Let’s assume wearables - and particularly smartwatches - are here to stay. How will it change things?Read More
The promise of Google Glass is that it would finally give us an idea of what a
In Western culture we are trained to believe that being first is the best. First place, first class, first choice, etc. But, in the technology world being first can actually be detrimental.Read More
The app has become synonymous with mobile computing. The phrase “there’s an app for that” wasn't coined for no reason. We all have our favourite apps, and everyone’s phone is customized differently. The app ecosystem has been integral to the success of the smartphone revolution. However, the app model has its critics.Read More
The smartwatch is a broad category (and hopefully we can now cease hyphenating the words "smart" and “watch”), but there is still much discussion regarding what these devices should do.Read More
The rapid user interface (UI) developments have tapered off on mobile, yet there are likely many more UI (and hardware) improvements to come.Read More
What innovations have yet to be seen from the traditional office suite? Despite what Microsoft will have its customers believe, there have been few advancements in this fieldRead More
Is there much more innovating that can be done, or are we at a mature product stage? Will the tablet and laptop merge, bringing us full circle?Read More
"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."
-Alan KayRead More
As a society, we increasingly depend on our smartphones for payments, boarding passes, web browsing, and all forms of communication. However, much of the information we store on these devices is extremely private. Pass codes/phrases, patterns, and face unlock are not sufficient security measures.Read More
By Erik Christiansen
In my last post I asked the question, is Apple losing its cool factor? I also asked whether the market campaigns by Apple in the mid-2000s are equivalent to those carried out by Samsung and Microsoft.
I don’t believe Apple is losing its appeal (or cool factor) among those people who value Apple products. I include myself in this category, and those like myself generally feel the same way. Where Apple might be losing its appeal is among those who were exposed to the company’s products for a brief period and then moved onto something else.
The iPhone really had no decent competitors until 2011. Android phones were vastly inferior with regard to stability, apps, and consistency. Samsung and HTC (in particular) stepped up their game in 2011, and since then Apple’s market share in phones has dropped - losing some of its customers to Android and, to a lesser extent, Windows Phone. But where old customers are lost new ones are gained.
Both the iPhone and the iPad have seen year over year increases in sales. They just aren't growing as fast as Android, the latter being accelerated due the plethora of cheap devices available. (A little known fact is that flagship Android phones are not necessarily driving Android market share. The Samsung Galaxy Ace was - at one point - the best selling Android phone in the United States, not the Galaxy S II or III).
Should being outpaced by Android concern Apple? Well, that’s a matter of opinion. Some analysts argue that market share is more important because it gets devices into the hands of more people, therefore solidifying a platform as a standard (think Microsoft’s Windows). Yet, other analysts argue this is a short term strategy, and focusing on better more refined products makes for a stronger company in the long run. Also, the race in phones and tablets is far from over. There are five billion people in the world without internet access, particularly in Africa and Asia. Mobile phones are often their primary internet access point. The mobile computing market is a rapidly increasing pie. Apple’s market share is steady (still outselling the competition in the US), and they sell more devices every year. This is good.
Are recent offensive marketing campaigns evidence that Apple is no longer cool, or is it a sign of its competitors’ insecurity? I think it’s a little of both.
When Apple launched its Mac vs. PC ads in 2006, it was clearly the underdog. At this point, Apple was only a computer and iPod company, and it had a market share between 7 to 10%. Pretty small. Their marketing campaign was hugely successful. But as the years went on, Apple abandoned those ads. Why? Two reasons. First, it had expanded into phones and tablets, and Microsoft was no longer its chief competitor. Second, for the first time in history Apple had a majority share in a computer market, eventually overtaking Nokia and RIM. There is a sound piece of marketing advice that many companies follow. Advertise where you want to be. If one were to follow this advice, being on the offensive when outgunned by your competitor is perfectly legitimate. When you finally reach your goal of being a market leader, tone down the hostility. Why? Because, companies that dominate the market and continue very offensive marketing campaigns come across as bullies. It leaves the market wide-open for another competitor to call this behavior out. It’s for this reason Apple has shifted its branding tactics inward, highlighting the fact that it’s an American company with a focus on quality and consistency.
There is no doubt that Samsung and Microsoft’s ads are effective in making Apple products look like something your parents want. They are very funny that way. But, I’m of the opinion that such campaigns are unwise when in a strong market position.
Samsung is not an underdog in terms of market share. One could argue it’s a market leader, at least in phones. Microsoft, while not a leader in mobile, is still by far the dominant PC operating system. Apple, Samsung, and Microsoft are all hugely successful (leading) companies. So, when Samsung makes (very funny and hilarious) ads that poke fun at the iPhone, they are saying two things. 1. “look how much better our phones are.” 2. “we are trying to hide our shortcomings.” How many times can you run ads like that? It doesn’t take long before they’re no longer effective. While consumers might not yet realize it, many tech journalists have grown tired of Samsung’s ads because they misrepresent their products. Their phones are solid, but lack the polish and refinement of its competition (and I’m not just talking about Apple). Furthermore, such ads take attention off the fact that they have inferior customer service and support.
I don’t think Apple has lost its cool, it’s just not quite as novel because more people use their products than ever before. If anything has hurt their reputation, it has been the continuous lawsuits against companies like Samsung, Motorola, HTC, and Google. And while all these companies initiate hostile legal battles globally, it’s considerably more damaging to Apple because, in many peoples’ minds, they are still the underdog. That image is part of their heritage, and it’s baggage they have to carry.
To wrap up, I think it’s important to take a couple of things away from this discussion. First, there is always a long term and short term marketing strategy. Second, companies should project an image of where they want to be in the future rather than relying on short-lived, but forgettable, marketing campaigns.
I think Apple is polarizing. There are people who like their products, and continue to come back (despite their upfront cost) because they feel the experience is superior. This is their main customer base. Then there are people who live to hate Apple, and find comfort in using the great many alternatives out there. Both of these groups are good for Apple’s cool; all publicity is good publicity. If Apple wants to remain cool, they have to focus on innovation and market-changing products, continue push the design envelope, and provide industry leading customer support. Those are tactics for creating hundred-year companies, not getting distracted by marketing.
By Erik Christiansen
From the viewpoint of someone who works in the field of information science, the end user is key. Too many times have I tested, or worked with, software (consumer or enterprise) that fails to create a fluid user experience. Yet, there is a balance. Software that is dumbed down to the point where utility is inhibited is also unacceptable. The juncture between usability and capability is the sweet spot that all modern operating systems should strive for, regardless of the device or platform.
The limitations of the current crop of touch-based operating systems reflects the infancy of the mobile market. iOS, Android, and Windows Phone do not represent a fully functional OS. They were designed to ease people into a new era. The era of touch.
The introduction of the Graphic-user-interface, or GUI (pronounced “gooey”) as us geeks like to call it, was arguably the game-changing invention that brought the personal computer into the mainstream. The whole notion of the desktop and the folder-icon file system was first commercialized by Apple’s Macintosh operating system. Just like the current generation of Macs, Apple’s strategy has been to create operating systems that were powerful, yet consistent and easy to use. Conversely, Microsoft set its sights on the enterprise market, and opted for more drastic changes to the user interface (UI) with each iteration. Today, both are very capable productivity platforms.
My first introduction to the GUI was the family Atari 1400ST, which featured a state-of-the-art OS made by Digital Research. Amazingly, I still have that computer, and it chugs along to this very day. I remember fondly the white icons and lime green background. It had no internet connection (though there was modem for it that we never used). While it was used for productivity (mostly basic word processing) and games, it was above all a learning tool. It prepared me for what was to come.
When I got to school we had Macs and Windows 3.1. Not long after, my family made the jump to Windows 98, Windows XP, and subsequently Windows 7. Currently, I use Mac OS 10.8. Each iteration was slightly more streamlined, but added more functionality. Today, I would consider myself a pretty expert computer user, but only because I honed my skills with each generation.
Tomorrow, Apple will hold its World Wide Developer’s Conference (WWDC), where they are expected to announce (among other things) iOS 7 and OS 10.9. Don’t let the number 7 fool you, however. iOS hasn’t changed much since its introduction in 2007 - unlike Google’s Android, which has seen considerable advancement. Unfortunately, as much as I like my phones and tablets, they are not anywhere close to replacing my Macbook or desktop computer.
The more we use mobile devices, the more we expect from them. Technologists are bored with the current selection and we pine the next big thing. The next generation of mobile phones and tablets have to be considerably more capable. The training wheels have to come off. Both my generation and the younger generation (the latter which has never experienced a world without the smartphone) are prepared for something more advanced. Our Kung-Fu is strong, and we’re ready for the next challenge.
Microsoft has tried to move users in the opposite direction, which I feel is a mistake. Handicapping the desktop and gearing it toward touch is the wrong approach. What companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple should be doing is adding some of the traditional desktop functionality (such as multitasking, windowing, and file systems) into the their respective mobile OS’.
I’m optimistic for the future of mobile. When I haul out my old Atari from the closet, it always makes me smile. I’ll be honest, using it can be pretty painful. But, I owe it a great deal to that relic. It introduced me to a fascinating new world, sparked a lifelong interest, and put me on a path toward an exciting career. When I hold my tablet or phone, I experience the same excitement as when I first used a computer. “This is the Atari of mobile,” I say to myself. “I can’t wait so see what’s next...”