has been issuing updates and bug-fixes on a regular basis. We’re barely a full year out from the release of Leopard (AKA, Mac OS X version 10.5) and since then, Apple has released the following major updates to the operating system. Bear in mind that this list doesn’t even include numerous security and minor updates to system components. Each of these updates, despite the odd numbering scheme, are equivalent to a Windows service pack.

• 10.5.1 (released November 2007)
• 10.5.2 (released February 2008)
• 10.5.3 (released May 2008)
• 10.5.4 (released June 2008)
• 10.5.5 (released September 2008)

And 10.5.6 is rumored to be just around the corner (although quite honestly, 10.5.5 finally knocked down all my complaints so I’m in no hurry, but there you go.)

And Vista? It has been out a full 6 months longer than OS X 10.5 and Microsoft has released one major update.

One.

You really find Apple’s treatment of OS X comparable to Microsoft’s treatment of Vista?

It’s because Apple can’t help themselves. They want it both ways: To be arrogant jerks and schoolyard bullies and then, when confronted, claim, hey, it’s OK. Because we’re the little guy. See, it’s cute. It’s all in good fun.

Why is it so many Windows users take these Mac ads so personally, as such an insult? Other advertisers attack the competitors all the time and nobody says a word, and yet, once Apple does it, well, that’s an outrage. That’s a personal attack. That’s a slap in the collective face of all PC users.

Please.

Apple’s not insulting anyone. They’re just playing down to the lowest common denominator an ad can offer: entertainment value. And casting a competitor as a bumbling idiot is just good entertainment and doesn’t make Apple a bunch of “arrogant jerks and schoolyard bullies.” That tactic has been done many, many times in advertising and it’s hardly worth taking offense. Apple’s not the first.

It’s interesting because I haven’t heard one person utter a single word about the Alltel ads running that depict themselves as a hip, savvy kinda guy with a winning attitude and hairstyle and the other wireless service providers as bumbling, goofy-looking nerds. Same basic premise as Apple’s ads, but nowhere do I hear an outcry. Why aren’t the Alltel ads a personal insult to Verizon and T-Mobile users? Where are all those outraged Sprint and AT&T subscribers?

Put more simply, after being exposed as the charlatans they are, Apple responded, as always, in their usual arrogant and libelous fashion. I can see why so many people look up to these guys.

And before anyone complains about the use of the word libelous, look it up.

I did, and you’re wrong, your preemptive, prove-me-wrong posturing notwithstanding. What you’re missing is the context, which in this case is an ad. Nobody’s mistaking that as a source for factual information—except you, apparently—so it’s not libel.

You know, Paul, if you were on a Mac, you could have used the built-in, systemwide dictionary to look up the definition of “libel” by right-clicking on the word.

Hey, maybe you should switch!