4 ms·

A blogger that I used to read once did a Google Blog Search for the terms "serious iPhone competitor" and "iPhone killer". TechCrunch has reported a few dozen "

by unalone 17y ago

A blogger that I used to read once did a Google Blog Search for the terms "serious iPhone competitor" and "iPhone killer". TechCrunch has reported a few dozen "serious competitors", and it's been wrong every time. Now, Droid's ad is taking cheap shots at Apple, and that's a bad start. If your ad campaign is based solely on dissing your competitor, chances are you don't have anything revolutionary. Look at the promises it makes. "Real keyboard" - yeah, so does every other phone, but they're getting criticized for it now, so this doesn't mean anything unless the keyboard's astonishingly good. "Simultaneous apps" - maybe we care about that, but the average user looks at that and sees gibberish. "5 megapixel pictures" - probably the least sexy way to advertise a camera ever, especially if you're not comparing your photo quality to the 3GS's. "Customize" - doesn't mean as much to most users as a lot of companies seem to think. "Widgets" - what the fuck are widgets supposed to be in the context of a phone? "Open development" - again, Joe Watchescommercials won't give a shit about this. "Pictures in the dark," "interchangeable batteries" - Jesus fucking Christ, if these are your selling points you've already fucking lost. Companies seem to think that fighting the iPhone is simply a matter of creating a product with slightly better features in certain areas. (Either that or that's the merely impression they're trying to give to the public, while they secretly know just how screwed they are here—I'd bet on the latter. Companies aren't usually stupid.) It's not. If you want better features than an iPhone, you've got Blackberry, which incidentally is doing very well now without attempting to directly compete with Apple in any way. But the iPhone is untouchable. We're talking a cell phone that sparked the revolution, that's designed by the most reputed company on the planet, by the most famous designers on the planet, that pioneered not only multitouch but the app store model that's being leeched everywhere, and whose design is possibly unbeatable in terms of simplicity. Other companies aren't even trying to be simpler; they're attempting to be nearly as simple. I'd bet Apple's figuring out how to make a phone that's even more physically minimal right now, though, because Apple doesn't rest. I go to a city school right now; two months ago I was watching over young children; in both scenarios the iPhone is equally prevalent. The only modern phone people recognize on sight is the iPhone. People without an iPhone get a shitty phone and an iPod touch. And Verizon thinks that it's possible to lower its reputation, which is hilarious. The iPhone is the single strongest brand in the country, possibly on the planet. What Verizon knows or ought to know is that part of that brand is an anti-phone brand. The iPhone was the first phone that said "fuck you" to a decade of sterile designs and complicated set-ups. It was a "fuck you" to Verizon and its insistence on over-branding its products. It was a phone that suggested an incredible potential in mobile devices, not just in breakthrough technology but in personal happiness, which is something Apple, despite its being an asshole of a company, cares about a lot. And after it invented its revolutionary new phone model, then other companies decided maybe they could make cool new things too, and they're making them by ripping off the iPhone. It's possible to make a beautiful phone without once winking over Apple's way. No American company does it. Look at all the phones designed by Naoto Fukasawa. He's shown that it's possible to make multiple phones without overlapping ideas and keep them all memorable products. We have no memorable phones in the US, except for the iPhone. Until companies decide it's time to start competing by making good products, we won't have any.

robotron 17y ago
"Now, Droid's ad is taking cheap shots at Apple, and that's a bad start. If your ad campaign is based solely on dissing your competitor, chances are you don't have anything revolutionary." I used to agree with this thinking, however, Apple's very successful marketing campaigns (Mac guy vs PC guy) are entirely based upon this. Regarding some of the other things you brought up, I've been seeing some real [anecdotal] evidence of cracks in the iPhone love from people with it. This may be ATT's fault in some ways but I've been hearing some outright dissatisfaction, which has been surprising. These people (not all developers!) may not be ready to jump ship any time soon but I've been hearing a lot of "meh" coming from them, mostly unprompted by myself - just from hearing iPhone users talking to each other. There's some opportunity there for someone to compete seriously with Apple.
- unalone 17y ago
  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/ 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.

by unalone 17y ago

robotron 17y ago

"Now, Droid's ad is taking cheap shots at Apple, and that's a bad start. If your ad campaign is based solely on dissing your competitor, chances are you don't have anything revolutionary." I used to agree with this thinking, however, Apple's very successful marketing campaigns (Mac guy vs PC guy) are entirely based upon this. Regarding some of the other things you brought up, I've been seeing some real [anecdotal] evidence of cracks in the iPhone love from people with it. This may be ATT's fault in some ways but I've been hearing some outright dissatisfaction, which has been surprising. These people (not all developers!) may not be ready to jump ship any time soon but I've been hearing a lot of "meh" coming from them, mostly unprompted by myself - just from hearing iPhone users talking to each other. There's some opportunity there for someone to compete seriously with Apple.

unalone 17y ago
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/ 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.