

A Big Week for the Mobile Web - cwan
http://www.avc.com/a_vc/2009/10/a-big-week-for-the-mobile-web.html

======
unalone
A blogger that I used to read once did a Google Blog Search for the terms
"serious iPhone competitor" and "iPhone killer". TechCrunch has reported a few
dozen "serious competitors", and it's been wrong every time.

Now, Droid's ad is taking cheap shots at Apple, and that's a bad start. If
your ad campaign is based solely on dissing your competitor, chances are you
don't have anything revolutionary.

Look at the promises it makes. "Real keyboard" - yeah, so does every other
phone, but they're getting criticized for it now, so this doesn't mean
anything unless the keyboard's astonishingly good. "Simultaneous apps" - maybe
_we_ care about that, but the average user looks at that and sees gibberish.
"5 megapixel pictures" - probably the least sexy way to advertise a camera
ever, especially if you're not comparing your photo quality to the 3GS's.
"Customize" - doesn't mean as much to most users as a lot of companies seem to
think. "Widgets" - what the fuck are widgets supposed to be in the context of
a phone? "Open development" - again, Joe Watchescommercials won't give a shit
about this. "Pictures in the dark," "interchangeable batteries" - Jesus
fucking Christ, if these are your _selling points_ you've already fucking
lost.

Companies seem to think that fighting the iPhone is simply a matter of
creating a product with slightly better features in certain areas. (Either
that or that's the merely impression they're trying to give to the public,
while they secretly know just how screwed they are here—I'd bet on the latter.
Companies aren't usually stupid.) It's not. If you want better features than
an iPhone, you've got Blackberry, which incidentally is doing very well now
_without_ attempting to directly compete with Apple in any way. But the iPhone
is untouchable. We're talking a cell phone that sparked the revolution, that's
designed by the most reputed company on the planet, by the most famous
designers on the planet, that pioneered not only multitouch but the app store
model that's being leeched everywhere, and whose design is possibly unbeatable
in terms of simplicity. Other companies aren't even _trying_ to be simpler;
they're attempting to be _nearly_ as simple. I'd bet Apple's figuring out how
to make a phone that's even more physically minimal right now, though, because
Apple doesn't rest.

I go to a city school right now; two months ago I was watching over young
children; in both scenarios the iPhone is equally prevalent. The _only_ modern
phone people recognize on sight is the iPhone. People without an iPhone get a
shitty phone and an iPod touch.

And Verizon thinks that it's possible to lower its reputation, which is
hilarious. The iPhone is the single strongest brand in the country, possibly
on the planet. What Verizon knows or ought to know is that part of that brand
is an anti-phone brand. The iPhone was the first phone that said "fuck you" to
a decade of sterile designs and complicated set-ups. It was a "fuck you" to
Verizon and its insistence on over-branding its products. It was a phone that
suggested an incredible potential in mobile devices, not just in breakthrough
technology but in personal happiness, which is something Apple, despite its
being an asshole of a company, cares about a _lot_. And after it invented its
revolutionary new phone model, _then_ other companies decided maybe they could
make cool new things too, and they're making them _by ripping off the iPhone_.

It's possible to make a beautiful phone without once winking over Apple's way.
No American company does it. Look at all the phones designed by Naoto
Fukasawa. He's shown that it's possible to make multiple phones without
overlapping ideas and keep them all memorable products. We have no memorable
phones in the US, except for the iPhone. Until companies decide it's time to
start competing by making _good_ products, we won't have any.

~~~
robotron
"Now, Droid's ad is taking cheap shots at Apple, and that's a bad start. If
your ad campaign is based solely on dissing your competitor, chances are you
don't have anything revolutionary."

I used to agree with this thinking, however, Apple's very successful marketing
campaigns (Mac guy vs PC guy) are entirely based upon this.

Regarding some of the other things you brought up, I've been seeing some real
[anecdotal] evidence of cracks in the iPhone love from people with it. This
may be ATT's fault in some ways but I've been hearing some outright
dissatisfaction, which has been surprising. These people (not all developers!)
may not be ready to jump ship any time soon but I've been hearing a lot of
"meh" coming from them, mostly unprompted by myself - just from hearing iPhone
users talking to each other. There's some opportunity there for someone to
compete seriously with Apple.

~~~
unalone
There's a difference in attitude. Actually, the best way to look at attitude
is to look at Apple's ads and then to look at Microsoft's "Laptop Hunter"
counterads.

Apple's ads are very friendly. I mean, yes, they relentlessly diss PCs at
every turn, but the attitude's very happy. The white background is very warm,
the music is quiet and cheery, and John and Justin have a nice chemistry
going. It's two friends, one of whom is dorkier and a little more competitive
than the other friend. It comes across as being friendly towards Microsoft,
while criticizing its products. The attitude isn't "Look at Microsoft and how
it sucks", it's "We can do these things better, but you're pretty cool too."
It's lighthearted; it takes potshots like John Hodgman freezing in place and
"crashing". It's all in fun, even when it's not.

Then Microsoft decided it would be a good idea to target ads against Apple,
because CP+B, their ad agency, thinks Microsoft can't possibly beat Apple
unless they take huge risks (and, sadly, they're probably right). So we get
the Laptop Hunter, which pretends its message is "Look at how cheap our
computers are", while really the message is "Apple overprices". So you get
people, real-life people, going "I can't afford that" and "I guess I'm not
cool enough to be a Mac user". It's like they're trying to present it as a
real-life situation, where we identify with the shoppers.

Two problems. Problem One, the ads, just like this Droid ad, aren't really
dealing with real-life situations. They're just pretending. If I buy a Mac, it
won't be because it's cheap, it'll be because of iLife, or because it's virus-
free, or doesn't crash. You can see Apple's selling points at
<http://www.apple.com/getamac/whymac/>. Microsoft can't refute any of those in
an ad. Their only option is to ignore Apple's advertising and deal with the
constant bashing, or attempt a counterattack that uses irrelevancies.

When I buy a phone, I'm not worried about open development or 5 megapixel
cameras. In fact, the genius of Apple's advertising is that they're very good
at _not_ focusing on irrelevancy: They figure out what people want and they
offer it. Right now their web site advertises, in order, the complex/beautiful
applications they offer, their video camera/built-in video editing, their new
compass edition to their GPS, and then a few things that probably aren't as
urgent to the consumer. If I'm looking for a new phone, then seeing an ad that
shows how I can plan out my wardrobe via phone, or figure out trains and
flights, or any of the hundreds of things the App Store can offer, that's a
strong selling point. Knowing I can use my phone to find where I am, that's a
strong selling point. 5 megapixel camera versus video camera/editor? That's a
weak sell.

Problem Two is those latter ads are very negative. Microsoft sounds snippy;
Verizon just sounds deluded. It's all about being badass: Look at those
fractured images at the end, so much better than Apple's gloss. Problem is,
Apple doesn't overgloss like that, so it's a caricature rather than it is an
honest depiction, and its _actual_ iPhone ads, which are very warm and
friendly, come across much better than Verizon, which didn't get the memo that
"aloof and cool" isn't cool anymore. So instead of being effective, the ads
just seem mean and deluded. It's like the kid in debate class whose solution
to every topic is "Let's settle this outside". Verizon's not able to sell
their own product, so instead they attempt to knock in teeth.

The Get A Mac ads aren't teeth knocking. They're poking fun at Microsoft.
Microsoft's counterads backfired for the same reason these Droid ads will
fail: Mean doesn't sell unless you've already got the upper hand.

~~~
DenisM
>> _the ads, just like this Droid ad, aren't really dealing with real-life
situations_

So you think that being able to make calls on the phone is irrelevant to the
typical user of the mobile phone?

Biased much?

~~~
unalone
The Droid ad don't mention making phone calls. Not once. Way to RTFA.

I'd argue, actually, that most users _don't_ care much about their phone
calls. Phones aren't used for talking nearly as much as they're used for other
things. But either way, neither Apple nor Verizon is making ads that mention
phone calls whatsoever.

~~~
DenisM
>> _neither Apple nor Verizon is making ads that mention phone calls
whatsoever_

Have you seen this? <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37NKnDRPFKU>

~~~
unalone
I have. It's not a Droid ad.

~~~
DenisM
Let's try this again. You have said, and I quote "neither Apple nor Verizon is
making ads that mention phone calls whatsoever". This clip proves you wrong,
yet you can't bring yourself to admit it.

~~~
unalone
You're a smarmy little fucker, Denis. I said that in regard to your original
post, which accused me of bias because I didn't mention phone calls. I said
that you hadn't seen the Droid ad, which _doesn't_ mention phone calls. Then
you brought up a separate Verizon ad which has nothing to do with the original
argument.

I liked that other Verizon ad. If they argued that at all in the Droid
campaign, I'd think it an effective ad. That's what marketing _should_ be.
Instead, Droid doesn't mention Verizon at all, and brings up a whole bunch of
things that don't matter. The name Verizon isn't mentioned once. So my point
still stands.

Now, you come in ready to argue against me, ready to point out a week-old
advertisement that's got nothing to do with the argument. When I say your
argument has nothing to do with what I said, I make the mistake of saying
"Apple and Verizon" rather than "iPhone and Droid", which is what matters
here. Now you're nitpicking that choice of language, pointing out that
_technically_ I was wrong, ignoring that the argument I was making was and is
entirely correct. Now you're being a bit of a cunt because you'd rather win
the argument than admit that your counterpoint had nothing to do with the
point.

You're doing what the Drone ad is doing. You're pointing out a slight misstep
on my part and pushing it forward with negativity, with your "Let's try this
again" and "yet you can't bring yourself" smarminess. It doesn't work on
Internet arguments either.

If you're going to be an ass, then be an honest ass rather than a snide one.

~~~
DenisM
Now, now who's being all negative?

The point I was about to make is that Verizon went on the offensive against
AT&T and Apple by using a two-pronged approach: on one side they attack
features of the phone and the other the network. Different parts of the
campaign target people who care about different things.

For some people customization is really important: the multi-billion industry
of ringtones is just one sign of it as there are other venues for
customizations as well.

For other people (a lot of them) being able to make calls reliably is very
important.

I'm not clear about 5mp camera, but judging by the fact that the megapixel
race has engulfed the consumer digital camera market it has a good chance to
lure in a bunch of people.

You may not care about some of these things, but many other people do.

------
c00p3r
_In fact, as I've written here before, Android is a lot like Microsoft's
Windows OS. It was a copy of Apple's operating system in many ways, but it was
open and it could run on many devices._

what a savage nonsense..

~~~
fredwilson
if it is savage nonsense, i'd like to hear why.

maybe i could learn something from you

~~~
c00p3r
It is so funy. OK.

If you're comparing two operation systems, you probably should compare the
code bases, availability and price of development tools, community and volume
of information in google search, instead of comparing and images you can see
on screen.

With that second approach it is possible to tell that, say Nokia Symbian OS is
the same like Android or this absolutely different Maemo5 system.

For this particular sentence, iPhone OS and Android have nothing in common,
except that they both uses some sort of GUI and runs on ARM-bases hardware.
They have totally different code bases, different development tools, closed
and open communities and different amounts of hype.

Excuse me, but I didn't see any reason to explain it farther.

