Isn't the point though that if you know about these few things in Apple's pipe line you are reasonably confident they are not rumors? That is quite a contrast to the countless products and features that are openly announced as existing and turn out to be vaporware from certain companies. One has to suspect attempts to slow up or delay potential buying of Apple's products when this happens.
Of course, to be fair to MS, they may have in some cases, been showing things intended for production but pulled them when Apple made them obsolete over night. So production was halted. This may happen a lot to MS these days.
I even addressed that even with shorter lead times that they still have delays, though rarely fail to come through or have to scrap a project for whatever reason.
For me, the biggest ?let down? from Apple in terms of vapourware was stating that Resolution independence would arrive with Mac OS X 10.4 ?Tiger?. This was stated and posted on Apple?s site back in 2004. It never came to fruition in Tiger, they may have also advertised it in Leopard but I don?t think they advertised it for Snow Leopard, but I can?t recall exactly.
Again, as I previously stated, Apple is very good about not shooting itself in the foot with promises of HW and SW that it can?t deliver, and yet still has delays on their self imposed time tables for various reasons. I?ll take that over empty promises any day.
PS: I wonder how Balmer feels about spending so much time at CES earlier this year pimping the HP Slate running Windows 7 that seems will never come to market?
Actually Zune HD is fine product. Too late to commercially compete with iDevices on it's own, but as a part of phone platform there is nothing wrong with it.
I wonder why it was never launched internationally?
And I forgot to even mention, that another kid, not the one with the brand new Droid X, but with some other Android phone (I forget which one) could control my FIOS set top box, wirelessly from his phone, and both control what it displayed, and even more amazingly, he could stream content from his phone to the TV set wirelessly!! At any place that had FIOS, including my living room.
He could play videos stored on his big SD card. As it was, he displayed some photos and YouTube and other stuff, sitting on the couch with his cellphone.
I was amazed, and immediately went to the App Store to get a copy. But - there was no such software for my iPhone. Verizon's iOS App did none of that stuff. No third party app that could do any of it. Nada. Zilch.
Anybody got any suggestions for me, given how Apple owns my living room? What software do I use to stream stuff from my iPhone to my Verizon FIOS set top box?
"The way you say that, it seems to me that you try to align yourself with simpletons, who are too stupid to make choices. Indeed, it seems to me that you are bragging about it, and that you are proud of it.
Is that what you intended"?
Instead of
"Are you proud to be a simpleton? Throwing in with those too stupid to compare products?"
Would that have been OK?
I thought the guy was just talking, not seriously, and didn't really know what he was saying. I was just trying to get him to realize what he was truly saying.
Was it the way it was phrased, or the fact that I was identifying a problem with his manner of approaching the situation?
I wasn't being facetious. It actually sounds like you don't really get how this kind of advertising works, and that's fine. If you can't understand it you probably aren't affected by it either, which with the constant barrage of advertising is, in many ways, an enviable position to be it.
Attempting to keep it more literal the WP7 ad goes something like this... "sometimes it appears that smartphone users are so absorbed in their phones that they miss out on the world around them. If you don't see yourself as that kind of person, or don't want to be that kind of person, you should have a look at WP7"
WP7 doesn't need to project information directly into your cerebrum just like Red Bull doesn't need to make you grow wings and Calvin Klein underpants don't need to make you look like a semi-naked David Beckham because they aren't describing a literal feature set, they are selling an idea.
I don't think you're listening to me. I'm not arguing that commercials have to be literally truthful, or that emotionally appealing flights of fancy are illegitimate means for crafting a sales pitch. Very obviously, commercials do this all the time.
But when Red Bull tells you it can grow wings, it's a message congruent with what's being sold. When car ads imply they can make you fierce masters of your own destiny, or any ad tells you the product makes you sexy and desirable, those are messages in sync with what is being sold. Fatuous, perhaps, or quite probably a pack of lies, but the emotional resonance aligns with the nature of the thing being sold.
The MS ad does not. You act as if the fact that commercials are nonsensical in certain ways mean that they may be nonsensical in any or every way and still work, but that's not the case. To be successful, the dreams of advertising have to make at least dream sense-- I can be powerful, I can be beautiful, I can have control over my life, I am wise and discriminating, I am a rebel, etc.
"I can be less of a self-absorbed asocial buffoon by doing more of what they're showing me is the problem but, I guess, slightly differently" is not a dream that aligns with anything. It's a solid two steps of meta away from landing with the impact of "having wings" or "being hot." KFC is never going to run ads with pictures of fat people with the implicit message that the new chicken lard bucket is slimming because they redesigned the bucket. Network television is never going to introduce the fall line up by showing people with no lives, wall eyed on their couches, suggesting that perhaps these new shows will get you out and about. They don't because no matter what they might say, no one is ever going to buy the idea that some new version of what they're selling actually improves the well known side effects, and drawing attention to the well known side effects just puts people off the whole enterprise. Although apparently because many ads have fanciful techniques it precludes pointing out that a "KFC makes you skinny" ad would be wrong headed because "that's how advertising works"?
Hmmm, I see Gruber is making the same point here, no doubt because he doesn't know how advertising works. He does speculate, however, that perhaps MS is targeting first time smartphone buyers, people for whom the idea that "other people" are the jerks that they won't become might have some traction.
All of this, of course, is entirely adjacent to whether or not WP 7 is a good product or not, or it's chances of being successful, or even if MS will subsequently run less garbled ads. I'm just talking about this one ad.
I’m talking about the AppleTV, I’m talking about iDevices like the iPhone, Touch and iPad being in the hands of people who are in the living room. What Apple hasn’t won is the TV or entertainment center in the living room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appl
Last night was typical around here.
TV on, kids looking at their cellphones, etc.
One kid had a brand new Droid X. WOW! That thing is GREAT! He was showing off videos on his huge screen.
Another had some sort of cheap keyboard phone. My kid used his netbook.
I found a cool video, plugged my laptop into the HDMI, and we watched on the 46 inch panel in 5.1 sound. My iPhone stayed in my pocket.
Last night wasn't typical because of the baseball playoffs-- Giants vs Braves.
Also, as an iOS developer I have access to the iOS 4.2 Beta which brings capability to iDevices that will be generally available in November.
Our household consists of me, my daughter and her 3 kids: Girl age 14; Boys age 12 and 10.
No computers or TV of any kind in the living room-- but an AirPort Express attached to a B&O stereo with McIntosh speakers.
In the Family room we have an entertainment center (Built-in cabinets):
-- Sony Bravia 46" HDTV
-- New AppleTV
-- Mac Mini (BT KB, BT Mouse, EyeTV)
-- Wii
-- DVD / VCR Combo
-- Connector for VideoCam
-- Connector for Computer
-- ATT U-Verse (Internet and Cable TV)
-- iPhone/iPod Universal Dock
-- AirPort Extreme
The Family room computer desk:
-- iMac 24, BT KB, BT Mouse
-- Epson Scanner
-- USB Charging/Synching center
The Den / Office:
-- iMac 24 with external Apple Cinema Display, BT KB, BT Mouse, BT Touch Pad, BT SD Card reader
-- 20 Terabytes of external FireWire HDD storage (iOS Development, Final Cut, iMovie, Time Machine Backups, etc).
-- Midi adapter and Piano Keyboard.
-- Headless Mini media center with 4 Terabyte external HDD storage (iTunes and iPhoto libraries and Backups)
We have 6 iPhones -- 2 with SIMs and the others are used as iPod Touches by the kids
We Have 2 iPads -- Primarily Me and my daughter, but usually appropriated by the kids
A typical evening (after homework, soccer practice and dinner)
-- Me on the couch watching the Big HDTV and surfing on my iPad
-- My Daughter on the other couch, watching the Big HDTV, reading a book (physical or on her iPad).
-- 1 or 2 kids on the family computer playing games on the web
-- 1 to 3 kids on their iPod/iPhones playing games (ear buds)
As the evening evolves, the players and devices will change hands -- the kids usually end up with the iPads and iPod/iPhones (sometimes sharing) playing multiplayer or multi turn games, watching a streamed video from NetFlix or StreamToMe from the media center Mini. Sometimes they read books or surf the web.
Often, for a TV show, or Movie, we break out the popcorn and everyone watches the Big HDTV (TV or Streamed from the media library via AppleTV)
Sometimes the kids use the HDTV Wii setup to play favorite games while the adults are on the computers or their iPads.
Very seldom do we use the Mini attached to the HDTV.
In the past, I have connected a laptop to the HDTV (I have a port reserved) -- but have not done so in months (don't use the laptop anymore).
We had the original AppleTV, so we have been streaming music, video, and photos throughout the house for several years... nothing new, except the new AppleTV is much better.
I use AirPlay, now, to stream audio to the B&O. the AppleTV. etc.
When Video is supported for AirPlay, I suspect I will use it often to painlessly (no wires, no hookup) stream content from iDevices to the HDTV.
We can surf the web on the Mini attached to the HDTV -- but it is a terrible experience -- watching someone else type (badly).
What has changed the way we use our family room (Living Room equivalent) is the iPads, and to a lesser extent the iPod/iPhones.
The iPad can be a personal (for 1 or 2) TV, Movie Player, Game player, web surfer. The iPad is just the right size and form factor for portability, usability and convenience.
With the iPad, you can stop on a dime, change direction, then resume where you left off. For example, my granddaughter was watching a NetFlix movie-- double tap home and she brought up a recipe for dinner, walked into the kitchen to show her mom (could have printed it) then walked back to the living room to continue her movie.
Whew! Long story, longer.
What I am trying to illustrate is that I agree with Sol -- the "living room" is more of a concept than a single place. It is the source of our content whether external (TV, DVD, Streamed) or internal (Home Movies, Photos, Streamed).
Some times it is everybody in the same room watching/listening/playing the same thing on the HDTV (Video, Music, Games).
Sometimes it is as above, but one or more are multitasking on their iPad or iPod/iPhone.
Sometimes it is everyone doing their own thing while spread all over the house and yard.
So, in this broader concept of a "virtual living room", I agree with Sol that iDevices have changed the meaning (and location) -- there is no "living room"... it is nowhere... it is everywhere *.
... and Apple has most of the pieces of the puzzle in place.
* I have used an iPad to access movies streamed from my home media center over 3G, while sitting in the middle of a park.
Isn't the point though that if you know about these few things in Apple's pipe line you are reasonably confident they are not rumors? That is quite a contrast to the countless products and features that are openly announced as existing and turn out to be vaporware from certain companies. One has to suspect attempts to slow up or delay potential buying of Apple's products when this happens.
Of course, to be fair to MS, they may have in some cases, been showing things intended for production but pulled them when Apple made them obsolete over night. So production was halted. This may happen a lot to MS these days.
We're not talking about vaporware here though. We're talking about Copy Paste coming in 2011, something we can be reasonably sure is coming because it's a pretty big point.
solipsism claimed that Apple didn't sell devices with the promise of future updates, I pointed out those examples showing that they have.
Last night wasn't typical because of the baseball playoffs-- Giants vs Braves.
Also, as an iOS developer I have access to the iOS 4.2 Beta which brings capability to iDevices that will be generally available in November.
Our household consists of me, my daughter and her 3 kids: Girl age 14; Boys age 12 and 10.
No computers or TV of any kind in the living room-- but an AirPort Express attached to a B&O stereo with McIntosh speakers.
...<edited for length>....
Dick - my respect for you just jumped up a notch - B&O in the livingroom? NICE! I retired my old B&O receiver to my parents to use, and we've been using my wife's Denon/Bose system for family listening since then. Been thinking about switching back once the kids move out. Kudos!
Back on topic, I question whether Microsoft has truly integrated the Zune/XBox systems, or simply aggregated them as selling points. OOTB, I don't think this will be as robust a platform as iOS, but I wait to be proven wrong. The problem is, as more people embrace iOS/Android, consumer inertia sets in. Once they are generally happy with their iOS/Android experiences (which was one of the key drivers in the iPad popularity spike for example - right?) what inducement will Redmond be able to offer to get them to switch? Even if, like my household, you have an Xbox and other Microsoft stuff, the hub system is still iOS for the most part. The family doesn't look for integration with the Msoft stuff - and that will be a hard sell for them.
On the business side it will be easier. With the level of integration in the corporate dataverse - switching to WP7 will be sold as a cost-savings: easier to integrate with Exchange, less hardware overhead (no BES needed) and an interface that speaks to corporate users. Unless RIM comes up with a strong contender, Msoft will win in the corporate space - and that may be enough success to make the platform viable.
Cut the stupid sarcasm. Tiresome. Especially when the point you're trying to make does not wash.
When Apple introduced the iPad, it created the category. What it chose to put in or leave out is what the category had or did not. Period. The touch-bsed smartphone is now nearly a four-year-old product with a lot of credible benchmarks.
Really? Apple created a category? I'm pretty sure they didn't create a category, they just made it popular. That is unless you can prove nobody produced a tablet computer before Apple. I'm not saying a good or even hot selling one, just produced. See, if you aren't the first, then you can't claim to "create" the category. You're an idiot.
My point is completely valid. WP7 is a great start to a new OS from MS. Almost everyone is giving it high reviews. Just because it is missing a feature doesn't make it totally useless. A feature which will be added in the next few months at that.
Look at the home screen and how you can customize it and see all your info there...not bad for a first version of an OS. And when Apple releases a customized home screen on iOS 5 all the Apple Fanboys will talk about how revolutionary it is....what a joke. Apple should have let me customize my home screen with version 3!
MS molds ideas they get from Apple and Apple molds ideas they get from MS, and they both take ideas they get from hundreds of other venders. You might even go as far as to say they steal these ideas. In the end the more they add and adapt the better we all are.
And sorry, cutting the sarcasm isn't an option. It is the only way I can deal with the annoying Apple fanboys who think nothing is "created" until it is released by Apple.
This is how I see it. Apple makes great products, I buy great products (iPhones, Touch, iPad, MacBook, Mac Mini, and iPods, with the exception of the iPad I own at least two of each). But I'm not loyal to Apple. I really enjoy their products, but they aren't perfect, just better than most. I'd give their design and construction a 10 on most things and their OS's a solid 8. I actually like Windows 7 more but can't stand the crappy looking hardware most PC makers release. If/when someone makes a better product I will look into it. Have you seen the Samsung Galaxy?
Dick - my respect for you just jumped up a notch - B&O in the livingroom? NICE! I retired my old B&O receiver to my parents to use, and we've been using my wife's Denon/Bose system for family listening since then. Been thinking about switching back once the kids move out. Kudos!
Ha! Mine is a vintage BeoSystem 8000, circa 1984-- all-in-one rosewood cabinet. My late wife Lucy & I bought it as a Christmas present for ourselves.
When my Dad* saw it, he bought one just Like it, except he liked the McIntosh speakers better (he was right).
Woz had a couple of these, and when he replaced them, put the 8000s on his front porch-- you take 'em away.
They had the first computer-based (8080) integration with a remote. Fantastic sound. The only problems I've had is that rubber parts, belts, foam for speakers and earphones... don't hold up.
We also have a couple of Bose systems -- One was connected to an AirPort Express in the Den / Office. The AirPort Express recently died, and I am waiting to see what happens before I replace it.
* My Dad was a self taught radio pioneer -- he and my uncle made Hi-Fi radios in the 1950s with base-boost and crossover circuits. Over the years he built about 30 different stereos and speakers -- including little 100-lb folded horn speakers that you put in the corners of the room, they used the walls and ceiling as the external extension of the horn. He had one woofer enclosure about the size of a double-high coffin-- when he cranked it up you could feel the air movement; see the glass flex in the opposite bay window... and he could make a Japanese wood candy dish jump off their marble coffee table.
All this recent "surround sound" stuff is great-- but I can remember feeling the 1812 cannons in the pit of my stomach!
Really? Apple created a category? I'm pretty sure they didn't create a category, they just made it popular. That is unless you can prove nobody produced a tablet computer before Apple. I'm not saying a good or even hot selling one, just produced. See, if you aren't the first, then you can't claim to "create" the category. You're an idiot.
It may just be semantics but I believe that the iPad and the tablets to follow are a different category.
Consider, there were Tablet PCs before the iPad;
-- but these were just PCs running a PC OS with a [bolted-on] tablet UI.
-- they were barely portable
-- they had a long startup time
-- they had poor battery life
-- they were difficult to use, being neither fish nor fowl
The thing that makes the iPad (and its genre) different is that it focuses on doing a few things really, really well-- and either meets minimum (or no show) on other things.
iPads are not PCs, nor Tablet PCs -- as we knew them.
Another way to look at the category is: what you can do with it-- rather than what it can do!
During a baseball game, would you grab a tablet PC, boot it, to surf for a pitcher's stats-- probably not.
Would you load up your tablet PC with several movies and take it and the extra batteries on the long flight to Australia-- maybe (but, it'd be a mess getting it through inspection).
Would you want to do heavy video compositing or Photoshopping on an iPad-- likely, not! But, most people don't do that most of the time.
If sales are any indication, the few things that the iPad does really, really well are what most people want to do most of the time.
It may just be semantics but I believe that the iPad and the tablets to follow are a different category.
Consider, there were Tablet PCs before the iPad;
-- but these were just PCs running a PC OS with a [bolted-on] tablet UI.
-- they were barely portable
-- they had a long startup time
-- they had poor battery life
-- they were difficult to use, being neither fish nor fowl
The thing that makes the iPad (and its genre) different is that it focuses on doing a few things really, really well-- and either meets minimum (or no show) on other things.
iPads are not PCs, nor Tablet PCs -- as we knew them.
Another way to look at the category is: what you can do with it-- rather than what it can do!
During a baseball game, would you grab a tablet PC, boot it, to surf for a pitcher's stats-- probably not.
Would you load up your tablet PC with several movies and take it and the extra batteries on the long flight to Australia-- maybe (but, it'd be a mess getting it through inspection).
Would you want to do heavy video compositing or Photoshopping on an iPad-- likely, not! But, most people don't do that most of the time.
If sales are any indication, the few things that the iPad does really, really well are what most people want to do most of the time.
.
hey they are about to stock Walmart up with them aren't they? so sounds like you have nailed it.
It may just be semantics but I believe that the iPad and the tablets to follow are a different category.
Could the original tablets surf the web, yes. Could they install applications, yes. So what really is the innovation that created a different category? none.
There really isn't much the iPad can "do" now that couldn't have been done before on a tablet or netbook. The iPad just makes the "do" part a lot more fun and easier.
The iPads are better, tons better. Faster. Sexier. Easier. But yet they are still a tablet. Still in the same category, only dominating that category.
I guess a comparison would be trying to say the Model-T was the first car, or was a new category of car. Nope, it was just a better car for the money, but still a car.
Could the original tablets surf the web, yes. Could they install applications, yes. So what really is the innovation that created a different category? none.
There really isn't much the iPad can "do" now that couldn't have been done before on a tablet or netbook. The iPad just makes the "do" part a lot more fun and easier.
The iPads are better, tons better. Faster. Sexier. Easier. But yet they are still a tablet. Still in the same category, only dominating that category.
I guess a comparison would be trying to say the Model-T was the first car, or was a new category of car. Nope, it was just a better car for the money, but still a car.
By that logic the MacBook Air is just another Turing Machine -- clearly, it is not!
Could the original tablets surf the web, yes. Could they install applications, yes. So what really is the innovation that created a different category? none.
There really isn't much the iPad can "do" now that couldn't have been done before on a tablet or netbook. The iPad just makes the "do" part a lot more fun and easier.
The iPads are better, tons better. Faster. Sexier. Easier. But yet they are still a tablet. Still in the same category, only dominating that category.
I guess a comparison would be trying to say the Model-T was the first car, or was a new category of car. Nope, it was just a better car for the money, but still a car.
Of course we can expand and contract the meaning of "category" to include or exclude anything we like. Make your definition broad enough and there's nothing new under the sun, ever, or focus in enough and "DSLRs under $600 with a kit lens that does HD video" is its own thing.
Calling the iPad a new category of device seems pretty reasonable to me, in that a thin, light, inexpensive touch based tablet running a lightweight purpose built OS coupled to an specialized application store which has achieved critical mass market success is a new thing. When the history of computing is written, the iPad will surely be cited as the dawn of the tablet age, with whatever "slates" and whatnot that came before relegated to footnote status.
Every great invention that we associate with particular innovators had precedents and antecedents. We give pride of ownership to the ones that figured out how to make those inventions something more than lab curiosities.
To use your example, the Model T-- as mass market, affordable, standardized automobile-- was certainly a new category of car, and one that ushered in a new era of widespread car ownership. The iPad is similarly a new category of computing device, one that is ushering in a new era of ubiquitous touch computing.
Of course we can expand and contract the meaning of "category" to include or exclude anything we like. Make your definition broad enough and there's nothing new under the sun, ever, or focus in enough and "DSLRs under $600 with a kit lens that does HD video" is its own thing.
Calling the iPad a new category of device seems pretty reasonable to me, in that a thin, light, inexpensive touch based tablet running a lightweight purpose built OS coupled to an specialized application store which has achieved critical mass market success is a new thing. When the history of computing is written, the iPad will surely be cited as the dawn of the tablet age, with whatever "slates" and whatnot that came before relegated to footnote status.
Every great invention that we associate with particular innovators had precedents and antecedents. We give pride of ownership to the ones that figured out how to make those inventions something more than lab curiosities.
To use your example, the Model T-- as mass market, affordable, standardized automobile-- was certainly a new category of car, and one that ushered in a new era of widespread car ownership. The iPad is similarly a new category of computing device, one that is ushering in a new era of ubiquitous touch computing.
The MS ad does not. You act as if the fact that commercials are nonsensical in certain ways mean that they may be nonsensical in any or every way and still work, but that's not the case. To be successful, the dreams of advertising have to make at least dream sense-- I can be powerful, I can be beautiful, I can have control over my life, I am wise and discriminating, I am a rebel, etc.
I can achieve my goals, with less time, by using a more efficient phone.
Comments
Isn't the point though that if you know about these few things in Apple's pipe line you are reasonably confident they are not rumors? That is quite a contrast to the countless products and features that are openly announced as existing and turn out to be vaporware from certain companies. One has to suspect attempts to slow up or delay potential buying of Apple's products when this happens.
Of course, to be fair to MS, they may have in some cases, been showing things intended for production but pulled them when Apple made them obsolete over night. So production was halted. This may happen a lot to MS these days.
I even addressed that even with shorter lead times that they still have delays, though rarely fail to come through or have to scrap a project for whatever reason.
For me, the biggest ?let down? from Apple in terms of vapourware was stating that Resolution independence would arrive with Mac OS X 10.4 ?Tiger?. This was stated and posted on Apple?s site back in 2004. It never came to fruition in Tiger, they may have also advertised it in Leopard but I don?t think they advertised it for Snow Leopard, but I can?t recall exactly.
Again, as I previously stated, Apple is very good about not shooting itself in the foot with promises of HW and SW that it can?t deliver, and yet still has delays on their self imposed time tables for various reasons. I?ll take that over empty promises any day.
PS: I wonder how Balmer feels about spending so much time at CES earlier this year pimping the HP Slate running Windows 7 that seems will never come to market?
Are you proud to be a simpleton? Throwing in with those too stupid to compare products?
Don't insult people.
That's why I don't drive. I can't possibly choose which car to buy!
I wish somebody made just one model. That would be the manufacturer for me!
C'mon. Don't be absurd.
Cars are more of an investment.
Actually Zune HD is fine product. Too late to commercially compete with iDevices on it's own, but as a part of phone platform there is nothing wrong with it.
I wonder why it was never launched internationally?
C.
Don't worry Airplay will solve this.
Solve what?
And I forgot to even mention, that another kid, not the one with the brand new Droid X, but with some other Android phone (I forget which one) could control my FIOS set top box, wirelessly from his phone, and both control what it displayed, and even more amazingly, he could stream content from his phone to the TV set wirelessly!! At any place that had FIOS, including my living room.
He could play videos stored on his big SD card. As it was, he displayed some photos and YouTube and other stuff, sitting on the couch with his cellphone.
I was amazed, and immediately went to the App Store to get a copy. But - there was no such software for my iPhone. Verizon's iOS App did none of that stuff. No third party app that could do any of it. Nada. Zilch.
Anybody got any suggestions for me, given how Apple owns my living room? What software do I use to stream stuff from my iPhone to my Verizon FIOS set top box?
Don't insult people.
What if I had said
"The way you say that, it seems to me that you try to align yourself with simpletons, who are too stupid to make choices. Indeed, it seems to me that you are bragging about it, and that you are proud of it.
Is that what you intended"?
Instead of
"Are you proud to be a simpleton? Throwing in with those too stupid to compare products?"
Would that have been OK?
I thought the guy was just talking, not seriously, and didn't really know what he was saying. I was just trying to get him to realize what he was truly saying.
Was it the way it was phrased, or the fact that I was identifying a problem with his manner of approaching the situation?
I wasn't being facetious. It actually sounds like you don't really get how this kind of advertising works, and that's fine. If you can't understand it you probably aren't affected by it either, which with the constant barrage of advertising is, in many ways, an enviable position to be it.
Attempting to keep it more literal the WP7 ad goes something like this... "sometimes it appears that smartphone users are so absorbed in their phones that they miss out on the world around them. If you don't see yourself as that kind of person, or don't want to be that kind of person, you should have a look at WP7"
WP7 doesn't need to project information directly into your cerebrum just like Red Bull doesn't need to make you grow wings and Calvin Klein underpants don't need to make you look like a semi-naked David Beckham because they aren't describing a literal feature set, they are selling an idea.
I don't think you're listening to me. I'm not arguing that commercials have to be literally truthful, or that emotionally appealing flights of fancy are illegitimate means for crafting a sales pitch. Very obviously, commercials do this all the time.
But when Red Bull tells you it can grow wings, it's a message congruent with what's being sold. When car ads imply they can make you fierce masters of your own destiny, or any ad tells you the product makes you sexy and desirable, those are messages in sync with what is being sold. Fatuous, perhaps, or quite probably a pack of lies, but the emotional resonance aligns with the nature of the thing being sold.
The MS ad does not. You act as if the fact that commercials are nonsensical in certain ways mean that they may be nonsensical in any or every way and still work, but that's not the case. To be successful, the dreams of advertising have to make at least dream sense-- I can be powerful, I can be beautiful, I can have control over my life, I am wise and discriminating, I am a rebel, etc.
"I can be less of a self-absorbed asocial buffoon by doing more of what they're showing me is the problem but, I guess, slightly differently" is not a dream that aligns with anything. It's a solid two steps of meta away from landing with the impact of "having wings" or "being hot." KFC is never going to run ads with pictures of fat people with the implicit message that the new chicken lard bucket is slimming because they redesigned the bucket. Network television is never going to introduce the fall line up by showing people with no lives, wall eyed on their couches, suggesting that perhaps these new shows will get you out and about. They don't because no matter what they might say, no one is ever going to buy the idea that some new version of what they're selling actually improves the well known side effects, and drawing attention to the well known side effects just puts people off the whole enterprise. Although apparently because many ads have fanciful techniques it precludes pointing out that a "KFC makes you skinny" ad would be wrong headed because "that's how advertising works"?
Hmmm, I see Gruber is making the same point here, no doubt because he doesn't know how advertising works. He does speculate, however, that perhaps MS is targeting first time smartphone buyers, people for whom the idea that "other people" are the jerks that they won't become might have some traction.
All of this, of course, is entirely adjacent to whether or not WP 7 is a good product or not, or it's chances of being successful, or even if MS will subsequently run less garbled ads. I'm just talking about this one ad.
I’m talking about the AppleTV, I’m talking about iDevices like the iPhone, Touch and iPad being in the hands of people who are in the living room. What Apple hasn’t won is the TV or entertainment center in the living room.
Last night was typical around here.
TV on, kids looking at their cellphones, etc.
One kid had a brand new Droid X. WOW! That thing is GREAT! He was showing off videos on his huge screen.
Another had some sort of cheap keyboard phone. My kid used his netbook.
I found a cool video, plugged my laptop into the HDMI, and we watched on the 46 inch panel in 5.1 sound. My iPhone stayed in my pocket.
Last night wasn't typical because of the baseball playoffs-- Giants vs Braves.
Also, as an iOS developer I have access to the iOS 4.2 Beta which brings capability to iDevices that will be generally available in November.
Our household consists of me, my daughter and her 3 kids: Girl age 14; Boys age 12 and 10.
No computers or TV of any kind in the living room-- but an AirPort Express attached to a B&O stereo with McIntosh speakers.
In the Family room we have an entertainment center (Built-in cabinets):
-- Sony Bravia 46" HDTV
-- New AppleTV
-- Mac Mini (BT KB, BT Mouse, EyeTV)
-- Wii
-- DVD / VCR Combo
-- Connector for VideoCam
-- Connector for Computer
-- ATT U-Verse (Internet and Cable TV)
-- iPhone/iPod Universal Dock
-- AirPort Extreme
The Family room computer desk:
-- iMac 24, BT KB, BT Mouse
-- Epson Scanner
-- USB Charging/Synching center
The Den / Office:
-- iMac 24 with external Apple Cinema Display, BT KB, BT Mouse, BT Touch Pad, BT SD Card reader
-- 20 Terabytes of external FireWire HDD storage (iOS Development, Final Cut, iMovie, Time Machine Backups, etc).
-- Midi adapter and Piano Keyboard.
-- Headless Mini media center with 4 Terabyte external HDD storage (iTunes and iPhoto libraries and Backups)
We have 6 iPhones -- 2 with SIMs and the others are used as iPod Touches by the kids
We Have 2 iPads -- Primarily Me and my daughter, but usually appropriated by the kids
A typical evening (after homework, soccer practice and dinner)
-- Me on the couch watching the Big HDTV and surfing on my iPad
-- My Daughter on the other couch, watching the Big HDTV, reading a book (physical or on her iPad).
-- 1 or 2 kids on the family computer playing games on the web
-- 1 to 3 kids on their iPod/iPhones playing games (ear buds)
As the evening evolves, the players and devices will change hands -- the kids usually end up with the iPads and iPod/iPhones (sometimes sharing) playing multiplayer or multi turn games, watching a streamed video from NetFlix or StreamToMe from the media center Mini. Sometimes they read books or surf the web.
Often, for a TV show, or Movie, we break out the popcorn and everyone watches the Big HDTV (TV or Streamed from the media library via AppleTV)
Sometimes the kids use the HDTV Wii setup to play favorite games while the adults are on the computers or their iPads.
Very seldom do we use the Mini attached to the HDTV.
In the past, I have connected a laptop to the HDTV (I have a port reserved) -- but have not done so in months (don't use the laptop anymore).
We had the original AppleTV, so we have been streaming music, video, and photos throughout the house for several years... nothing new, except the new AppleTV is much better.
I use AirPlay, now, to stream audio to the B&O. the AppleTV. etc.
When Video is supported for AirPlay, I suspect I will use it often to painlessly (no wires, no hookup) stream content from iDevices to the HDTV.
We can surf the web on the Mini attached to the HDTV -- but it is a terrible experience -- watching someone else type (badly).
What has changed the way we use our family room (Living Room equivalent) is the iPads, and to a lesser extent the iPod/iPhones.
The iPad can be a personal (for 1 or 2) TV, Movie Player, Game player, web surfer. The iPad is just the right size and form factor for portability, usability and convenience.
With the iPad, you can stop on a dime, change direction, then resume where you left off. For example, my granddaughter was watching a NetFlix movie-- double tap home and she brought up a recipe for dinner, walked into the kitchen to show her mom (could have printed it) then walked back to the living room to continue her movie.
Whew! Long story, longer.
What I am trying to illustrate is that I agree with Sol -- the "living room" is more of a concept than a single place. It is the source of our content whether external (TV, DVD, Streamed) or internal (Home Movies, Photos, Streamed).
Some times it is everybody in the same room watching/listening/playing the same thing on the HDTV (Video, Music, Games).
Sometimes it is as above, but one or more are multitasking on their iPad or iPod/iPhone.
Sometimes it is everyone doing their own thing while spread all over the house and yard.
So, in this broader concept of a "virtual living room", I agree with Sol that iDevices have changed the meaning (and location) -- there is no "living room"... it is nowhere... it is everywhere *.
... and Apple has most of the pieces of the puzzle in place.
* I have used an iPad to access movies streamed from my home media center over 3G, while sitting in the middle of a park.
.
Isn't the point though that if you know about these few things in Apple's pipe line you are reasonably confident they are not rumors? That is quite a contrast to the countless products and features that are openly announced as existing and turn out to be vaporware from certain companies. One has to suspect attempts to slow up or delay potential buying of Apple's products when this happens.
Of course, to be fair to MS, they may have in some cases, been showing things intended for production but pulled them when Apple made them obsolete over night. So production was halted. This may happen a lot to MS these days.
We're not talking about vaporware here though. We're talking about Copy Paste coming in 2011, something we can be reasonably sure is coming because it's a pretty big point.
solipsism claimed that Apple didn't sell devices with the promise of future updates, I pointed out those examples showing that they have.
* I have used an iPad to access movies streamed form my home media center over 3G, while sitting in the middle of a park.
.
That is very cool.
Can it be done using an iPhone?
That is very cool.
Can it be done using an iPhone?
Yes!
.
Last night wasn't typical because of the baseball playoffs-- Giants vs Braves.
Also, as an iOS developer I have access to the iOS 4.2 Beta which brings capability to iDevices that will be generally available in November.
Our household consists of me, my daughter and her 3 kids: Girl age 14; Boys age 12 and 10.
No computers or TV of any kind in the living room-- but an AirPort Express attached to a B&O stereo with McIntosh speakers.
...<edited for length>....
Dick - my respect for you just jumped up a notch - B&O in the livingroom? NICE! I retired my old B&O receiver to my parents to use, and we've been using my wife's Denon/Bose system for family listening since then. Been thinking about switching back once the kids move out. Kudos!
Back on topic, I question whether Microsoft has truly integrated the Zune/XBox systems, or simply aggregated them as selling points. OOTB, I don't think this will be as robust a platform as iOS, but I wait to be proven wrong. The problem is, as more people embrace iOS/Android, consumer inertia sets in. Once they are generally happy with their iOS/Android experiences (which was one of the key drivers in the iPad popularity spike for example - right?) what inducement will Redmond be able to offer to get them to switch? Even if, like my household, you have an Xbox and other Microsoft stuff, the hub system is still iOS for the most part. The family doesn't look for integration with the Msoft stuff - and that will be a hard sell for them.
On the business side it will be easier. With the level of integration in the corporate dataverse - switching to WP7 will be sold as a cost-savings: easier to integrate with Exchange, less hardware overhead (no BES needed) and an interface that speaks to corporate users. Unless RIM comes up with a strong contender, Msoft will win in the corporate space - and that may be enough success to make the platform viable.
Cut the stupid sarcasm. Tiresome. Especially when the point you're trying to make does not wash.
When Apple introduced the iPad, it created the category. What it chose to put in or leave out is what the category had or did not. Period. The touch-bsed smartphone is now nearly a four-year-old product with a lot of credible benchmarks.
Really? Apple created a category? I'm pretty sure they didn't create a category, they just made it popular. That is unless you can prove nobody produced a tablet computer before Apple. I'm not saying a good or even hot selling one, just produced. See, if you aren't the first, then you can't claim to "create" the category. You're an idiot.
My point is completely valid. WP7 is a great start to a new OS from MS. Almost everyone is giving it high reviews. Just because it is missing a feature doesn't make it totally useless. A feature which will be added in the next few months at that.
Look at the home screen and how you can customize it and see all your info there...not bad for a first version of an OS. And when Apple releases a customized home screen on iOS 5 all the Apple Fanboys will talk about how revolutionary it is....what a joke. Apple should have let me customize my home screen with version 3!
MS molds ideas they get from Apple and Apple molds ideas they get from MS, and they both take ideas they get from hundreds of other venders. You might even go as far as to say they steal these ideas. In the end the more they add and adapt the better we all are.
And sorry, cutting the sarcasm isn't an option. It is the only way I can deal with the annoying Apple fanboys who think nothing is "created" until it is released by Apple.
This is how I see it. Apple makes great products, I buy great products (iPhones, Touch, iPad, MacBook, Mac Mini, and iPods, with the exception of the iPad I own at least two of each). But I'm not loyal to Apple. I really enjoy their products, but they aren't perfect, just better than most. I'd give their design and construction a 10 on most things and their OS's a solid 8. I actually like Windows 7 more but can't stand the crappy looking hardware most PC makers release. If/when someone makes a better product I will look into it. Have you seen the Samsung Galaxy?
Dick - my respect for you just jumped up a notch - B&O in the livingroom? NICE! I retired my old B&O receiver to my parents to use, and we've been using my wife's Denon/Bose system for family listening since then. Been thinking about switching back once the kids move out. Kudos!
Ha! Mine is a vintage BeoSystem 8000, circa 1984-- all-in-one rosewood cabinet. My late wife Lucy & I bought it as a Christmas present for ourselves.
When my Dad* saw it, he bought one just Like it, except he liked the McIntosh speakers better (he was right).
Woz had a couple of these, and when he replaced them, put the 8000s on his front porch-- you take 'em away.
They had the first computer-based (8080) integration with a remote. Fantastic sound. The only problems I've had is that rubber parts, belts, foam for speakers and earphones... don't hold up.
We also have a couple of Bose systems -- One was connected to an AirPort Express in the Den / Office. The AirPort Express recently died, and I am waiting to see what happens before I replace it.
* My Dad was a self taught radio pioneer -- he and my uncle made Hi-Fi radios in the 1950s with base-boost and crossover circuits. Over the years he built about 30 different stereos and speakers -- including little 100-lb folded horn speakers that you put in the corners of the room, they used the walls and ceiling as the external extension of the horn. He had one woofer enclosure about the size of a double-high coffin-- when he cranked it up you could feel the air movement; see the glass flex in the opposite bay window... and he could make a Japanese wood candy dish jump off their marble coffee table.
All this recent "surround sound" stuff is great-- but I can remember feeling the 1812 cannons in the pit of my stomach!
.
Really? Apple created a category? I'm pretty sure they didn't create a category, they just made it popular. That is unless you can prove nobody produced a tablet computer before Apple. I'm not saying a good or even hot selling one, just produced. See, if you aren't the first, then you can't claim to "create" the category. You're an idiot.
It may just be semantics but I believe that the iPad and the tablets to follow are a different category.
Consider, there were Tablet PCs before the iPad;
-- but these were just PCs running a PC OS with a [bolted-on] tablet UI.
-- they were barely portable
-- they had a long startup time
-- they had poor battery life
-- they were difficult to use, being neither fish nor fowl
The thing that makes the iPad (and its genre) different is that it focuses on doing a few things really, really well-- and either meets minimum (or no show) on other things.
iPads are not PCs, nor Tablet PCs -- as we knew them.
Another way to look at the category is: what you can do with it-- rather than what it can do!
During a baseball game, would you grab a tablet PC, boot it, to surf for a pitcher's stats-- probably not.
Would you load up your tablet PC with several movies and take it and the extra batteries on the long flight to Australia-- maybe (but, it'd be a mess getting it through inspection).
Would you want to do heavy video compositing or Photoshopping on an iPad-- likely, not! But, most people don't do that most of the time.
If sales are any indication, the few things that the iPad does really, really well are what most people want to do most of the time.
.
It may just be semantics but I believe that the iPad and the tablets to follow are a different category.
Consider, there were Tablet PCs before the iPad;
-- but these were just PCs running a PC OS with a [bolted-on] tablet UI.
-- they were barely portable
-- they had a long startup time
-- they had poor battery life
-- they were difficult to use, being neither fish nor fowl
The thing that makes the iPad (and its genre) different is that it focuses on doing a few things really, really well-- and either meets minimum (or no show) on other things.
iPads are not PCs, nor Tablet PCs -- as we knew them.
Another way to look at the category is: what you can do with it-- rather than what it can do!
During a baseball game, would you grab a tablet PC, boot it, to surf for a pitcher's stats-- probably not.
Would you load up your tablet PC with several movies and take it and the extra batteries on the long flight to Australia-- maybe (but, it'd be a mess getting it through inspection).
Would you want to do heavy video compositing or Photoshopping on an iPad-- likely, not! But, most people don't do that most of the time.
If sales are any indication, the few things that the iPad does really, really well are what most people want to do most of the time.
.
hey they are about to stock Walmart up with them aren't they? so sounds like you have nailed it.
It may just be semantics but I believe that the iPad and the tablets to follow are a different category.
Could the original tablets surf the web, yes. Could they install applications, yes. So what really is the innovation that created a different category? none.
There really isn't much the iPad can "do" now that couldn't have been done before on a tablet or netbook. The iPad just makes the "do" part a lot more fun and easier.
The iPads are better, tons better. Faster. Sexier. Easier. But yet they are still a tablet. Still in the same category, only dominating that category.
I guess a comparison would be trying to say the Model-T was the first car, or was a new category of car. Nope, it was just a better car for the money, but still a car.
Could the original tablets surf the web, yes. Could they install applications, yes. So what really is the innovation that created a different category? none.
There really isn't much the iPad can "do" now that couldn't have been done before on a tablet or netbook. The iPad just makes the "do" part a lot more fun and easier.
The iPads are better, tons better. Faster. Sexier. Easier. But yet they are still a tablet. Still in the same category, only dominating that category.
I guess a comparison would be trying to say the Model-T was the first car, or was a new category of car. Nope, it was just a better car for the money, but still a car.
By that logic the MacBook Air is just another Turing Machine -- clearly, it is not!
.
Could the original tablets surf the web, yes. Could they install applications, yes. So what really is the innovation that created a different category? none.
There really isn't much the iPad can "do" now that couldn't have been done before on a tablet or netbook. The iPad just makes the "do" part a lot more fun and easier.
The iPads are better, tons better. Faster. Sexier. Easier. But yet they are still a tablet. Still in the same category, only dominating that category.
I guess a comparison would be trying to say the Model-T was the first car, or was a new category of car. Nope, it was just a better car for the money, but still a car.
Of course we can expand and contract the meaning of "category" to include or exclude anything we like. Make your definition broad enough and there's nothing new under the sun, ever, or focus in enough and "DSLRs under $600 with a kit lens that does HD video" is its own thing.
Calling the iPad a new category of device seems pretty reasonable to me, in that a thin, light, inexpensive touch based tablet running a lightweight purpose built OS coupled to an specialized application store which has achieved critical mass market success is a new thing. When the history of computing is written, the iPad will surely be cited as the dawn of the tablet age, with whatever "slates" and whatnot that came before relegated to footnote status.
Every great invention that we associate with particular innovators had precedents and antecedents. We give pride of ownership to the ones that figured out how to make those inventions something more than lab curiosities.
To use your example, the Model T-- as mass market, affordable, standardized automobile-- was certainly a new category of car, and one that ushered in a new era of widespread car ownership. The iPad is similarly a new category of computing device, one that is ushering in a new era of ubiquitous touch computing.
Of course we can expand and contract the meaning of "category" to include or exclude anything we like. Make your definition broad enough and there's nothing new under the sun, ever, or focus in enough and "DSLRs under $600 with a kit lens that does HD video" is its own thing.
Calling the iPad a new category of device seems pretty reasonable to me, in that a thin, light, inexpensive touch based tablet running a lightweight purpose built OS coupled to an specialized application store which has achieved critical mass market success is a new thing. When the history of computing is written, the iPad will surely be cited as the dawn of the tablet age, with whatever "slates" and whatnot that came before relegated to footnote status.
Every great invention that we associate with particular innovators had precedents and antecedents. We give pride of ownership to the ones that figured out how to make those inventions something more than lab curiosities.
To use your example, the Model T-- as mass market, affordable, standardized automobile-- was certainly a new category of car, and one that ushered in a new era of widespread car ownership. The iPad is similarly a new category of computing device, one that is ushering in a new era of ubiquitous touch computing.
Man, I wish I'da' come up with that!
HEAR! HEAR!
,
The MS ad does not. You act as if the fact that commercials are nonsensical in certain ways mean that they may be nonsensical in any or every way and still work, but that's not the case. To be successful, the dreams of advertising have to make at least dream sense-- I can be powerful, I can be beautiful, I can have control over my life, I am wise and discriminating, I am a rebel, etc.
I can achieve my goals, with less time, by using a more efficient phone.