I'm to understand that Pawn Shops won't exchange the used Chromebook you bought for your mom but then decided to, what, steal back so you could put it in hock in order to scrape together enough cash to get a bus to Hollywood where you'll wait tables for six years whilst failing audition after audition before finally being shat out the butt end of the porn industry?
I bet the Chromebook doesn't even make people dance in board meetings like the Surface apparently does.
The bigger problem for Flash on Android is the vast amount of content that expects mouse interactions. Small click areas and hover events are nearly impossible to interact with on a phone.
It's a fascinating strategy, and I'm kind of scared what it will mean if it works: can you imagine an all out war with every company doing this? I hope Google has the self control and patience not to return fire.
Scalzi's Law: The failure mode of "clever" is "asshole".
Another of Apple's very-negative ads, the famous "1984" anti-IBM ad, is a good example of that. Analogizing your competitor to a dystopian totalitarian regime risks coming across as shrill and over-the-top, but Apple managed to pull it off.
Compare again with "Scroogled", which quite literally consists of little more than a pile of long-winded lecturing. Seriously, sitting through one of those ads transports me back to my sophomore history class. The one where the teacher had no shortage of. . . opinions.
IMHO that was the best ad Microsoft ever made. It was an obvious counter to the stereotype, but it made Apple users look like snobs, and Apple shut down its own campaign shortly after that ad.
As for the "scroogled", I think it mostly makes the impression that Microsoft is scared. I'm not sure if this campaign actually keeps more people from buying chromebooks than it does inform people that Google makes laptops.
But this Microsoft campaign just feels like a political attack ad, bitter and cynical. I'm disappointed in Microsoft for doing it, and I think it's just going to help Google by making Microsoft look bad.
A) Most of the "Mac vs PC" ads focused on showcasing ways Apple products were superior to Microsoft ones . This isn't universally true though . Regardless, that strategy is better than showing people break dance with your tablets.
B) The "Scroogled" campaign has a different, more aggressive tone to it. The whimsical background music in the Apple ads don't come across as forcefully as the term "Scroogled" does. I suspect this tone is more off-putting.
 See some of the ads here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5z0Ia5jDt4
EDIT: More info on the effectiveness of the ads (tl;dr: yes, they're changing perception) http://adage.com/article/digital/microsoft-s-google-bashing-...
Having been given a massive finger by "the people," Microsoft turned into a cynical company that no longer tries to play fair or to play with dignity.
we may occasionally use automated means to isolate information from email, chats, or photos in order to help detect and protect against spam and malware, or to improve the services with new features that makes them easier to use. When processing your content, Microsoft takes steps to help preserve your privacy.
That document links to http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/default.mspx, which says:
We use the information we collect to provide the services you request. Our services may include the display of personalized content and advertising.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
My favorite variation of that is, "Pot, meet Kettle."
* Approximately same price, same screen size and resolution, same processor and memory.
* Four pounds vs. three. Oops, not so light any more.
* Battery life (according to reviews) is around three hours, vs. this Chromebook going all day.
* Typical Windows suspend/resume times, vs. true instant-on for the Chromebook. It's actually disconcerting to have everything right there before I've even sat back on the sofa.
* Typical Windows upgrade/maintenance cycle (and malware), vs. no worries on the Chromebook.
I have other laptops that I use when I need to do more serious work. One of them even runs Windows, though mostly as a host for a Linux VM. But at this price point there's nothing running Windows that can match the overall Chromebook experience. Until there is, sleazy marketing stunts like this only make it obvious that they're desperate.
Has this really been a problem since XP SP2? Maybe I haven't been using my windows machine enough, but I honestly can't remember having any malware issues in quite a few years.
(And some windows pcs even come preloaded with mcafee scareware that will be showing pop ups and eventually block your Internet access.)
Google is basically subsidizing Chromebooks at this point. An Acer C720 costs as much as a Kindle and is very close to some sort of price floor ($199), yet it comes with $120 worth of Drive storage (100GB @ $5 x 24 months) and some other stuff.
You can blow away ChromeOS and use these as a regular PC laptop. 1/5 the price of an 11" Macbook Air yet comparable in many ways. I feel like they are giving them away to buy market share.
Comparable in some ways, yeah, but from the specs, it looks to me like there are more differences than similarities: the C270 is a bit thicker and heavier, the CPU is way slower, you get 16GB of storage instead of 128GB, 2GB of RAM instead of 4GB, the display is lackluster (according to reviews), the camera is lower resolution, there's no keyboard backlight... and so on.
That said, it's still an incredible value for the money.
Close enough you couldn't tell them apart in a backpack. Certainly not as well built and precious but then again you can treat it like a disposable Kindle, throw it around, even if you destroy 4 you're still ahead.
This is putting it very nicely. It has low contrast, and really poor viewing angles in terms of legibility and color. It's plenty bright enough though. Now if only I could get f.lux on it...
Just checked: Windows requires 20GB storage for a 64-bit processor, so you couldn't even install it on this box.
Clearly the ad budget is there to have options and talented people work on their briefs. Having a dig at competitors is fine now and again. I once did very cheap video that poked fun at Google that went a little viral/popular but it was done in fun, as much mocking ourself, not like this. And I cant believe one marketing team in MS has produced this steady stream of flops over the years. It makes me wonder what environment they have that creates this output.
A year or so ago I considered writing to them looking for work as I feel they are in a great position to stop being the bad guys and let other companies take that mantle. The need to be brave and approach the market in an open honest format. On top of which they often have good tech that doesn't get explained correctly and falls by the wayside. But doing marketing like this, they'd be better doing nothing.
Reality TV Star: Moral Bankruptcy
Microsoft Shill: Moral Bankruptcy
In hockey, that's called a hat trick.
I think the actual ad is at least a bit clever, but this 'scroogled!' catchword and in particular this absurd website they came up with just makes the whole thing nauseating.
Funny you should say that ... There used to be a site called scroogle.org which was kind of like that, allowing "anonymous" searches by scraping Google while advertising gold and libertarianism on the side.
That seems like a stretch to me.
Most of those 'negative' things could be said of an iPad.
and a majority of those things would be true for the Microsoft Surface RT device as well.
I think that covers all the things that were listed in the video.
I have no issues with Microsoft products - it is purely this kind of advertising is that makes me anti-Microsoft. The whole Scroogled campaign is an embarrassment.
I'm surprised they didn't mention Larry Page's former friends or love interests.
That is absolutely disgusting, Microsoft.
I gladly typed this on my arch linux laptop.
All it will take is one Kickstarter campaign to fund an anti-Microsoft ad (and isn't that a tempting target), and a site to aggregate all the entries. The media will do the rest..
I'd bet they would get professional entries from major advertising houses, just because of the media exposure it would be bound to get.
Just to be clear, I have no love for either Microsoft or Google. But the irony is that many of the points that Microsoft are trying to put across about ChromeOS are actually legitimate concerns for many users.
For example, you cannot print in ChromeOS when offline and only a limited number of printers are available through Google's cloud print service.
Offline mode is important to many users who may have patchy or non-existent internet access at times.
Apps that run in the browser are still limited compared to their desktop equivalents. This isn't an issue for everyone, but what Microsoft fails to persuade in its copy is how much more capable desktop apps are. And maybe for some users they would be happier with the desktop equivalent rather than the limited web version. (They could have demonstrated this easily by showing some simple but attractive documents or tasks that are impossible to recreate in Google's web apps).
And then, of course, there are the privacy implications of signing into ChromeOS to do anything. Just what does Google track and record? Do they record every print job you send through it's cloud printing service? Do they track your activity in their web apps? I know many users simply don't care, but for me the privacy implications are horrendous. If you're always signed into ChromeOS, Google knows how often you're online, where you browse, how often you use certain apps - basically everything you do on the Chromebook.
Of course, Microsoft are no better on the privacy front, but they don't have the online reach of Google. Windows 8.1 requires signing into the OS with an email address (but it can be bypassed quite easily), and when you're using a desktop app you're not generally being tracked. In other words, you can have pretty good privacy on a desktop system. Can the same be said for ChromeOS?
Pepsi vs Coca-Cola is a great example.
Elections in countries with only two parties is another perfect example of this.
It's been happening for a while and it will continue, since it yields results:
The ones educated enough limit themselves to a "sigh. seriously?" and keep on using what they know it's best for them.
Then there's the target market: the ignorant masses, who will fall to these strategies, prove them useful and validate them as good marketing strategies.
The funny thing here is that there's a similiar thread every 24 hours and people always react like this is something new, and like the company in turn is super evil for doing it.
Personally, I can’t stand iTunes on Windows, but hey, clearly Microsoft knows what consumers want.
At least I have a machine to work on while I spend the next six hours reinstalling and patching Windows.