Ok...please stop talking about Pixlet. Pixlet is not for consumers.
jesus tapdancin' christ, it's the first time i have EVER posted about it. i'm also talking file formats, regardless of consumer potential. would've caught that if you had read more than just one word.
edit: decided to remove a potentially flame-worthy comment...
jesus tapdancin' christ, it's the first time i have EVER posted about it. i'm also talking file formats, regardless of consumer potential. would've caught that if you had read more than just one word.
edit: decided to remove a potentially flame-worthy comment...
Sorry...it's just that too many people on this forum are uninformed about Pixlet. A lot think it could become the format for a QuickTime Movie Store and do what iTunes and AAC did to the music industry. This is simply not true.
Unless the internet magically becomes 100 times faster, downloading a movie in Pixlet format would take a day or more. The bandwidth required to feed a bunch of people these kind of files is waaay too much at this present time.
Apple is doing all kinds of print media for iPod now I've been seeing. There was a cool iPod Mini ad with little tear outs and "just enough" info to be worthwhile in the latest ASID Icon magazine. The big toronto subway thing is was interesting too. Pretty much still style/brand awareness only but interesting. I'm glad to see them making a much bigger marketing effort with the iPod vs their other products in the past.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The question is do they have to? How many commercials do? Not many at all And maybe that's all the NEED to say.
You must watch a different TV than I do. Most technology commericals do indeed list features. So basically you've stated that the branding ad would be more effective without stating features. Athough Apple is currently doing well in the market with its ads I'm curious as to you seem so opposed to including some features in them?
Quote:
Oh? Do you have the break down on this? Is your reasoning simply, "I don't so no one else must" or, better yet, " I just don't think the ads work, so they must not"?
Good god, did you concept the ad or what? Settle down Sparky, wasn't trying to attack you or anything. I don't know what you do for a living, but I've been in the design and advertising field for the last 10 years, so yes I fell like I can step outside of my personal experience and try to think about how the average consumer might react. Note the word might. There's no definites here.
Quote:
Have any gone out to buy it now? Why? Why not? Did they buy just because of that feature? Seems like a fairly small demographic that is going to buy a $400 portable FireWire drive vs. those that just like music.
Mainly it was just observation. I was suprised Mac kids didn't know about the feature. Which says to me that Apple isn't advertising them. It's an expensive purchase. Educating customers about additional features that "sweeten the pot" so to speak can hardly hurt. Or do you disagree?
Quote:
My guess? Just a guess. 95% of the people buying iPods bought them and use them exclusively as music players.
I think thats a loaded question to favor your argument. The question should be:"What percentage find the non-music player features useful?" Whether they end up using them or not, it might contribute to a purchase decision.
Sorry...it's just that too many people on this forum are uninformed about Pixlet. A lot think it could become the format for a QuickTime Movie Store and do what iTunes and AAC did to the music industry. This is simply not true.
Unless the internet magically becomes 100 times faster, downloading a movie in Pixlet format would take a day or more. The bandwidth required to feed a bunch of people these kind of files is waaay too much at this present time.
fair enough. i've got four hours sleep in me, so i have a hair trigger today.
It is not that "choice" is difficult to understand. It's just that many people throw that out as if it is the "holy grail" of...well anything. What I am asking is what you will gain by having a "choice"?
...
So, you want "choice". That's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But choice without actually having any real differentiators is simply an illusion.
To sum it up, you analyzed what the state of the mass market is right now, made the conclusion that the current Apple products should be good enough for anybody, and based on that you decided that there is no need for "choice".
I'll drop a couple of hints about why this is wrong on many levels.
What about after two years? Five years? When you have $2000 invested in purchased music? When Apple pulls out of the music player business / pulls out of the music store business / goes bankrupt / cuts backwards compatibility?
You must watch a different TV than I do. Most technology commericals do indeed list features.
Doubtful that we're watching different TV. Secondly, we're not talking about "technology" product, we're talking about a lifestyle product. Look at car commercials as an example. There are far more "featureless" ads for cars than those with. They are selling emotion.
Quote:
So basically you've stated that the branding ad would be more effective without stating features. Athough Apple is currently doing well in the market with its ads I'm curious as to you seem so opposed to including some features in them?
First, I am simply stating that Apple's ads appear to be working quite well already. Secondly I am not opposed to the ads you suggest, only stating that the one's they have right not appear to be working quite well.
Quote:
Good god, did you concept the ad or what? Settle down Sparky, wasn't trying to attack you or anything.
Okay...so **** you. Don't call me "sparky". I'm not getting defensive. I'm trying to argue that the type of ads that you seem to be INSISTING are REQUIRED are not (at least at this time).
Quote:
I was suprised Mac kids didn't know about the feature. Which says to me that Apple isn't advertising them. It's an expensive purchase. Educating customers about additional features that "sweeten the pot" so to speak can hardly hurt. Or do you disagree?
Actually, I might. What your saying could actually distract customers...make them lose interest...make eyes glaze over. For some in the market, yes...but the majority? I am not so sure. As one specific example...I knew all about all of the extra gee-whiz features of iPod before I got mine. I don't use any of them. I play music. That's it.
Quote:
I think thats a loaded question to favor your argument. The question should be:"What percentage find the non-music player features useful?" Whether they end up using them or not, it might contribute to a purchase decision.
This is fair statement. And who is to say that Apple isn't thinking about this, but also saying...gee let's get the biggest chunk first and they start going after such incremental feature presentations later.
To sum it up, you analyzed what the state of the mass market is right now, made the conclusion that the current Apple products should be good enough for anybody, and based on that you decided that there is no need for "choice".
Wrong, I've tried to illustrate that "choice" right now doesn't really get you anything...in other words there isn't really much "choice" to have (at this time).
Quote:
What about after two years? Five years? When you have $2000 invested in purchased music? When Apple pulls out of the music player business / pulls out of the music store business / goes bankrupt / cuts backwards compatibility? What if some of your computers are not Macs?
Well, I don't have a crystal ball. This is clearly a risk with many product purchases (what happens if your car vendor goes out of business and you cannot get parts for it?). These are risks run all the time with the computer business. Finally it seems that iPod and iTMS are compatible with non-Mac machines.
Well, I don't have a crystal ball. This is clearly a risk with many product purchases (what happens if your car vendor goes out of business and you cannot get parts for it?). These are risks run all the time with the computer business. Finally it seems that iPod and iTMS are compatible with non-Mac machines.
Except in software business, there is the option to use standard, open formats. It's even better if someone can write a program to open that format without asking permission or paying anyone. That, more or less, has been my point all along. We don't have a crystal ball, so we should not let ourselves be tied to a specific vendor if we can help it.
Finally, it seems iTunes/iTMS is compatible with Windows and nothing else. iPod's extra "compatibility" is not thanks to Apple.
LOL OK no more Sparky names. :P I'm not saying its required I'm just unsure that TV commericials based soley on brand/style are as effective as they could be. I know what you're saying about car ads, but they do still mention features indirectly, speed, handling, comfort, etc. But who knows, maybe it's entirely a style issue that's made the iPod so successful and anything else is distracting. Will be interesting to see if Apple continues to market on image alone as the other competitors mature.
Quote:
This is fair statement. And who is to say that Apple isn't thinking about this, but also saying...gee let's get the biggest chunk first and they start going after such incremental feature presentations later.
Quite possible, seems like Apple is actually being agressive about its marketing for once. If only they'd get as aggressive with their OS.
Except in software business, there is the option to use standard, open formats.
Okay, so aside from tha failure of this argument visa vi Microsoft Word and Excel, you DO have open digital audio formats to choose from that can be played on iPod. MP3 is a perfect example.
Quote:
It's even better if someone can write a program to open that format without asking permission or paying anyone.
I agree, but this is a problem in other areas too, like Microsoft Word and Excel.
Quote:
We don't have a crystal ball, so we should not let ourselves be tied to a specific vendor if we can help it.
On this we agree. Sort of. You have a choice to not be tied to a specific vendor. No one is forcing you to buy music from iTMS (or buy music at all). In fact you can still buy music the "old fashioned way"...rip it (using iTunes if you like) in a standard, open digital audio format (MP3) and play it on most (all?) digital music players. Seems like plenty of choice here.
Quote:
Finally, it seems iTunes/iTMS is compatible with Windows and nothing else. iPod's extra "compatibility" is not thanks to Apple.
Windows and Mac. What else are you looking for? Please don't say Linux? It is certainly possible Apple will support Linux users in the future. Probably about the same time that other major software vendors do.
Finally, What do you mean that iPod's extra "compatibility" is not thanks to Apple.? What are you referring to here?
Comments
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Ok...please stop talking about Pixlet. Pixlet is not for consumers.
jesus tapdancin' christ, it's the first time i have EVER posted about it. i'm also talking file formats, regardless of consumer potential. would've caught that if you had read more than just one word.
edit: decided to remove a potentially flame-worthy comment...
Originally posted by rok
jesus tapdancin' christ, it's the first time i have EVER posted about it. i'm also talking file formats, regardless of consumer potential. would've caught that if you had read more than just one word.
edit: decided to remove a potentially flame-worthy comment...
Sorry...it's just that too many people on this forum are uninformed about Pixlet. A lot think it could become the format for a QuickTime Movie Store and do what iTunes and AAC did to the music industry. This is simply not true.
Unless the internet magically becomes 100 times faster, downloading a movie in Pixlet format would take a day or more. The bandwidth required to feed a bunch of people these kind of files is waaay too much at this present time.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The question is do they have to? How many commercials do? Not many at all And maybe that's all the NEED to say.
You must watch a different TV than I do. Most technology commericals do indeed list features. So basically you've stated that the branding ad would be more effective without stating features. Athough Apple is currently doing well in the market with its ads I'm curious as to you seem so opposed to including some features in them?
Oh? Do you have the break down on this? Is your reasoning simply, "I don't so no one else must" or, better yet, " I just don't think the ads work, so they must not"?
Good god, did you concept the ad or what? Settle down Sparky, wasn't trying to attack you or anything. I don't know what you do for a living, but I've been in the design and advertising field for the last 10 years, so yes I fell like I can step outside of my personal experience and try to think about how the average consumer might react. Note the word might. There's no definites here.
Have any gone out to buy it now? Why? Why not? Did they buy just because of that feature? Seems like a fairly small demographic that is going to buy a $400 portable FireWire drive vs. those that just like music.
Mainly it was just observation. I was suprised Mac kids didn't know about the feature. Which says to me that Apple isn't advertising them. It's an expensive purchase. Educating customers about additional features that "sweeten the pot" so to speak can hardly hurt. Or do you disagree?
My guess? Just a guess. 95% of the people buying iPods bought them and use them exclusively as music players.
I think thats a loaded question to favor your argument. The question should be:"What percentage find the non-music player features useful?" Whether they end up using them or not, it might contribute to a purchase decision.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Sorry...it's just that too many people on this forum are uninformed about Pixlet. A lot think it could become the format for a QuickTime Movie Store and do what iTunes and AAC did to the music industry. This is simply not true.
Unless the internet magically becomes 100 times faster, downloading a movie in Pixlet format would take a day or more. The bandwidth required to feed a bunch of people these kind of files is waaay too much at this present time.
fair enough. i've got four hours sleep in me, so i have a hair trigger today.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It is not that "choice" is difficult to understand. It's just that many people throw that out as if it is the "holy grail" of...well anything. What I am asking is what you will gain by having a "choice"?
...
So, you want "choice". That's fine. Nothing wrong with that. But choice without actually having any real differentiators is simply an illusion.
To sum it up, you analyzed what the state of the mass market is right now, made the conclusion that the current Apple products should be good enough for anybody, and based on that you decided that there is no need for "choice".
I'll drop a couple of hints about why this is wrong on many levels.
What about after two years? Five years? When you have $2000 invested in purchased music? When Apple pulls out of the music player business / pulls out of the music store business / goes bankrupt / cuts backwards compatibility?
What if some of your computers are not Macs?
Originally posted by dviant
You must watch a different TV than I do. Most technology commericals do indeed list features.
Doubtful that we're watching different TV. Secondly, we're not talking about "technology" product, we're talking about a lifestyle product. Look at car commercials as an example. There are far more "featureless" ads for cars than those with. They are selling emotion.
So basically you've stated that the branding ad would be more effective without stating features. Athough Apple is currently doing well in the market with its ads I'm curious as to you seem so opposed to including some features in them?
First, I am simply stating that Apple's ads appear to be working quite well already. Secondly I am not opposed to the ads you suggest, only stating that the one's they have right not appear to be working quite well.
Good god, did you concept the ad or what? Settle down Sparky, wasn't trying to attack you or anything.
Okay...so **** you. Don't call me "sparky". I'm not getting defensive. I'm trying to argue that the type of ads that you seem to be INSISTING are REQUIRED are not (at least at this time).
I was suprised Mac kids didn't know about the feature. Which says to me that Apple isn't advertising them. It's an expensive purchase. Educating customers about additional features that "sweeten the pot" so to speak can hardly hurt. Or do you disagree?
Actually, I might. What your saying could actually distract customers...make them lose interest...make eyes glaze over. For some in the market, yes...but the majority? I am not so sure. As one specific example...I knew all about all of the extra gee-whiz features of iPod before I got mine. I don't use any of them. I play music. That's it.
I think thats a loaded question to favor your argument. The question should be:"What percentage find the non-music player features useful?" Whether they end up using them or not, it might contribute to a purchase decision.
This is fair statement. And who is to say that Apple isn't thinking about this, but also saying...gee let's get the biggest chunk first and they start going after such incremental feature presentations later.
Originally posted by Gon
To sum it up, you analyzed what the state of the mass market is right now, made the conclusion that the current Apple products should be good enough for anybody, and based on that you decided that there is no need for "choice".
Wrong, I've tried to illustrate that "choice" right now doesn't really get you anything...in other words there isn't really much "choice" to have (at this time).
What about after two years? Five years? When you have $2000 invested in purchased music? When Apple pulls out of the music player business / pulls out of the music store business / goes bankrupt / cuts backwards compatibility? What if some of your computers are not Macs?
Well, I don't have a crystal ball. This is clearly a risk with many product purchases (what happens if your car vendor goes out of business and you cannot get parts for it?). These are risks run all the time with the computer business. Finally it seems that iPod and iTMS are compatible with non-Mac machines.
Not sure I understand your "hints" here.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, I don't have a crystal ball. This is clearly a risk with many product purchases (what happens if your car vendor goes out of business and you cannot get parts for it?). These are risks run all the time with the computer business. Finally it seems that iPod and iTMS are compatible with non-Mac machines.
Except in software business, there is the option to use standard, open formats. It's even better if someone can write a program to open that format without asking permission or paying anyone. That, more or less, has been my point all along. We don't have a crystal ball, so we should not let ourselves be tied to a specific vendor if we can help it.
Finally, it seems iTunes/iTMS is compatible with Windows and nothing else. iPod's extra "compatibility" is not thanks to Apple.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Okay...so **** you. Don't call me "sparky".
LOL OK no more Sparky names. :P I'm not saying its required I'm just unsure that TV commericials based soley on brand/style are as effective as they could be. I know what you're saying about car ads, but they do still mention features indirectly, speed, handling, comfort, etc. But who knows, maybe it's entirely a style issue that's made the iPod so successful and anything else is distracting. Will be interesting to see if Apple continues to market on image alone as the other competitors mature.
This is fair statement. And who is to say that Apple isn't thinking about this, but also saying...gee let's get the biggest chunk first and they start going after such incremental feature presentations later.
Quite possible, seems like Apple is actually being agressive about its marketing for once. If only they'd get as aggressive with their OS.
Originally posted by Gon
Except in software business, there is the option to use standard, open formats.
Okay, so aside from tha failure of this argument visa vi Microsoft Word and Excel, you DO have open digital audio formats to choose from that can be played on iPod. MP3 is a perfect example.
It's even better if someone can write a program to open that format without asking permission or paying anyone.
I agree, but this is a problem in other areas too, like Microsoft Word and Excel.
We don't have a crystal ball, so we should not let ourselves be tied to a specific vendor if we can help it.
On this we agree. Sort of. You have a choice to not be tied to a specific vendor. No one is forcing you to buy music from iTMS (or buy music at all). In fact you can still buy music the "old fashioned way"...rip it (using iTunes if you like) in a standard, open digital audio format (MP3) and play it on most (all?) digital music players. Seems like plenty of choice here.
Finally, it seems iTunes/iTMS is compatible with Windows and nothing else. iPod's extra "compatibility" is not thanks to Apple.
Windows and Mac. What else are you looking for? Please don't say Linux? It is certainly possible Apple will support Linux users in the future. Probably about the same time that other major software vendors do.
Finally, What do you mean that iPod's extra "compatibility" is not thanks to Apple.? What are you referring to here?
Originally posted by dviant
Will be interesting to see if Apple continues to market on image alone as the other competitors mature.
I do think their approach (diversify) as the market matures. Things are still so new right now.
...seems like Apple is actually being agressive about its marketing for once. If only they'd get as aggressive with their OS.
On this we are in violent agreement. I wish Apple were much more aggressive in their marketing of the Mac and OS X.