Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Yup, if you understand it as just an ad, doing the things ads always try to do, you will be able to stay in your shoes. Others have made the same observation as I have, but haven't stuck around to defend them. FWIW, I have a feeling that RIM will follow up this tease with a more substantial introduction. Do you think otherwise? If so, why? Personally, I don't think RIM is going to completely squander their reputation by failing to introduce the product, something very like the one they've teased about. That's the implication I've heard expressed several times in this thread. I've challenged this implication several times, and had zero response to my question about how someone could apparently believe that RIM is a very stupid company. I've seen no evidence of this, so I'm genuinely curious.
I think there's likely to be a substantive difference between how Apple depicts its stuff (via ads, product roll-outs, demos, whatever you like) and the RIM piece in question. I say "likely" because we haven't seen the finished product and it could hover in midair with friggin' laser beams, for all I know.
iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch ads (regular iPod ads are a bit different because it has become so ubiquitous as to make any question of "how does that work?" irrelevant, for advertising purposes) always show the device in use, emphasizing the UI, apps, and any aspects of physicality Apple is interested in touting. And yes, they use music, editing and production design to make the whole thing look fun, or hip, or empowering, or whatever. But the important thing is that what is being depicted is precisely how those devices in fact look and behave, however festive the alleged circumstance and however pretty the hand models may be.
My question regarding the Rim video is specifically about whether the UI, apps and physicality as shown
will correspond to the device as shipped
. If they don't-- if RIM (as Nokia before it) has elected to indulge in some exaggeration or wishful thinking in terms of the speed and fluidity of their UI, or the slickness of their transitions, or the manner in which one might reasonably be expected to manipulate and operate the device-- then this is something that Apple never, ever does, and a difference in kind rather than degree.
This actually gets into a larger difference between Apple's ad strategy and pretty much every other handset maker: despite the mockery of Jobs' use of "magical" as a product descriptor, it's Apple that just puts the device itself on the screen and lets the user interactions speak for themselves, whereas the others attempt to generate a sense of mystery or wonder or magical empowerment by showing, not the device in use, but urban spaces transformed, the user transformed, phone as ray gun, phone as drug, phone as portal to alternate universe, etc.
To that extent the RIM thing is actually relatively constrained (although I would guess the UI doesn't actually appear on the things around you) but unless it can actually do exactly what they show it's still a victim of "magical" thinking.