There's a difference in attitude. Actually, the best way to look at attitude is to look at Apple's ads and then to look at Microsoft's "Laptop Hunter" counterads.

Apple's ads are very friendly. I mean, yes, they relentlessly diss PCs at every turn, but the attitude's very happy. The white background is very warm, the music is quiet and cheery, and John and Justin have a nice chemistry going. It's two friends, one of whom is dorkier and a little more competitive than the other friend. It comes across as being friendly towards Microsoft, while criticizing its products. The attitude isn't "Look at Microsoft and how it sucks", it's "We can do these things better, but you're pretty cool too." It's lighthearted; it takes potshots like John Hodgman freezing in place and "crashing". It's all in fun, even when it's not.

Then Microsoft decided it would be a good idea to target ads against Apple, because CP+B, their ad agency, thinks Microsoft can't possibly beat Apple unless they take huge risks (and, sadly, they're probably right). So we get the Laptop Hunter, which pretends its message is "Look at how cheap our computers are", while really the message is "Apple overprices". So you get people, real-life people, going "I can't afford that" and "I guess I'm not cool enough to be a Mac user". It's like they're trying to present it as a real-life situation, where we identify with the shoppers.

Two problems. Problem One, the ads, just like this Droid ad, aren't really dealing with real-life situations. They're just pretending. If I buy a Mac, it won't be because it's cheap, it'll be because of iLife, or because it's virus-free, or doesn't crash. You can see Apple's selling points at http://www.apple.com/getamac/whymac/. Microsoft can't refute any of those in an ad. Their only option is to ignore Apple's advertising and deal with the constant bashing, or attempt a counterattack that uses irrelevancies.

When I buy a phone, I'm not worried about open development or 5 megapixel cameras. In fact, the genius of Apple's advertising is that they're very good at not focusing on irrelevancy: They figure out what people want and they offer it. Right now their web site advertises, in order, the complex/beautiful applications they offer, their video camera/built-in video editing, their new compass edition to their GPS, and then a few things that probably aren't as urgent to the consumer. If I'm looking for a new phone, then seeing an ad that shows how I can plan out my wardrobe via phone, or figure out trains and flights, or any of the hundreds of things the App Store can offer, that's a strong selling point. Knowing I can use my phone to find where I am, that's a strong selling point. 5 megapixel camera versus video camera/editor? That's a weak sell.

Problem Two is those latter ads are very negative. Microsoft sounds snippy; Verizon just sounds deluded. It's all about being badass: Look at those fractured images at the end, so much better than Apple's gloss. Problem is, Apple doesn't overgloss like that, so it's a caricature rather than it is an honest depiction, and its actual iPhone ads, which are very warm and friendly, come across much better than Verizon, which didn't get the memo that "aloof and cool" isn't cool anymore. So instead of being effective, the ads just seem mean and deluded. It's like the kid in debate class whose solution to every topic is "Let's settle this outside". Verizon's not able to sell their own product, so instead they attempt to knock in teeth.

The Get A Mac ads aren't teeth knocking. They're poking fun at Microsoft. Microsoft's counterads backfired for the same reason these Droid ads will fail: Mean doesn't sell unless you've already got the upper hand.