I recently saw the above ad for ZunePass, Microsoft's unlimited music service. Basically, you're renting music as opposed to buying it. I'm not against the concept of a music subscription service, I just think they could have done a better job in the ad of promoting the pros versus always comparing/contrasting with Apple. At some point, Microsoft just needs to go in another direction with its advertising strategy. Always comparing yourself to Apple is a sure fire way of constantly reminding people that a highly competent (not necessarily better in all cases) competitor exists. Same thing with the latest Laptop Hunter commercials.
 
So here's my free advice to Microsoft. Pitch your strengths versus the strengths of your competitor. Stick to the fact that there is more choice in hardware for PCs, they almost always cost less than Macs, Microsoft Office works much better on a PC than on a Mac, Exchange is better than whatever is available for Macs (is there anything available?), and the fact that most IT folks hate supporting Macs.
 
The good folks over at Penny Arcade made a very insightful and hilarious comic mocking the latest ad.

 
Here's the most recent Laptop Hunters commercial. I think Microsoft has officially jumped the shark with this one. If you're willing to spend $2,000 on a laptop, it shouldn't be an HP HDX. Also, why would you want to do video editing in Vista? The original intent of the Laptop Hunters series was to demonstrate the areas that a Windows laptop had over an Apple. More selection, more component bang for the buck - better value. Going up against what Apple does exceptionally well seems misguided.
 
For full disclosure, I currently own a MacBook Air. It's the first Apple machine I've ever owned (not counting my first computer, the Apple IIe) after a very long string of Windows based PCs and laptops. I had two reasons for switching - Vista sucks and I needed a super light laptop that was easy to take through airport security. Of all the laptops available at the time, the Air was the only 3 pound laptop that had a 13" screen. The price was steep and the only reason I bought it was because I got a great deal. I don't think I would have bought it at full retail and that's what these Laptop Hunter commercials should have continued to focus on. Because there are so many different PC manufacturers, laptops have become commodities and thus very affordable. I get asked for laptop recommendations all the time and for the most part, I always recommend PCs (specifically Dells). Rarely do I suggest Macs unless there is a specific reason (A/V editing, design work, etc).
 
I will say this though. Having used a Mac for almost a year, I have a hard time going back to PCs. Vista still sucks and my fear that I wouldn't be able to conduct business with all my PC cohorts has vanished. Microsoft Office for Mac translates seamlessly to PC versions (except Entourage stinks) and other software like Fireworks-Dreamweaver actually work better on the Mac. But the cheapskate in me just can't pay full retail for Macs.  I just bought a 13" MacBook to replace my Air (not enough computing power - Intel graphics processor sucks). And again, I didn't pay full price... ;-)

News has been swirling around the rumored Google-Twitter hook up. Seems like it's losing steam and may eventually just become a regular business/product development deal. I'd say the later makes more sense given that Twitter doesn't need to be bought and is just dipping its toes in the world of revenue generation. Google's got the advertisers, Twitter's got the inventory so it makes more sense for Twitter to remain independent and see if it can't make some of its own dough. They can always go back to testing the sell out waters in another year or so. Given their momentum and traffic growth, they won't be losing market value by waiting. Plus if they can rope Yahoo into acquisition discussions next year (when the stock should have hopefully gone up a little more), it could only help stir up the froth. Also, let's not forget that Microsoft might be interested at that point.

Just got finished watching today's presentation of the new iPhone 3.0 software (here's the streaming video). A lot of really cool features were announced which ups the ante in the smart phone industry. I bet Bill Gates' family is really pissed.

AllThingsD is reporting that Carol Bartz (previously CEO of Autodesk) has accepted the Yahoo CEO position. Good move for her as there are only a handful of companies with iconic status in Silicon Valley (if not the country). It's interesting how CEOs tend to reflect the state of where a company is and will most likely go. When Koogle was CEO, he was basically brought in as the adult to mind the store the kids built. His tenure was marked by impressive growth but not really sure if he was the driving force behind that or more just the conductor of the train already on track to do what it was going to do. Next was Semel who was brought in because Yahoo no longer wanted to be a tech company but a mass media player with its hands in Hollywood, Madison Ave, etc. Yang's short tenure saw Yahoo try to get back to its tech roots, albeit with little or no success. What will the Bartz era bring? Probably sound management with a focus on maximizing profits and shareholder value. Whether that means trimming more fat or selling off a business unit for a pretty penny (perhaps Search to one S. Ballmer?), I'm not really sure. One thing that's certain is that Bartz is a very capable business manager, often compared to Mark Hurd over at HP. I hear he's done an ok job.
 
Of bigger concern to me is the fact that in a way, Yahoo was able to get an insider without getting an insider. In my opinion, the whole point of a new CEO was to inject new life into the company - get an outside perspective because the inside one was not working. Bartz has had a prior relationship with both Yang and Decker (sits on Cisco board with Yang, Intel board with Decker) and are good friends. Let's hope that their prior relationship doesn't prevent Bartz from doing what needs to be done.