3 ms·

> The campaign was more than just Mac v.s. PC. It was also the Apple ecosystem. It was mostly about the Mac OS X vs. Windows. And I'll repeat, they are still n

> The campaign was more than just Mac v.s. PC. It was also the Apple ecosystem. It was mostly about the Mac OS X vs. Windows. And I'll repeat, they are still not ahead there. > Just look at the growth of Apple after a campaign where it attack the PC. Discounting this isn't smart. Correlation != causation. I would say instead, "Just look at the growth of Apple after it introduced several really amazing products that had no equal in the marketplace".

jasonlotito 16y ago
> Correlation != causation. I would say instead, "Just look at the growth of Apple after it introduced several really amazing products that had no equal in the marketplace". Which is beside the point. Apple's ads and growth are relevant to the question. The question didn't ask for an example where attack advertising directly led to growth. I'm not implying that the ads led directly to Apple's amazing growth and dethroning Microsoft at the revenue level (amongst other areas). Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for or against attack ads. I'm also not arguing against your points in this comment. Merely that they don't matter in context.
- __david__ 16y ago
  > The question didn't ask for an example where attack advertising directly led to growth. I think that's an awfully pedantic interpretation of the original question. To me, 'Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully "smeared" the market leader with FUD and ended up ahead?' very clearly implies just that.
  - jasonlotito 16y ago
    > I think that's an awfully pedantic interpretation of the original question Nevertheless, that's the question. It's a simple question, and a better one then what you imply it is. "Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully smeared a market leader with FUD and ended up ahead as a direct result of that smear campaign" is a loaded question. Rather, the question as asked is simple: Despite having a smear campaign, have companies succeeded? Are their success stories? Yes, yes there is. There are countless success stories of companies and organizations directly attacking their competitor and being successful, if not market leaders. Apple is just one example.

jasonlotito 16y ago

> Correlation != causation. I would say instead, "Just look at the growth of Apple after it introduced several really amazing products that had no equal in the marketplace". Which is beside the point. Apple's ads and growth are relevant to the question. The question didn't ask for an example where attack advertising directly led to growth. I'm not implying that the ads led directly to Apple's amazing growth and dethroning Microsoft at the revenue level (amongst other areas). Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for or against attack ads. I'm also not arguing against your points in this comment. Merely that they don't matter in context.

__david__ 16y ago
> The question didn't ask for an example where attack advertising directly led to growth. I think that's an awfully pedantic interpretation of the original question. To me, 'Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully "smeared" the market leader with FUD and ended up ahead?' very clearly implies just that.
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > I think that's an awfully pedantic interpretation of the original question Nevertheless, that's the question. It's a simple question, and a better one then what you imply it is. "Can you give some examples of companies that have successfully smeared a market leader with FUD and ended up ahead as a direct result of that smear campaign" is a loaded question. Rather, the question as asked is simple: Despite having a smear campaign, have companies succeeded? Are their success stories? Yes, yes there is. There are countless success stories of companies and organizations directly attacking their competitor and being successful, if not market leaders. Apple is just one example.