Friday, 22 February 2008
Monday, 18 February 2008
Apple sells magic
I don't know why I never thought of it before.
Apple lovers and haters alike understand that there is a certain unmeasurable “cool factor” to Apple products that is the main reason why people buy them over other similar (and perhaps better) products. I think it's clear that this cool factor has a lot to do with Apple's Advanced Marketing Techniques. (There are other disputed factors, of course. Among them quality, design, vision, and market savvy.) The people at Apple (along with their marketing team) know how to make the most of products that may not be revolutionary, but which certainly appear that way to the average person. That's the magic. (And so you know, I'm using “magic” in a value-neutral sense here.)
Celebrated science fiction author and physicist Arthur C. Clarke wrote that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” I'm not sure if he has considered the effect of marketing on this so-called “law”. I think Apple has, if only tacitly. You see, Apple does not develop exceptionally advanced technologies. They are, however, quite good at using current advances, and putting them in fancy packages. The thing is, most existing pre- or near-market technology is far beyond what the average person understands. (Despite constantly increasing usage of technology, I'm certain that most people actually have little understanding of how their gadgets work.) And when that fact is combined with a futuristic design, the result can be startling to the lay person. Basically, with their marketing Apple takes advantage of the knowledge gap between us and their products, which makes them seem more advanced than they actually are. It appears that a sufficiently advanced marketing strategy can make a moderately advanced technology seem like magic.
I have no idea why it took the MacBook Air (MBA) for me to recognize this. I guess it's because unlike recent Apple products like the iPhone and Apple TV, the MBA stands out for what it doesn't have rather than what it does. That is, with the iPhone, Apple combined several still burgeoning technologies (Wi-Fi, portable web-surfing and video, touch screen), with the lifestyle standards of the day (digital music playback and mobile telephony), and added their unique software and design flair, thus creating the new must-have cross-generational lifestyle device—nearly superseding their own iPod (they even redesigned the latter product to match it). All of these technologies exist separately, but Apple put them together and created what appeared to be an highly advanced device that has no peer in the North American and European markets. The MBA on the other hand is a product that already exists—a laptop—and it's functionally inferior to other laptops on the market. Still—and this is crucial—it speaks to the future of the laptop and of personal computing generally. Apple has tried a similar formula as they did with the iPhone: they've taken several upcoming technologies (solid-state “flash” hard disk memory, wireless data transmission*, “multi-touch gestures”, embedded video recording), but then they've actually removed certain standard features in the hope of appearing more advanced and cornering a new lifestyle standard—ultra-portability (the computer has no CD or DVD drive and only the barest minimum of ports). But they've made it seem shockingly thin, and this, Apple is betting, is the main feature that will make this laptop appear sufficiently advanced for us simple people to see it as magic. And importantly, they've done it before anybody else. (Other companies have developed ultra-portable devices, but had you heard of any of them before the MacBook Air? Maybe you geeks had, but I bet the average consumer had not.)
I see through you now Apple! Not that I believed that the fanaticism around Apple wasn't half marketing, but now I understand better what constitutes that “cool factor”: simple magic!
Very clever. But will it work?
*Of course, we have been able to transmit data wirelessly for decades (not including by voice!), but you all understand that I'm talking about current mainstream computer technology. Read on..!
Apple lovers and haters alike understand that there is a certain unmeasurable “cool factor” to Apple products that is the main reason why people buy them over other similar (and perhaps better) products. I think it's clear that this cool factor has a lot to do with Apple's Advanced Marketing Techniques. (There are other disputed factors, of course. Among them quality, design, vision, and market savvy.) The people at Apple (along with their marketing team) know how to make the most of products that may not be revolutionary, but which certainly appear that way to the average person. That's the magic. (And so you know, I'm using “magic” in a value-neutral sense here.)
Celebrated science fiction author and physicist Arthur C. Clarke wrote that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” I'm not sure if he has considered the effect of marketing on this so-called “law”. I think Apple has, if only tacitly. You see, Apple does not develop exceptionally advanced technologies. They are, however, quite good at using current advances, and putting them in fancy packages. The thing is, most existing pre- or near-market technology is far beyond what the average person understands. (Despite constantly increasing usage of technology, I'm certain that most people actually have little understanding of how their gadgets work.) And when that fact is combined with a futuristic design, the result can be startling to the lay person. Basically, with their marketing Apple takes advantage of the knowledge gap between us and their products, which makes them seem more advanced than they actually are. It appears that a sufficiently advanced marketing strategy can make a moderately advanced technology seem like magic.
I have no idea why it took the MacBook Air (MBA) for me to recognize this. I guess it's because unlike recent Apple products like the iPhone and Apple TV, the MBA stands out for what it doesn't have rather than what it does. That is, with the iPhone, Apple combined several still burgeoning technologies (Wi-Fi, portable web-surfing and video, touch screen), with the lifestyle standards of the day (digital music playback and mobile telephony), and added their unique software and design flair, thus creating the new must-have cross-generational lifestyle device—nearly superseding their own iPod (they even redesigned the latter product to match it). All of these technologies exist separately, but Apple put them together and created what appeared to be an highly advanced device that has no peer in the North American and European markets. The MBA on the other hand is a product that already exists—a laptop—and it's functionally inferior to other laptops on the market. Still—and this is crucial—it speaks to the future of the laptop and of personal computing generally. Apple has tried a similar formula as they did with the iPhone: they've taken several upcoming technologies (solid-state “flash” hard disk memory, wireless data transmission*, “multi-touch gestures”, embedded video recording), but then they've actually removed certain standard features in the hope of appearing more advanced and cornering a new lifestyle standard—ultra-portability (the computer has no CD or DVD drive and only the barest minimum of ports). But they've made it seem shockingly thin, and this, Apple is betting, is the main feature that will make this laptop appear sufficiently advanced for us simple people to see it as magic. And importantly, they've done it before anybody else. (Other companies have developed ultra-portable devices, but had you heard of any of them before the MacBook Air? Maybe you geeks had, but I bet the average consumer had not.)
I see through you now Apple! Not that I believed that the fanaticism around Apple wasn't half marketing, but now I understand better what constitutes that “cool factor”: simple magic!
Very clever. But will it work?
*Of course, we have been able to transmit data wirelessly for decades (not including by voice!), but you all understand that I'm talking about current mainstream computer technology. Read on..!
Wednesday, 6 February 2008
Duelling identities, part 1
I'm not sure how much stock we should put in an article that claims “Youngsters not happy oldies going online”, from an Australian News Corp. affiliate, which I must assume is a tabloid, given this photo of Britney Spears on their front page (I recommend you don't follow the link). The piece cites no sources or even unscientific polls, though the author seems to have interviewed several “youngsters” and a “youth market researcher” from California. Is there in fact a trend—a spreading ageism or gerontophobia among the youth? Or is this article meant to reinforce the contemporary stereotype of lost kids in the digital age and to promote an “us vs them” attitude?
In any case, while the article may be a tabloid fluff piece, it does bring up some interesting talking points. In particular the Generation Gap, which for a while seemed to be growing wider as it coincided with the Technological Divide; Divergent Identities; privacy; the extension of adolescence; and the arrogance of youth.
According to the article, young persons - presumably those of university undergrad age and younger—are often displeased when their elders, particularly their parents and their parents’ friends, find and befriend them on social networking websites such as Facebook and MySpace. Being online friends with these “oldies” causes alarm among young folk because it prevents them from communicating openly with their peers for fear of having their adolescent antics exposed.
Though it shows no clear bias—that is, it makes no explicit argument—the article is mostly rubbish. But I do find the idea of Secondary Identities very interesting. Underlying the emptiness of it all, the author (perhaps without knowing) points out that many people (certainly the young are not alone in this) do or say things online that they would not do or say in “real life”, and definitely not around their parents or other adult members of society. People post pictures of themselves and their friends doing things they would not do or discuss in polite company; they post inflammatory comments on web forums that they would be too frightened to say to someone’s face; they offer personal details that they might think twice about before mentioning aloud; all voluntarily, and apparently mostly without regret or fear of repercussion. In the process, regular internet users are creating secondary identities, without even realizing it. And these alternative identities don't seem to match our daily lives.
One might consider it positive that people are expressing themselves honestly through their online identities. That's fair; but why are we unable to reconcile our real and virtual lives? And is it really honest to say something in one place that we would not say elsewhere (particularly when that “one place” is the world wide web)? I don't think it's simply a question of public and private, though that certainly plays a part. Generally, my real public acts are the ones that I want to show others, or rather, they are the things I don't mind others discovering. These acts demonstrate the person that I want others to believe I am. Real private acts are the ones that perhaps more accurately represent my true or hidden character, such as binge drinking, drug taking, excess gambling, vandalism, passive aggression. Indeed, there is a grey area that includes those daily acts that I have no interest in making public, but which should cause little embarrassment if they did become generally known. These might be certain “small-v” vices (smoking tobacco, listening to Yanni, et c.), bedroom activities, or shopping habits. These are truly public acts, because I make no effort to hide them from anybody. The behaviour of my virtual personae should more or less line up with the real. The difference is that it is so much more difficult to keep things private on the internet. Public and private behaviour converge here.
Much has been made in the last couple of years of prospective or current employers discovering their candidates or employees engaged in undesirable behaviour (perhaps even while at work). And several schools have expelled students for inappropriate behaviour discovered on the web. The media tell us: “Your stellar résumé won't save you if there’s a video on YouTube of you throwing up on a stripper, even if it was your bachelor party.” (Unless you're a celebrity.) Actually, in the technological age, where many pray at the altar of celebrity, we seem to revel in playing a part and acting as both celebrities and paparazzi within our own private cliques. On the internet, we can be the stars of our own lives, emulating our favourites and showing off the pictures to prove it.
Stay tuned for part 2. Read on..!
In any case, while the article may be a tabloid fluff piece, it does bring up some interesting talking points. In particular the Generation Gap, which for a while seemed to be growing wider as it coincided with the Technological Divide; Divergent Identities; privacy; the extension of adolescence; and the arrogance of youth.
According to the article, young persons - presumably those of university undergrad age and younger—are often displeased when their elders, particularly their parents and their parents’ friends, find and befriend them on social networking websites such as Facebook and MySpace. Being online friends with these “oldies” causes alarm among young folk because it prevents them from communicating openly with their peers for fear of having their adolescent antics exposed.
Though it shows no clear bias—that is, it makes no explicit argument—the article is mostly rubbish. But I do find the idea of Secondary Identities very interesting. Underlying the emptiness of it all, the author (perhaps without knowing) points out that many people (certainly the young are not alone in this) do or say things online that they would not do or say in “real life”, and definitely not around their parents or other adult members of society. People post pictures of themselves and their friends doing things they would not do or discuss in polite company; they post inflammatory comments on web forums that they would be too frightened to say to someone’s face; they offer personal details that they might think twice about before mentioning aloud; all voluntarily, and apparently mostly without regret or fear of repercussion. In the process, regular internet users are creating secondary identities, without even realizing it. And these alternative identities don't seem to match our daily lives.
One might consider it positive that people are expressing themselves honestly through their online identities. That's fair; but why are we unable to reconcile our real and virtual lives? And is it really honest to say something in one place that we would not say elsewhere (particularly when that “one place” is the world wide web)? I don't think it's simply a question of public and private, though that certainly plays a part. Generally, my real public acts are the ones that I want to show others, or rather, they are the things I don't mind others discovering. These acts demonstrate the person that I want others to believe I am. Real private acts are the ones that perhaps more accurately represent my true or hidden character, such as binge drinking, drug taking, excess gambling, vandalism, passive aggression. Indeed, there is a grey area that includes those daily acts that I have no interest in making public, but which should cause little embarrassment if they did become generally known. These might be certain “small-v” vices (smoking tobacco, listening to Yanni, et c.), bedroom activities, or shopping habits. These are truly public acts, because I make no effort to hide them from anybody. The behaviour of my virtual personae should more or less line up with the real. The difference is that it is so much more difficult to keep things private on the internet. Public and private behaviour converge here.
Much has been made in the last couple of years of prospective or current employers discovering their candidates or employees engaged in undesirable behaviour (perhaps even while at work). And several schools have expelled students for inappropriate behaviour discovered on the web. The media tell us: “Your stellar résumé won't save you if there’s a video on YouTube of you throwing up on a stripper, even if it was your bachelor party.” (Unless you're a celebrity.) Actually, in the technological age, where many pray at the altar of celebrity, we seem to revel in playing a part and acting as both celebrities and paparazzi within our own private cliques. On the internet, we can be the stars of our own lives, emulating our favourites and showing off the pictures to prove it.
Stay tuned for part 2. Read on..!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
