February, 2010

strategy / technology — 5 Comments
26
Feb 10

Battle of the androids

Now now, Google - play nice

Back when Google launched its Nexus One phone, I thought it was odd that Google had chosen to compete with its own partners.

It’s interesting that after the Droid (the best Android phone) came the Nexus One (the best Android phone), and now, just announced at the Mobile World Congress, we have HTC’s Desire (the best Android phone). And yes, that’s the same HTC that builds Google’s Nexus One.

Of course on one level this is a silly thing to point out. After all, hundreds of PCs run Windows, and the fact is some PCs are better than others for a hundred different reasons. That’s called choice. The only difference is that Microsoft does not manufacture PCs. They don’t serve up the “best” version of the same product they’re asking their partners to make. That’s called evil.

Absolutely, competition is good. Customers benefit as the various Android-makers try to outdo each other with new reasons to buy their own devices. But for all of Google’s “partners,” there is something extremely unholy about competing with the guy who controls the OS your product depends on, and knows every new feature that’s on the drawing board.

It hurts a little to see Google move in this direction. We were all rooting for them for so long. The brainiest, coolest company out there. This is starting to feel like the end of the movie, when we find out that the least likely person in the room turns out to be the serial killer.

Bookmark and Share
naming / strategy — 7 Comments
24
Feb 10

The case of the missing monikers

Do you know this thing?No one denies the power of brands. We silly humans are just happier buying from “the better brand.” That’s why companies like Archos struggle to get noticed in the shadow of stronger brands like HP. And a brand like Apple can more easily venture into new markets with such fanfare.

Some companies have sub-brands that are as just as powerful as the master brand. For example, iPod is as big a deal for customers as Apple. While Vostro is but a distant echo of Dell.

There are endless ways to build a brand or sub-brand. One old favorite is to stick the word right in your customer’s face. Put it on the product where people have to stare at it every day. Interesting to note, though, that some of the stronger sub-brands don’t even bother.

iMac is a good example. For all of Apple’s design elegance, this baby had long touted the super-sized “iMac” on its backside, big enough to be seen from a block away. Now it’s gone altogether. All we get is an Apple logo under the front bezel. Still fairly jumbo, but no iMac word. Yet no one overlooks the fact that Apple sells iMacs.

In fact, you don’t see a product name on any of Apple’s desktop computers, from Mac mini to Mac Pro. Just a logo. Is that because Apple is actively shifting us to think of Apple first, and the sub-brand second? Or simply because the sub-brand has become so powerful, it doesn’t need to be so flagrant anymore? Once you figure that out, you can start wondering why MacBook, iPod and iPhone are clearly labeled by both product name and Apple logo.

Obviously, the way you adorn your products reflects an overall strategy. It says something about how you wish your customers to think of you — but it also demonstrates how you think of your customers. If you respect them enough, you’ll treat them to a little simplicity.

Bookmark and Share
strategy / technology — 4 Comments
19
Feb 10

Apps of the world, unite

The Mobile World Congress met in Barcelona this week. Think of it as the United Nations of mobile technology companies — with about as much ability to influence world events as the real United Nations.

The biggest deal coming out of the 2010 Congress was “App Planet.” The idea was to lay out a vision for unified standards that would make life better for developers and customers. The official website says: By pulling all the key players together in one place at one time, we will make App Planet the new Centre of the Apps Universe for the four days of Mobile World Congress.

Only problem: key player #1 — Apple — did not attend the conference. So it seems that the real point of Planet Of The Apps was to do collectively what no one has been able to do alone: create a credible challenge to Apple’s world-leading app platform. If nothing else, it allowed 200 companies to take some time off from brutalizing each other in the normal course of business.

Given the importance of App Planet to this gathering, it surprised many when Steve Jobs was named recipient of the Congress’s Mobile Personality of the Year Award. Yes, the same Steve Jobs who will never in a million years support the global app standards being developed by this brotherly group. I guess they just like his personality.

It’s not like they didn’t have the chance to honor one of their own. The nominees beaten by Steve Jobs were the bigshots of the planetary app movement: Eric Schmidt (CEO, Google), Mike Lazaridis (co-CEO, Research In Motion) and Pete Chou (CEO, HTC). Apple sent no one to collect the award, indicating their respect for this particular honor.

I really don’t have anything against technology companies banding together to move things forward. I just think it’s safe to say that if any of the participating companies were in Apple’s position today, they’d be as far away from this Congress as possible — even if it meant not being on hand to pick up the Mobile Personality of the Year award.

Bookmark and Share
strategy / technology — 10 Comments
17
Feb 10

Android: desperately seeking numbers

Quantity again stalks its old nemesis, quality

Hard to believe iPhone ever existed without apps, isn’t it? Especially since apps have become the biggest differentiator between Apple and its competitors. At last count, iPhone boasted about 150,000 apps to Android’s 20,000.

(Ironic that Apple should wield such a lopsided advantage here, since it was stuck on the pathetic side of the app equation in the early days of the PC wars.)

So what do you do if your mission in life is to get Android’s numbers closer to iPhone’s? Well, one quick fix is to simply lower your standards. Even better, you can nix your standards altogether.

Sensing opportunity when critics started attacking Apple for its flawed app approval process, Android simply did away with those pesky approvals. You develop ’em, they’ll sell ’em. Power to the people.

Once the giddiness subsides, however, reality sinks in. If you think Apple’s huge library of apps contains a few clunkers, wait till you see what qualifies for sale in the Android Market. Without a vetting process, they’re not just welcoming bad apps. They’re welcoming nasty apps. Even outright dangerous apps. But they sure are pumping up the numbers.

Maybe Apple isn’t so big-brotherly after all? Maybe there’s something to be said for that quaint idea of quality control — for letting customers buy with a degree of confidence.

The fact is, the App Store is not perfect. No one’s ever sold software on this scale before, and surely Apple will make some mistakes along the way. I do hope they invent ways to make the approvals process more fair — but I’m grateful they have an approvals process in the first place.

Bookmark and Share
strategy / technology — 7 Comments
16
Feb 10

Ain’t so easy this time

This one may take a little work

Some people look at iPad and see the future. Others radiate less happy thoughts, ranging from “ho hum” to “major dud.”

Gee. Whatever happened to that air of inevitability, that “instant hit” thing that came along with iPod and iPhone?

Personally, I believe iPad will shake things up in a hundred different ways. But even those who agree with me can’t escape the feeling that something is different this time around. That avalanche of positive vibes didn’t quite materialize.

Two reasons for this:

For starters, iPad isn’t here yet. It’s a bit hard to judge this kind of technology by analyzing specs. Multiple multitouches are required.

Far more important: market conditions for iPad are strikingly different from those encountered by iPod and iPhone.

iPod actually sneaked in the back door. Music players were becoming popular, but the category was leaderless and uninspired. Apple swooped in with its irresistible combination of fun, cool and easy.

iPhone’s entrance was the antithesis of this. Thanks to iPod’s success, iPhone was hotly anticipated. This time the category was filled with heavyweights — but the natives were restless and anxious for something better. The competition awaited Apple’s entrance, then started copying their little hearts out. Droid, Storm, Pre, none of them would exist were it not for iPhone.

iPad faces entirely different circumstances. It was also hotly anticipated, but given the success of iPhone’s touch technology and the App Store, it wasn’t too hard to figure out where Apple was headed. A legion of competitors has met iPad with new ideas for netbooks, tablets and hybrids. The fact that some are in concept form is made less pitiful by the fact that iPad isn’t a real product yet either.

Google's take: looks cool, but still vaporous

HP has a neat idea, Google is previewing tablet concepts, the JooJoo tablet is making some waves, and Microsoft continues to taunt us with its Courier tablet.

Apple’s competitors are not uninspired — they’re duly inspired by Apple’s previous successes and motivated never to let such a nasty thing happen again. Though the odds are that it will — simply because Apple continues to enjoy its multi-part unfair advantage:

• Great design/superior software
• The world’s undying attention
• Far better marketing
• 150,000 apps
• A sea of developers chomping at the bit to get in on iPad’s ground floor

Looking forward to all of this becoming less theoretical in the coming months…

Bookmark and Share
naming / strategy — 7 Comments
11
Feb 10

When good names go bad

Was this really necessary?

Congratulations to Comcast on taking the #1 position in Time’s “Top 10 Worst Corporate Name Changes.”

Unlike those who seem to have been made physically ill by the name Xfinity, I actually don’t have a problem with it — even if it does sound like a Hugh Hefner production. Lots of successful companies have names that get scorched in their fledgling state. My problem is the basic idea of it. The obvious question being: why bother? It’s a massive, costly effort for no apparent reason. The kind of thing shareholders get very nasty about.

Instead of investing their money to polish a brand with instant name recognition, Comcast will now squander untold millions to re-educate customers by advertising, repainting countless vans, and revamping systems and materials across the organization. It’s such an odd decision, you start wondering if there’s some deep, dark secret we don’t know about. On the circumstantial evidence, we’ll have to find Comcast guilty of brand-squandering in the first degree.

Another item on Time‘s list is a personal favorite. Last fall, Sci-Fi Channel changed its name to Syfy.

Ah, this changes everything

Unlike Comcast, these guys were facing a real marketing issue. Their audience growth rate had hit a ceiling. They needed to extend their programming beyond conventional sci-fi to attract a more varied audience — but the name Sci-Fi Channel was a turn-off to the non-dweeb crowd. They needed an idea.

That brilliant idea was a new name that’s pronounced exactly like the old name — just spelled differently. I can only imagine the conversations that result. “You gotta see this great new show tonight — it’s on Syfy Channel,” followed by, “Nah, I hate sci-fi.” Even when you see a promo on TV, you still pronounce it “sci-fi” in your head. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall when someone pitched this idea.

Other interesting tales on Time’s Top 10 Worst Corporate Name Changes pages.

Bookmark and Share
technology — 5 Comments
9
Feb 10

Human enslavement alert!

As a card-carrying technology fan, I am duty-bound to be fascinated by robots. However, I do find myself getting a little jaded by the frenetic pace of robotic invention. In the last year alone, I’ve seen robots walk, jog, fly, roll, even perform as teachers and fashion models. Hell, they just had a Heineken Bot serving beer at a recent fair in London. But even in this state of C3POverload, I had to raise an eyebrow last week.

In two separate leaps, our robot friends became both scarier and sluttier. This probably brings us that much closer to the first Cylon uprising, but I see no reason to dwell on the negative. In fact, while we still have our freedom, there’s much to admire.

BigDog: just don't let him sleep on your bed

Starting with the creepy, there is BigDog. This is a four-legged robot developed for the military by Boston Dynamic. BigDog can travel over any surface, even jump like a horse (should work well in military parades). In principle, however, BigDog is really just Mule 2.0. Its mission is to carry 400 pounds of gear for our troops. As a pleasant side-effect, it will also scare the living daylights out of any enemy who might be watching. Think mutant horse buzzing like a giant mosquito. If you can deal with the bad dreams, don’t miss BigDog’s video. (Friendly tip: wash it down immediately with the BigDog parody.)

Roxxxy: in certain ways, creepier than BigDo

The other breakthrough was unveiled at that hotbed of scientific invention, Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas. This robot’s name is Roxxxy, and she’s designed to… well, let’s just say she’s an easy conquest. Billed as the world’s most sophisticated talking sex robot, Roxxxy is 5’7″, 120 pounds, equipped with voice recognition, conversational ability and five different personalities (just like many of our real-life mates). A male version, Rocky, is in the works.

At $7,000, Roxxxy is far more affordable than BigDog, but you really shouldn’t make this decision based on money. I get the feeling that in the end, Roxxxy is the kind who might just break your heart.

Bookmark and Share
advertising / creative — 5 Comments
8
Feb 10

Ad Bowl 2010: lowering the bar

Man, being an optimist is getting depressing. Every year, I’m filled with hope that creativity is about to make its big Super Bowl comeback. And every year, I go away feeling thoroughly unfulfilled. Not that there weren’t a couple of highlights. Here are my reactions, and I’ll be curious to hear yours.

Best spot: Google. Some have seen these Search On things before, but this is the first mass exposure. I’ll tell you, it’s a thing of beauty when a spot you could produce in your bedroom outperforms the biggest Super Bowl productions. The spot is charmingly human without showing a single face, outlining a love story through multiple Google searches. How many advertisers can keep their logo on the screen for 90% of a spot without annoying the hell out of us?

Biggest fall from grace: Intel. Well, I gushed profusely when Intel finally did something great a few months ago. And what do I get in return? A two-course serving of disappointment. First, an unfunny commercial featuring cheesy acting and a silly forlorn robot. Then a horribly conceived online contest: What Is Your Core Moment?  Here, we’re invited to share a “pivotal Core Moment” in our life to celebrate the “life-changing speed and smart performance” of the 2010 Intel Core Processor family. Gag me. “Smart computing is here,” the site proclaims, in the total absence of a smart message. I should have known Intel’s marketing DNA would drag them down in the end.

Most appealing to the beer crowd: Bud Light. Varying degrees of success for these guys, though that’s to be expected when you buy up half the ad slots. Holy cow, there were a lot of these things. I’m just thankful that someone out there is teaching our children that valuable life lesson: beer = wildly fun times.

Least differentiated beer: Budweiser. Their Human Bridge spot was actually very entertaining. I’m a sucker for a well-done “cast of thousands” spot, like the Cliq ad I cited a while back. But I do have to ask: ad-wise, what’s the difference between Bud and Bud Light again? If they stuck a Bud Light logo at the end of this spot, it would have worked just as well.

Most Pant-less People: Career Builder & Dockers. It’s a tie. I didn’t have the patience to count. Not only did Casual Friday and Wear No Pants have a similar visual joke (a lowbrow joke, I should add), they ran in succession. Does CBS give refunds?

Best celebrity: Coca-Cola. Using a celebrity is always an iffy thing. Homer & friends have a different kind of celebrity. The Simpsons spot was a great way to suck us in without turning us off. Coke’s mission was to come across as a really fun brand, and they did. Another Coke spot, Sleepwalker, was interesting as well. Nice music, cool idea.

Most unexpected: Cars.com. What better way to empathize with us ordinary folk who can’t quite figure out the whole “car buying” thing than to tell the tale of Timothy Richmond. This is a great example of an intelligently crafted ad that captures a human truth. And for cars.com? Didn’t see that one coming.

Biggest embarrassment: GoDaddy. Aren’t we a little past the pre-pubescent humor yet? If you did as you were told and went to the website to see the “too hot for TV” version (I went for research purposes only), you were treated to an even more deeply embarrassing video. Lame, lame, lame.

Biggest dinosaur: Homeaway.com. The problem with bringing back people who were really big 20 years ago is that they’re 20 years older now. He may have been cheap, but Chevy Chase doesn’t exactly have his edge anymore. I’m pretty sure you could get him really cheap after this one.

Most done to death: E-Trade. The talking babies were back. If one baby is funny, four or five have to be even funnier, right? Personally, I’m sick to death of talking babies. After all the TV commercials that have used this trick (for different companies, no less), a couple of movies and a failed TV series, it’s time for these babies to retire. Please? At least do a better job with the effects and syncing.

Worst non-ad moment: The Who. Roger, Pete… I love you and all, but it might be time to consider, uh, you know…  Note to Super Bowl producers: it’s cool that some big names will happily perform for free to get the exposure, but you’d probably do better if you actually paid someone. Don’t tell me you don’t have the cash.

The drama of the Super Bowl is that there can only be one winner. The Ad Bowl has room for infinite winners. But year after year, we prove that creativity is something money can’t buy.

Bookmark and Share
naming / strategy — 48 Comments
5
Feb 10

iPad: a long time coming (or not)

What did Apple know, and when did it know it?

Ever wonder exactly how far ahead Apple sees into the future? Some have suggested that iPad was in development for years.

You may be tempted to file this under “Things We’ll Never Know.” But in the case of iPad, the answer may not be too hard to divine.

Stand back and let me interrogate the witness on this one:

Q. Good morning. Would you be so kind as to identify the name of iPhone’s operating system when it was launched in 2007.
 A. Yes, that would be OS X.

Q. And explain to the court why you chose that name.
 A. It was to distinguish iPhone from Mac. It was OS X vs. Mac OS X.

Q. I see. And where were you on the evening of March 27, 2008?
 A. I don’t remember.

Q. Allow me to refresh your memory. That was the date Apple released the iPhone Developer’s Kit — and changed the name of iPhone’s operating system from OS X to iPhone OS.
 A. Oh, right. I remember that now.

Q. Uh huh. And when you chose the name iPhone OS, were you aware that Apple was already working on a revolutionary new kind of computer, a tablet that would be based on the same operating system?
 A. I, uh, don’t recall.

Q. You’re under oath, sir.
A. Okay, okay. I remember now. Yes, I was aware of that.

Q. And did you not consider the absurdity of putting something called iPhone OS into a revolutionary product that was not a phone?
 A. Uh… yeah, that did kind of strike me, yes.

Q. Why on earth then, sir, would you not choose a name that would allow just a little flexibility in the future… OS X Mobile, perhaps?
 A.

Q. Hello?
A. Uh … I’ll take the Fifth.

Q. No further questions, Your Honor.

My point is, Apple has always demonstrated tremendous common sense. It’s just hard to believe they’d choose the name iPhone OS if iPad was already on the drawing board. My inner Sherlock tells me iPad wasn’t even a twinkle in Apple’s eye until well after March, 2008. That’s still plenty of time to make one hell of a device — but not nearly as much time as some have suggested.

Bookmark and Share
← Older Entries