observatory

observatory / software — 12 Comments
24
Dec 11

Quicken: stuck in a timehole

Quicken's letter to Mac users — click to enlarge

It takes world-class talent to screw up a relationship as well as Intuit has done with its Mac-based customers. It’s a feat that’s taken over ten years to accomplish.

Intuit has just announced that Quicken, the personal finance manager, is coming back as a Mac product — an act of extraordinary nerve, considering the history of this product.

Quicken was never exactly a star performer on the Mac. From its debut eons ago, it played second fiddle to the PC version. Every year, there would be promises that its features would catch up, but every year it remained significantly behind. But at least they were coming out with an update every year.

Quicken for Mac 2007 was the most recent version, and that was released in 2006. To say it had become long-in-the-tooth would be a serious understatement.

Intuit’s paper-thin commitment to Mac users sputtered to pure nothingness back in July when Lion appeared. Having required Mac OS X’s Rosetta feature to run all these years — because Intuit couldn’t be bothered to turn Quicken for Mac into a real Intel-based app  — it literally became a non-option for anyone who wanted to enjoy the benefits of Lion.

Thus, the mass exodus of those Quicken for Mac users who remained after all those years of previous neglect.

The only option remaining for the Mac people was to switch to Quicken Essentials, which strips away even more features from Quicken than Quicken for Mac ever stripped away from the PC version. The reviews of Quicken Essentials have been consistently negative.

But now Intuit is back. The last known users of Quicken for Mac are receiving the letter above — pretty stunning even by Intuit standards.

Proudly, they tell us that Quicken for Mac isn’t dead after all. If all goes according to plan, sometime around spring 2012, we’ll be able to run Quicken 2007.

The only people who would find solace in this are those diehard Quicken for Mac users who made the decision not to upgrade to Lion just so they could keep using their old Quicken. (Users of Essentials will also be able to move back to the full version.)

One would think they’d at least throw in a few new features and call it Quicken for Mac 2012. It’s just hard to imagine what kind of marketing brains are behind this operation.

Making it all the more inexplicable is that Bill Campbell is the current chairman of Intuit and former CEO, a current and long-time member of the Apple board of directors, and was extremely close to Steve Jobs.

Lest we forget, back in the late 90s, Intuit sent out a different letter to its Mac base — to inform them that the company was pulling out of the Mac market. Quicken for Mac would be no more. I remember how disappointed I was as a user of that product. There was a little firestorm over that move, and a short time later Intuit announced that due to the response, they would scrap their plans to scrap the product.

Unfortunately, they didn’t even bother to send a follow-up email to those who had received the “we’re outta here” email.

At that time, I was working with Apple and told this sad story to Steve Jobs himself one night. Steve was surprised to hear that they’d never sent a follow-up email and agreed that it was a boneheaded marketing move. He told me that he’d talk to Bill Campbell about it. I have no idea if he ever did — but I never received another email from Intuit. I wonder how many customers they lost by that move alone.

Of course, as things turned out, Intuit didn’t exactly stick with us anyway. They stopped caring about the Mac users again back in 2006.

The good news is, now they’re coming back. At some nebulous time in the future. With a product frozen in its 2007 state — which was already a few years behind its time.

But at least this time we got an email.

advertising / apple / creative / iPhone / observatory — 2 Comments
19
Dec 11

Santa gets his Siri on

Chestnuts roasting on an open fire. A holiday commercial from Apple. It’s a heartwarming time of year.

While the Mac vs. PC animated holiday ads always added a unique twist to that campaign, these days Apple has to dig a little deeper.

Fortunately they have Siri to play with, and it makes for a cheerful, happy holiday spot.

Love the voice they’ve given Santa (even if his little laugh doesn’t seem to be quite in sync with his cookie-chewing mouth). And the end joke is as charming as they get —  very much in the spirit of the humor Siri normally displays.

The only thing I wondered about was the timing. Running a holiday spot one week before the holiday seemed like it was cutting things a bit close. Seems like Santa could have enjoyed at least a two-week run, maybe more.

But then I noticed that in three years of Mac vs. PC holiday spots, they debuted on the 19th, 13th and 16th of December. So either the guys have been consistently late in the production department, or this is the way Apple likes to roll.

And the truth is, the short run makes these spots feel even more special, so it’s all good. And I’ll bet more than a few last-minute shoppers start seeing visions of iPad dancing in their heads.

apple / observatory / technology — 8 Comments
15
Dec 11

Apple’s guaranteed revolution

As Apple has well proven, revolutions have a cumulative effect.

The success of iPod created all that anticipation for iPhone, which caused even more hype for iPad, which will now start generating ultra-hype for… iTV. (Let’s not worry our little heads about what Apple will really name it given the iTV network in the U.K.)

But the point of this post isn’t that iTV is going to break the pre-launch buzz records, it’s that iTV will have a very tough time failing.

First, there’s the Need Factor.

iPod and iTunes were needed. Buying and enjoying music was a mess and no one else was stepping up to the plate.

iPhone was needed. It entered a market filled with villains and devices that were as complicated as they were ugly. We couldn’t wait for Apple to save us.

iPad was a glorious revolution, but we weren’t sure if we needed it. Indeed, some of the lukewarm response to iPad’s launch came from people who just didn’t get why it was a big deal — until they finally got their hands on one.

iTV is needed. Wow, is it needed. Like iPhone, it will enter a market where the choices are confusing, and the current batch of TV makers and retailers are their own worst enemies.

I know, because I just finished a few weeks of living the adventure. I would have waited for iTV, except my now-dead TV didn’t leave me that option. So I dived into the process.

I really don’t know how normal people can shop for a TV intelligently. It’s utterly impossible to compare models. The names are indecipherable, and the models you see at Best Buy might not even be on the manufacturer’s site. (Seems there are a number of retailer-exclusive models, like there are in the smartphone world.) And good luck figuring out what some of the features even mean. Buying a TV requires some serious study if you’ve been out of the market for a few years.

Don’t shoot me, but I ended up with a big Samsung “Smart TV.” Only problem was, it wasn’t nearly as smart as I expected it to be. Either that, or I wasn’t nearly as smart as it required me to be.

The setup screens were cluttered. After several false starts, my wireless network finally showed up, but then it offered me four different flavors of WEP security options. I hadn’t a clue which one applied to me, so it was trial and error until I found one that worked. Other issues kept cropping up until I finally got it working right. Overall: tedious and annoying.

It’s hard to imagine an experience more ripe for Apple-ization. I haven’t a clue how iTV will work, but it doesn’t take a whole lot of brain power to figure it will offer:

1. A simplified TV shopping experience. Maybe one or two screen sizes and just a few configuration options.
2. A simplified setup experience. Plug in, see network, connect.
3. A simplified control experience. Thank you Siri, via iPhone or iPad.
4. A simplified content experience. A way to break free from the cable companies’ predefined packaging.

No matter how I imagine iTV, it’s hard to imagine it not being a full-scale revolution, possibly Apple’s biggest yet — simply because the need is so obvious and there are multiple TVs in just about every home.

And I may have a good deal for you next summer on a used Samsung.

advertising / android / apple / creative / observatory / strategy — 7 Comments
29
Nov 11

Ads: Apple’s unchallenged monopoly

Many observers credit Apple’s marketing for its astronomical success.

Few, however, credit Apple’s competitors for lending a hand.

It’s because the Android-makers keep churning out technology-centric ads that Apple continues to hold a monopoly on human-centric ads — which are often the most powerful of all.

The above commercial for the Samsung Galaxy IIS phone is just the latest example. It gets points for creativity. It’s fun to poke fun at Apple. But once the fun is over, its message is 100% technology — bigger screen, 4G speed — and 0% human benefit.

If Apple were to to adopt its competitors’ colder approach, a typical iPhone 4S ad would simply say “Now with triple-lens 8-megapixel camera and intelligent assistant.”

It’s not hard to understand how this advertising imbalance took shape — or why it will likely continue.

To do battle with iPhone, the Android-makers have to offer something better. So they engineer phones with measurable advantages — better cameras, bigger screens, faster processors, etc. But those advantages aren’t advantages unless they get advertised.

That’s why we often see futuristic ads with robots, lasers and lists of features, but little or no emotional context for those features.

Of course, there’s no reason why the Android-makers couldn’t create ads that show the human side of their technology advantages. They just don’t. Most likely because those who make the decisions (or the ads) are determined to do something different than Apple at all costs.

Even if that cost is giving Apple the gift of a monopoly.

advertising / apple / creative / iMac / observatory / steve jobs — 9 Comments
22
Nov 11

Steve Jobs talks PC vs. TV

Fortune blogger Philip Elmer-DeWitt uncovered this gem recently — a segment of Steve Jobs’ appearance at the CAUSE 1998 Conference in Seattle.

The video quality is terrible, and the black turtleneck plays second fiddle to a shirt. But the clip is interesting on a few levels.

First, Steve gives one of his more animated performances. At certain points, it’s almost as if he’s trying out a comedy act — and the audience does its part, sounding much like a laugh track. The speech does have substance though. In it, Steve puts television in its place. “TV turns your brain off, PCs turn your brain on,” he says.

Few people would know this, but Steve didn’t exactly pull that thought out of mid-air. He was actually re-purposing the script from an iMac campaign that never saw the light of day.

Right after we signed Jeff Goldblum, we shot a number of iMac commercials in which Jeff repeatedly drove home the point that iMac was for turning your brain on, while TV was for turning your brain off. In one spot, Jeff walked a path littered with old TVs as he spoke. In another, he sat with a bunch of children on the floor, all gathered around an iMac. The theme of the campaign was “iMac. It’s not TV.”

Why did the ads never run? In the end, they just weren’t good enough. Fortunately, on our last shooting day, when we were beginning to feel like we might need a Plan B, we wrote a quick script and shot a test spot featuring Jeff speaking directly to the camera. It worked great. With Steve’s enthusiastic approval, we grabbed a new director and shot the Jeff Goldblum spots that ultimately did run.

I was unaware that Steve had ever used the “brain on, brain off” argument publicly until I saw this video. I’m glad he was able to find a good use for it — especially since it cost him a pretty good chunk of cash.

 

android / apple / observatory / technology — 7 Comments
18
Nov 11

The official home of malware

Critics eager to find Apple’s fatal flaw have long pointed to their closed way of thinking.

By being stubborn and insisting on controlling both  hardware and software, Apple is dooming itself in mobile devices to the same second-class status it had in PCs. Or so the story goes.

In truth, history really is repeating — but this time it’s being far kinder to Apple.

Just as Macintosh was dwarfed in market share by a mass-market legion of PCs, iPhone was surpassed in market share by a mass-market legion of Android phones.

But just as the warm, inviting openness of PCs turned Windows into a breeding ground for malware, the “freedom” and “openness” of Android has already done the same.

According to the annual Malicious Mobile Threats Report from Juniper Networks, malware in the Android world rose an amazing 472% this year over last.

Juniper points out that the inherent security of either platform isn’t the issue. It’s the fact that no app enters Apple’s App Store without first being reviewed. The only thing that stands between a developer (or evildoer) posting an app in the Android Marketplace is a $25 fee.

Malware does ultimately get removed from the Marketplace, but only after it’s been reported — which can only happen after it’s been installed on potentially thousands of phones.

Apple has been attacked for being controlling on two different levels. One is that they won’t allow you to have your way with iOS to the point where you can monkey with the basic interface. Only a small part of the population cares much about this.

The other is that Apple is Big Brother-like when it comes to the App Store. They trample our liberties and shackle the developers. Personally, I find it difficult to care about this argument either. The suggestion that Apple somehow limits my choice when I’m browsing over 500,000 apps is pretty silly. I promise to begin caring when someone shows me an Android app that I wish I could have on my iPhone, but whose functionality Apple has banned.

The only limitation I’ve ever felt on an iPhone is my inability to have myself victimized by malware. Damn you, Apple.

creative / observatory / technology — 2 Comments
16
Nov 11

Annie Leibovitz likes iPhones

Brian Williams had legendary photographer Annie Leibovitz on his show the other day. He asked her, in effect, what camera she might suggest to the mere mortal who just wanted a good everyday device.

I can imagine a number of replies she might have given, so I was surprised at the one she gave. She started talking about iPhone. “That is the snapshot camera of today,” she said.

Judging by the fairly crappy photos she took of Brian while she spoke (spliced into the interview after the fact), I suspect she wasn’t even using an iPhone 4S with its improved optics.

But her point actually wasn’t about photo quality, it was more about something every photography enthusiast should take to heart. She talked about the importance of editing. Annie takes tons of photos when she does a job, and one of her talents is the ability to edit well. She painstakingly searches through her work to find those few gems that are technically correct and capture a great moment.

So, for everyday photos, Annie thinks quantity is a factor as well as quality. In other words, keep snapping. You’ll get a good one eventually.

I just found it interesting that Annie would specifically call out iPhone, considering her answer would have been applicable to any phone. (Obviously she’s part of the conspiracy.)

Fun as this endorsement may be, I won’t expect to see an Annie Leibovitz coffee table book of iPhone photography anytime soon. Clearly, the woman needs some practice with that iPhone shutter finger.

observatory / technology — 8 Comments
10
Nov 11

Adobe: woe of the freedom fighter

I was going to say, “Farewell Flash, we hardly knew ye.”

But, of course, we knew ye pretty well. That was the problem.

I won’t waste anyone’s time by dissecting Flash’s many failings. The bottom line was that without a role to play in iOS, Adobe was missing out on too much action. Despite their protests, they had to do what they had to do.

It’s the way they protested that got under my skin.

Back when Apple banned Flash from iOS, I took issue with Adobe over the “theme” they chose to rally the people to their side. For obvious reasons of self-preservation, they wrapped themselves in the flag of freedom. They tried to win support as the company who fights for the rights of developers. They were there to defend us all.

I’m sorry, but it just makes me ill when a company hijacks a basic human right to preserve their own cash cow.

As Adobe has now confirmed, this was a disposable use of a sacred concept. If you read their latest words, there is no lament that we will soon live in a totalitarian state controlled by the evil Apple. Adobe is no longer protecting our cherished values. Now it’s just about HTML5 being “the best solution for creating and deploying content in the browser across mobile platforms.”

I know Adobe would rather put their “freedom fighter” campaign in the past, but they don’t get off the hook that easy. That effort showed something about the character of the company—especially now that they’ve done a 180. Apparently, in Adobe’s world, the concept of freedom is merely a disposable tool of convenience.

We owe Steve Jobs a huge thank-you for Adobe’s decision to abandon ship on Mobile Flash. Steve was the only person on earth with the clout to force the issue. Now Adobe can join the industry in creating the tools for a standard that is truly open, and performs better across all devices.

One could speculate about the timing of Adobe’s announcement in relation to Steve’s death, but a move of this magnitude would have to have been in the works for quite some time. It’s possible that the announcement was scheduled for an earlier date, but was delayed so it wouldn’t come too soon after Steve’s passing.

Bottom line: all is well. The whole industry can now concentrate on perfecting a more stable, less power-hungry way of enabling creativity on the web, without depending on a single company to control our access to it.

Now that’s freedom.

advertising / creative / observatory — 4 Comments
8
Nov 11

Ad pollution and the fall of civilization

Well, maybe the situation isn’t quite that dire.

But I’m often reminded of my earlier days in advertising, when my mentors talked about our profession’s responsibility not to pollute the environment just to make our clients a few extra bucks.

There’s no question that you can put ads pretty much anywhere. The question is, should you.

My example of the day is the CNN home page. Above is what it looked like a week or so ago. (Click if you’d like to see it in all its glory.)

This is what’s known as “taking over a page.” Some consider it a fantastic way to get attention in this overcrowded world. Others consider it ad pollution.

In a case like this, Capital One pays CNN extra to achieve “maximum impact.” They get a banner under the masthead, a full column on the right and left side, a square space that’s equal to the headline images, and — for good measure — a tiny little ad on the bottom.

And, because we’re so thick, they take special care to blast the exact same message in four different places. It would be a shame if you missed it.

What CNN looks like on a good day

I actually don’t have anything against page takeovers. Some companies consider it a creative challenge, doing it with style and class. Apple broke new ground with Mac vs. PC ads that featured some creative interaction between different parts of the page.

Capital One has successfully polluted this page, but they couldn’t have committed their crime without an accomplice. CNN owns the real estate. They’re the ones who took the cash and looked the other way as their new tenant junked up the place. Not the most sterling example of brand stewardship.

So watch it, CNN. Whatever you make in additional revenue, you’re giving back in brand degradation.

And you, Capital One: Yikes, could you try something a little more creative next time? Entertaining always trumps annoying.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →