Simple? Effective? An ad that strings together a bunch of cliche Hollywood actors, pandering to a night of/for Hollywood actors?
Nah.... it screams to the average consumer, "you're not worthy of this product."
How do you figure it screams "you're not worthy of this product"? People watch movies to escape, and some watch them because they identify with the plot and the characters. Most people do not watch a movie and analyze the actors on the spot.
Think about it. The word "Hello" is one of the most common words of the English language. Next time you pick up the phone, tell me you will not be thinking of the ad...at least the first few times.
That's why I think they should replay the ad. It's catchy.
As soon as I saw Bob Incredible, I knew it had to be an Apple ad
I thought the ad was fantastic. So simple, smart and really got the proverbial juices flowing. Too many people complaining about the lack of iPhone details in the advert, but do Apple really need to spell those out yet? No they don't. They didn't even say it was a phone. We all know it's the iPhone, because we're that way inclined, but for the general populous, it kind of looks like an iPod. Then you're brain thinks.. hang on.. is that an iPod phone?!
I'm sure as times goes on we'll be graced with more teasers and when release day comes, we'll have ads with far more information about the iPhones features. Don't forget, it's not a phone, it's an iPod, a phone and an Internet communication device. We may even see teasers themed for each of the iPhones many faces.
Johnny Appleseed, born John Chapman (September 26, 1774–March 18, 1847), was an American pioneer nurseryman, and missionary for the Church of the New Jerusalem, which is based on the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.
He introduced the apple to large parts of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois by planting small nurseries. He became an American legend while still alive, portrayed in works of art and literature, largely because of his kind and generous ways, and his leadership in conservation.
I thought the ad was fantastic. So simple, smart and really got the proverbial juices flowing. Too many people complaining about the lack of iPhone details in the advert, but do Apple really need to spell those out yet? No they don't. They didn't even say it was a phone. We all know it's the iPhone, because we're that way inclined, but for the general populous, it kind of looks like an iPod. Then you're brain thinks.. hang on.. is that an iPod phone?!
I'm sure as times goes on we'll be graced with more teasers and when release day comes, we'll have ads with far more information about the iPhones features. Don't forget, it's not a phone, it's an iPod, a phone and an Internet communication device. We may even see teasers themed for each of the iPhones many faces.
Nice one Apple.
Actually I think most of the general populous has heard of the iPhone already.
Actually I think most of the general populous has heard of the iPhone already.
What makes you say that? I had to tell most of my friends about it, some of them even being Mac users. Not everyone is interested in being the first to know about these things, the iPhone didn't even get much media coverage out side of the US with only a few specialist mags getting excited.
America is not the world, not the general populous!
How do you figure it screams "you're not worthy of this product"? People watch movies to escape, and some watch them because they identify with the plot and the characters. Most people do not watch a movie and analyze the actors on the spot.
Think about it. The word "Hello" is one of the most common words of the English language. Next time you pick up the phone, tell me you will not be thinking of the ad...at least the first few times.
That's why I think they should replay the ad. It's catchy.
As soon as I saw Bob Incredible, I knew it had to be an Apple ad
Yeah, it was shown/known to those following the Oscars in general. Which is big in the US, and huge globally as well.
Movies are and have always been one of the USA's biggest exports, certainly a cultural export. Most people when they first visit the US they feel like they're in an "American movie". Like in SanFrancisco or NYC tourists seeing the steam rising from a manhole cover, and that instantly triggers, like ZOMG just like in the movies!! Also, you know, hanging out in say Venice beach and a few blocks away from the beach, some LAPD cars hurtling down a small lane. Then of course, those that work in California and other states that have very "liberal" hiring/firing policies, you get to see the "You're Fired!" or "I QUIT!" scenes of your co-worker, the very same day that happens, packing his stuff in a plain cardboard box. Daily life in the US, films being art imitating life, and so on, and a big cultural export around the world.
The best part of the ad? It can be targeted to various markets very easily. Cantonese --- "Wei??" ... Japanese --- "Konichiwa" (I presume) ... Mandarin --- "Ni Hao" ... Spanish --- "Que passsa amigo" (I presume... I really only know English).
I think most definitely they have had to clear all the clips with the studios. Shouldn't have been a problem because they're all tiny tiny clips of movies. But they would have had to clear the clips --- some just the movies, some using the image of the celebrity and the movie, depending on the whole rights usage stuff.
Even for the US-only audience, I felt "Hello" and the movie clips of people saying "Hello", in a chronological fashion, mostly, was cute, on message, on target audience (educated, male/female movie/celebrity enthusiasts, etc. etc.).
I would have preferred a bit more weighting of the ad on the actual product shot and the "Apple iPhone" words, but generally for the US audience, I think the product shot, "Apple iPhone" words, and logo, had sufficient airtime for a teaser for something to come really, 4 months away which is a LONG time.
Oh, and Cars lost to Happy Feet. Maybe it was an environmental thing. Gas-guzzling, polluting anthropomorphised vehicles as opposed to cute little furry things facing the death sentence of global warming. ... I dunno... I watched Cars but not Happy Feet.
Gas-guzzling, polluting anthropomorphised vehicles as opposed to cute little furry things.......
Yup, exactly like those cars and planes that Mr. Gore rides around in, delivering those uplifting global warming speeches. (I kinda like him, btw; at least, he sounds intelligent).
You're right, it probably doesn't make too much difference for the main type of usage this product is aimed at, but if I was Apple, which I'm not(!), I would slip in the latest spec 3.2MP or 5MP Camera module
- if only to keep up with the likes of Nokia, Sony, Samsung etc
- and to save having to defend a preceived weakness
\
I wonder how the quality is of the higher megapixel camera models is. David Pogue has covered this, and the upshot is that higher megapixels in a camera phone may not mean higher quality because the sensors have to be smaller to fit with the form factor. For details, see:
I know Steve would rather give us a good camera than an unusable camera with good specs.
That being said, it seems like most smartphones popular in the US have pretty weak cameras. The BlackBerry Pearl, for example, has a 1.3 megapixel camera. The T-Mobile Sidekick III has the same. So do most Palm Treo models, and the only exception is even worse, at VGA resolution. The Cingular 8125, which seems like the device most competitive with the iPhone(*), has a 1.3mp camera.
I know there's a Nokia N95 somewhere that blows everything out of the water spec-wise for something like $700, but I haven't been able to find it or anything similar on Cingular's site.
So if we're talking about existing smartphones, it looks to me like those 3+ megapixel phones are unavailable in the US, and are certainly not part of the mainstream market here. 2MP seems like a very good spec for a smartphone that's on sale in the United States.
I certainly would like to see a better phone camera, but my impression is that the optics are awful for most of them anyway, and so there is a limit to how good quality can become. I'd certainly keep an open mind on this, but let's just say that i'm not getting rid of my DSLR any time soon, for ANY phone camera.
D
(*) The 8125 uses that ghastly Windows Mobile OS, but in its defense I was able to browse the web fairly well. However, the mechanisms for scrolling around web page content were downright pitiful, especially compared to the iPhone. The display is also a lot smaller. However, the phone is $250 with contract ($499 without).
Comments
Simple? Effective? An ad that strings together a bunch of cliche Hollywood actors, pandering to a night of/for Hollywood actors?
Nah.... it screams to the average consumer, "you're not worthy of this product."
How do you figure it screams "you're not worthy of this product"? People watch movies to escape, and some watch them because they identify with the plot and the characters. Most people do not watch a movie and analyze the actors on the spot.
Think about it. The word "Hello" is one of the most common words of the English language. Next time you pick up the phone, tell me you will not be thinking of the ad...at least the first few times.
That's why I think they should replay the ad. It's catchy.
As soon as I saw Bob Incredible, I knew it had to be an Apple ad
I'm sure as times goes on we'll be graced with more teasers and when release day comes, we'll have ads with far more information about the iPhones features. Don't forget, it's not a phone, it's an iPod, a phone and an Internet communication device. We may even see teasers themed for each of the iPhones many faces.
Nice one Apple.
And who is this "John Appleseed" character?
Johnny Appleseed, born John Chapman (September 26, 1774–March 18, 1847), was an American pioneer nurseryman, and missionary for the Church of the New Jerusalem, which is based on the theological writings of Emanuel Swedenborg.
He introduced the apple to large parts of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois by planting small nurseries. He became an American legend while still alive, portrayed in works of art and literature, largely because of his kind and generous ways, and his leadership in conservation.
wikipedia.com
I thought the ad was fantastic. So simple, smart and really got the proverbial juices flowing. Too many people complaining about the lack of iPhone details in the advert, but do Apple really need to spell those out yet? No they don't. They didn't even say it was a phone. We all know it's the iPhone, because we're that way inclined, but for the general populous, it kind of looks like an iPod. Then you're brain thinks.. hang on.. is that an iPod phone?!
I'm sure as times goes on we'll be graced with more teasers and when release day comes, we'll have ads with far more information about the iPhones features. Don't forget, it's not a phone, it's an iPod, a phone and an Internet communication device. We may even see teasers themed for each of the iPhones many faces.
Nice one Apple.
Actually I think most of the general populous has heard of the iPhone already.
WHY DOES APPLE HATE POWERFUL GPUS? WHY OH WHY?
I wont buy one unless it has a dedicated graphics card.
Actually I think most of the general populous has heard of the iPhone already.
What makes you say that? I had to tell most of my friends about it, some of them even being Mac users. Not everyone is interested in being the first to know about these things, the iPhone didn't even get much media coverage out side of the US with only a few specialist mags getting excited.
America is not the world, not the general populous!
As soon as I saw Bob Incredible, I knew it had to be an Apple ad
I agree 100%.
I didn't much care for the rest, that's all.
How do you figure it screams "you're not worthy of this product"? People watch movies to escape, and some watch them because they identify with the plot and the characters. Most people do not watch a movie and analyze the actors on the spot.
Think about it. The word "Hello" is one of the most common words of the English language. Next time you pick up the phone, tell me you will not be thinking of the ad...at least the first few times.
That's why I think they should replay the ad. It's catchy.
As soon as I saw Bob Incredible, I knew it had to be an Apple ad
Yeah, it was shown/known to those following the Oscars in general. Which is big in the US, and huge globally as well.
Movies are and have always been one of the USA's biggest exports, certainly a cultural export. Most people when they first visit the US they feel like they're in an "American movie". Like in SanFrancisco or NYC tourists seeing the steam rising from a manhole cover, and that instantly triggers, like ZOMG just like in the movies!! Also, you know, hanging out in say Venice beach and a few blocks away from the beach, some LAPD cars hurtling down a small lane. Then of course, those that work in California and other states that have very "liberal" hiring/firing policies, you get to see the "You're Fired!" or "I QUIT!" scenes of your co-worker, the very same day that happens, packing his stuff in a plain cardboard box. Daily life in the US, films being art imitating life, and so on, and a big cultural export around the world.
The best part of the ad? It can be targeted to various markets very easily. Cantonese --- "Wei??" ... Japanese --- "Konichiwa" (I presume) ... Mandarin --- "Ni Hao" ... Spanish --- "Que passsa amigo" (I presume... I really only know English).
I think most definitely they have had to clear all the clips with the studios. Shouldn't have been a problem because they're all tiny tiny clips of movies. But they would have had to clear the clips --- some just the movies, some using the image of the celebrity and the movie, depending on the whole rights usage stuff.
Even for the US-only audience, I felt "Hello" and the movie clips of people saying "Hello", in a chronological fashion, mostly, was cute, on message, on target audience (educated, male/female movie/celebrity enthusiasts, etc. etc.).
I would have preferred a bit more weighting of the ad on the actual product shot and the "Apple iPhone" words, but generally for the US audience, I think the product shot, "Apple iPhone" words, and logo, had sufficient airtime for a teaser for something to come really, 4 months away which is a LONG time.
Gas-guzzling, polluting anthropomorphised vehicles as opposed to cute little furry things.......
Yup, exactly like those cars and planes that Mr. Gore rides around in, delivering those uplifting global warming speeches. (I kinda like him, btw; at least, he sounds intelligent).
I'm guessing they'll run it for two or three weeks.
You're right, it probably doesn't make too much difference for the main type of usage this product is aimed at, but if I was Apple, which I'm not(!), I would slip in the latest spec 3.2MP or 5MP Camera module
- if only to keep up with the likes of Nokia, Sony, Samsung etc
- and to save having to defend a preceived weakness
I wonder how the quality is of the higher megapixel camera models is. David Pogue has covered this, and the upshot is that higher megapixels in a camera phone may not mean higher quality because the sensors have to be smaller to fit with the form factor. For details, see:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C0A9619C8B63
I know Steve would rather give us a good camera than an unusable camera with good specs.
That being said, it seems like most smartphones popular in the US have pretty weak cameras. The BlackBerry Pearl, for example, has a 1.3 megapixel camera. The T-Mobile Sidekick III has the same. So do most Palm Treo models, and the only exception is even worse, at VGA resolution. The Cingular 8125, which seems like the device most competitive with the iPhone(*), has a 1.3mp camera.
I know there's a Nokia N95 somewhere that blows everything out of the water spec-wise for something like $700, but I haven't been able to find it or anything similar on Cingular's site.
So if we're talking about existing smartphones, it looks to me like those 3+ megapixel phones are unavailable in the US, and are certainly not part of the mainstream market here. 2MP seems like a very good spec for a smartphone that's on sale in the United States.
I certainly would like to see a better phone camera, but my impression is that the optics are awful for most of them anyway, and so there is a limit to how good quality can become. I'd certainly keep an open mind on this, but let's just say that i'm not getting rid of my DSLR any time soon, for ANY phone camera.
D
(*) The 8125 uses that ghastly Windows Mobile OS, but in its defense I was able to browse the web fairly well. However, the mechanisms for scrolling around web page content were downright pitiful, especially compared to the iPhone. The display is also a lot smaller. However, the phone is $250 with contract ($499 without).