A few weeks ago, I wrote that the Apple TV’s failure to succeed in the marketplace was (and I couldn’t believe it myself) more a failure of Apple’s marketers and Chiat/Day’s advertising than one of technology and product features. As I pointed out then, compared to the consistently brilliant creative Chiat/Day turns out, the one and only Apple TV creative was weak and its media budget seemed less than a two-day buy for any other Apple consumer-oriented product.
Just how bad was the creative? Well judge for yourself. On the left, the Chiat/Day Apple TV ad. On the right, an ad created by an 18-year-old student. Which one makes the product seem worthy of the Apple brand?
Like every thing else about him, when it comes to corporate communications, Steve Jobs is an enigma.
Let’s review some of the highlights:
Presentations: The way Steve Jobs makes presentations is the benchmark for making great presentations.
Speeches: The way Steve Jobs makes speeches is the benchmark for great speeches.
Position papers or letters: The way Steve Jobs writes letters is the benchmark for how to write great letters.
Internal Memos: And now, in the past few days, the way Steve Jobs writes memos has become the benchmark for writing great internal memos. (More about the memo in a moment.)
Phone calls: Don’t “be like Steve” on this one, or, at least the recent phone call with a New York Times reporter that started out, “You think I’m an arrogant [expletive] who thinks he’s above the law, and I think you’re a slime bucket who gets most of his facts wrong.”
Media relations: Oh, wait. Steve (and Apple) don’t “relate” to media. They manage media. If I knew someone who was just starting out in a PR career, I would advise them to work anywhere but Apple. Learn how to actually try to convince someone to cover the launch of a new toilet plunger, or something. You’ll have your sense of reality forever warped if you start out at Apple and become convinced that reporters actually appreciate the opportunity of touching the hem of your pants. Working in PR for Apple is like being a roadie for the Beatles. Pointing at reporters and saying, you can’t go over there, is the main skill you need.
Blogger relations: Excuse me. I threw that one in as a joke. Apple sues bloggers. Apple shuts down bloggers. Apple manipulates bloggers. Apple makes a mockery of everything any of us bloggers suggest a progressive, smart company should do when it comes to being open, conversational and savvy. They mock us and slap us around (okay, they ignore us and we take it that way). And then we go line up to purchase their products and write adoring posts about how, despite every problem we encountered, we still know they’re better than anything else.
About the memo.
Jim Ylisela of ragan.com has a post today about writing corporate memos. It contains some good observations and recommendations. Suggests Yisela:
1. Craft strong headlines, leads and subheads.
2. Use bullets.
3. Write in an active, conversational voice.
4. Provide good answers.
I agree with those suggestions and upon re-reading it, I must say the Steve memo is a masterful model for the medium (if there is such a thing) of internal corporate memorandums. Here’s the full-text of the memo via ArsTechnica:
Team,
The launch of MobileMe was not our finest hour. There are several things we could have done better:
– MobileMe was simply not up to Apple’s standards – it clearly needed more time and testing.
– Rather than launch MobileMe as a monolithic service, we could have launched over-the-air syncing with iPhone to begin with, followed by the web applications one by one – Mail first, followed 30 days later (if things went well with Mail) by Calendar, then 30 days later by Contacts.
– It was a mistake to launch MobileMe at the same time as iPhone 3G, iPhone 2.0 software and the App Store. We all had more than enough to do, and MobileMe could have been delayed without consequence.
We are taking many steps to learn from this experience so that we can grow MobileMe into a service that our customers will love. One step that I can share with you today is that the MobileMe team will now report to Eddy Cue, who will lead all of our internet services – iTunes, the App Store and, starting today, MobileMe. Eddy’s new title will be Vice President, Internet Services and he will now report directly to me.
The MobileMe launch clearly demonstrates that we have more to learn about Internet services. And learn we will. The vision of MobileMe is both exciting and ambitious, and we will press on to make it a service we are all proud of by the end of this year.
Steve
Honest, to the point, active and conversational (except when it drifts into the Churchillian phrases, “And learn we will” or “press on”), action-oriented and it can be read easily on an iPhone.
“Technology is a glittering lure, but there is the rare occasion when the public can be engaged on a level beyond flash if they have a sentimental bond with the product.”
– Don Draper, creative director, Sterling Cooper
I’ve buried the lede in this post — Somewhere down below, I’m going to have the audacity to suggest the demigods of marketing and advertising at Apple and their agency, Chiat-Day, are the reasons that the Apple TV is merely “a hobby” and not a successful product. But first, the set-up.
I have an Apple TV (okay, I have just about an Apple Everything) but frankly, I often forget about it. I don’t watch TV passively (it’s not ever on in the background), so when I actually watch TV, it’s with intent. Whenever it’s time to watch TV, I usually have several movies or recorded episodes of shows queued up on my Cable-box’s DVR.
Recently, however, I was messing with my Apple TV to see how the iPhone “Remote” app works (it’s rather clever). Out of curiousity, I surfed around the features of the slightly updated software version of the Apple TV and discovered there is now a much larger selection of movies and TV shows than when I last checked in. I was also impressed by the growth of video podcasts being provided from sources big and small. Long story short — I downloaded the first season of Mad Men and my wife and I ended up being engrossed in the program over the next four or five nights.
However, downloading TV shows and movies is not what makes the Apple TV special. (More later, on what is special about it.) Access to TV shows and movies better not be, because I can get movies and TV shows about a dozen other ways. But accessing TV shows and Movies is what consumers first think about when they hear Apple TV described because that’s the way Apple has marketed it. So it’s not surprising that during the quarterly financial conference last week, Apple executives told analysts the AppleTV was still “a hobby” — a reference to what Steve Jobs called it in January when admitting its sales had not been robust.
For most tech bloggers, reporters and financial analysts, the “solution” to Apple TV’s lack of sales success can be solved the way they believe any technology product problem can be solved: by adding features or making it “more open.” “More features and openess” is to techies what “better branding” is to marketers — the solution to everything. For example, here’s a link to a recent post on Weomatica where Jason Kaneshiro has a wish list of features that could improve Apple TV. And today, Dan Frommer says it’s time Apple gets serious about Apple TV and calls for them to, drum-roll please, add a Blu-Ray drive.
I don’t believe the problem with the Apple TV is with technology. It’s a (you can’t believe how amazed I am to be writing the next few words) failure by Apple to successfully market a product. I believe the marketers at Apple and Chiat Day — the ones who regularly are mythologized for their unique brilliance in branding and advertising — have blown it with the Apple TV. They’ve done a terrible job articulating any unique benefits of the Apple TV and have, in a rookie-blunder way, done nothing to explain to consumers why it is different from getting movies or TV shows via cable or from Netflix or Blockbuster. These marketers, who have created the most effective campaign ever conceived to explain product features, the iPhone, have done nothing even good, much less brilliant, to explain why anyone with a Tivo or Cablebox would ever need an Apple TV. The only advertising support they’ve given the product was a lame TV ad (did anyone actually see it on TV?) telling us how we can watch TV shows and movies on our TV.
Additionally, Apple has not given the product the “paid-media” support that typically accompanies the launch of an entirely new genre of consumer product. Think about it. Apple has spent (and continues to spend) hundreds of millions of dollars each year on incredibly effective product advertising and astoundingly powerful promotional pushes for iPods, iPhones and Macs. What kind of media buy schedule did that Jack Black ad receive — compared to, say, a week’s schedule of iPhone ads? Where is the outdoor? Where is the magazine advertising? If you answered, “nowhere,” I think you’d be close to correct. (Please, tell me if I’m wrong.)
So what should Apple do?
While I’m not an advertising expert, I know one: Don Draper, the creative director at Sterling Cooper. I asked him about the Apple TV and he said the one thing consumers can do with an Apple TV that they can’t do with NetFlix or Tivo or their Cable Box is to tap into photos and videos of their family — even family members in far-away places who can stream photos and video from anywhere in the world. It’s like having another channel on a grandparent’s TV that says, “The Grandson Channel” and grandparents can tune in to see his latest soccer game — without a computer. Again, it’s not about technology — you don’t need a computer to watch the Grandson Channel. All you need is an Apple TV hooked into your TV (Don left out the part about needing Internet access).
So what should Apple do, I asked.
“They should stop talking about the Apple TV just accessing movies and TV shows,” Don told me, “The Apple TV is about the ability to travel over time and space to experience the most special moments in the lives of those you love most. It takes us to a place we ache to go. It lets us travel the way a child travels. Around the world and back home again. A place where we know we are loved.”
Wow, Don, I said. If Chiat Day was smart, they’d hire you away from Sterling Cooper to develop a campaign to save the Apple TV.
So Apple, listen to Don. He’d tell you the Apple TV is not about downloading more TV and movies. It’s about connecting with those you love.
Alan Kay (who I’ll get back to in a moment) is credited with a great quote: “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”
I’ll add to what Alan said: The second best way is to keep predicting it until someone else gets around to inventing it. And the third best way is to predict something and then spread every rumor possible that is remotely related to that prediction.
When it comes to one of the oldest Apple rumors I can recall, I have clearly done all I can to do the third best thing I can — to echo-chamber it. The rumor is that Apple will one day offer a device that is somewhere between a MacBook and an iPod Touch/iPhone. The device, now being labeled “The MacBook Touch” by the rumorosphere, has once again taken center ring at the Mac Rumor Circus. (Some latter-day rumorists are calling it a “Tablet Mac,” but that’s a rumor of a different color. Steve Jobs will never chase the tablet laptop market for reasons so obvious — even John Dvorak could figure out why.)
A device that is sort of like an 8″x10″ iPod that does everything a computer does but it won’t be called a tablet computer or an iPod.”
Strangely, for the past two years, if you Googled the phrase, “Rumor #3,” the #1 result has been a link to that list. To you, it might be called a MacBook Touch. But to me, it will always be Rumor #3. For past rumor posts, I’ve even Photoshopped up a version of what a Rumor #3 could look like (right).
But I have a deep, dark confession to make: I’ve never really thought Apple will come out with the product. It has been more wishful thinking than anything else whenever I echo-chambered such reports as this “patent” post on AppleInsider.com. My “rumor” posts have been more fantasy and speculation and desire to have the product I have called an iPod Touchbook (and here), than belief that Apple will offer such a product. Even today, I’m quite cynical and, frankly, don’t believe that such a product is going to be announced anytime soon. (Or, perhaps, I’m tired of being disappointed when these rumors I help spread never pan out, and I’m taking a new tact.)
My lust for a MacBook Touch started with a 1987 video about a concept product called the the Knowledge Navigator.
I’ll credit Apple (and in this case, the then “Apple Fellow,” Alan Kay) with first establishing the benchmark for my desire for such a device — and my willingness to serve as conduit for spreading any rumor which comes close to suggesting Apple will one day offer such a product. It started with a concept video Apple produced in 1987 that oozes with Alan Kay concepts. I’ve written about how that video describing the concept technology, “Knowledge Navigator,” set an expectation in my mind — and a generation of those of us who reside among the hyperlink-obsessed — of what one should expect to have one day. Today, now that all of the technology, infrastructure, pricing scale and marketing channels are in place for such a device, many of us are wondering: Where’s my Knowledge Navagator? (In 2003, Jon Udell posted a great item about the Knowledge Navagator concept video.)
A rumor is somewhat like abstract art — until the artist explains exactly what everything means, it can be interpreted anyway one wants. Until Steve Jobs strolls out onto the stage and explains exactly what this device is and what space in our mind it is to occupy, it will be all things to all geeks.
For me, Rumor #3 is about recapturing a little piece of 1987, when the promise of the future was not about feature sets, but about the cool things you could do if you have a device that goes with you everywhere and allows you to travel anywhere.
Note: One thing I didn’t like about the Knowledge Navigator was the “talking head” interface. I’m more of a touch interface person, myself.
Bonus link: The eBook people are finally catching on that a Rumor #3 device makes having a separate device merely to read books rather redundant.
The Important Part: Unlike with other 3G and EVDO (broadband cellular) phones, according to CNet, users of the new iPhone 3G will not be able to “tether” (connect via Bluetooth or cable) their phones with their laptops in a way that allows them to gain access to the Internet with their laptops. Rather, they must have a separate 3G device and a separate account for their laptops.
When I had a Treo w/ EVDO, I could connect my laptop to it via bluetooth and access the ‘net. Will I be able to do that w/ iPhone 3G?
I got my answer today with this post on the CNet site, iPhone Atlas: AT&T says, No! (Also, thanks to the article, I now know the term “tether” is used to describe what I was trying to explain with my less-than-fluent wireless vocabulary.)
I already have an AT&T 3G account that allows me to access the Internet using a Sierra Wireless USB modem. While I think it is ridiculous that tethering is not allowed with the new iPhone 3G, I can balance my disappointment with the knowledge that a Sierra Wireless USB modem can be shared by anyone in my office — all of the username/access codes are stored in the device. In a small business environment, especially one that has multiple employees traveling often, the ability to share the USB 3G modem saves lots of access fees charged by hotels and airports. In other words, our current 3G account is shared by many people, while an iPhone account — even if it allowed tethering — would not benefit us the way our current USB modem does.
The Important Part: The people at Facebook describe your list of “friends” (contacts) as being your “social-graph.” Others use the term “social network” to describe in broad terms, your network of connections with other people. Chances are, you call that list of connections your “address book.” In the previous century, you may have called it your Rolodex. Your ability to export that list of contacts from your computer out to web services (geek word of the day - “portability”) is one of the building blocks of a future web where you can go onto any new site or service and instantly discover everyone using it who may be a friend of your second-cousin, Herbert. Today, Google announced that the newest update of the Mac operating system includes a preference in the “Address Book” program that will keep the Mac address book synch’d with the contact list on ones Google G-mail account. Why is this significant? There are lots of really smart people and groups working on standards and practices related to how someone “asserts” their online identity and their connections with others — and how web services should respect how individuals utilize such personal data. However, until the day comes when all of those standards and practices are worked out, your personal e-mail address and your phone number are serving as a form of “de-facto” identifier of who you are. Likewise, your list of e-mail contacts are filling the gap on identifying your social network. And until the powers-that-would-like-to-be all agree upon what your portable “social network/graph” is going to be and how it’s going to work, your address book has become a stand-in. That’s why, when you sign onto a new social networking site, they ask if you want to allow them to bounce your e-mail contact list up against their list of registered users. That way, you can discover who among your contacts are already using the service.
Take Away: For Apple Address Book users who used to have to “export” and “upload” your contact list manually, you now have one-click portability (and on-going syncing) to your Google G-mail contacts list of your most important “social graph.” And from your Google contacts, you can blast that social graph to infinity and beyond (or whatever Google Friend Connect is).
Related rambling: About a year ago, I talked about the concept of e-mail address as universal identifyer in a lengthy post.
“A little birdy tells me that Apple will announce a 12 or 13-inch tablet in the fall of this year. Most likely in the September or October time frame. It will run the full Mac OS X and have a slot loading SuperDrive, an “iPhone-type†GPS chip and an Intel Core Duo processor, presumably Intel’s Atom.
Of course, long time readers of RexBlog know that since 2006, that particular rumor is called Rumor #3.
The Take-Away: For over two decades, the concept of a product like this has tickled the fancy of Apple enthusiasts. Observation over the years of Steve Jobs’ obsession with elegant industrial design has led me to assume Apple will never have a “tablet” Mac (it would require too many hinges and buttons, things Jobs hates). However, I’ve long felt there could be a spot in the market for an Apple device the size of an eBook reader but with all the function of a computer in an elegant, button and keyboard-less form. It took 20 years for the technology to catch up with the vision, but we’re closing in on the time where all of the pieces can come together. Evenso, I think some of these rumors are “wishful thinking” on the part of people like me, however, as in: “If we wish hard enough…” One last observation: My use of a MacBook Air leads me to dismiss any rumor that includes a “superdrive” as part of the feature-set of such a device. I purchased the external one when I got my MacBook Air and have used it maybe twice in the past several months.
Sidenote: The Apple Core post includes a mock-up of such a product that appeared last August on the ArtilleryUnit blog (right). If I’d have known about their clever one last November, I would have skipped my five-minute PhotoShop hack (left) of what I called the iPod TouchBook (left).
“Forrester’s conclusion: While much of Apple’s great successes have been mobile products such as the iPod and the iPhone, the company will seek to colonize rooms throughout the home.
8. Devices you place on shelves and hang on walls at home to replace anything you might think of as a “home entertainment center.”
My point is not that I gave Forrester any ideas. My point is that Forrester is predicting something so obvious, any half-wit Apple watcher could have predicted the same thing two years ago.
I know, I know. It seems like all I ever do is hang out on the Internet.
But there’s this guilty pleasure I’ll now admit. I’m hooked on American Idol. Last night, David Cook won this year’s competition. He’s the first winner who I think may go on to be a hugely successful recording artist who I may actually enjoy listening to later. While others have certainly gone on to big success, I’m not really a fan of their music. For example, Carrie Underwood is nice looking and a megastar, but I’m not really into that commercial Nashville sound, if you know what I mean.
Anyway, since I know some people are going through AI withdrawal this morning, I thought I’d say goodbye to this season with a confessional list of six reasons why I like watching American Idol:
1. It’s perfect content for watching with a DVR like TiVo: I can honestly say, I’ve never watched an episode of American Idol “real-time” (while it is being broadcast). Even last night, my wife and I didn’t start watching the season finals until it had been on over an hour. I probably only watch about 20 minutes per hour of American Idol. I don’t like the host, the judges, most contestants or almost any of the features. I love being my own editor of the show. If you can figure out how to program your DVR remote to jump-ahead 30 seconds, you can watch the only segments I think have any value: (a) the ‘up-close-and-personal back-story features about the contestants; (b) the performances of the really talented ones. The Fast-Forward control is the key to watching American Idol.
2. The show displays how advertisers must react to DVRs/TiVo: It is with amazement that I have discovered that while I Fast-Forward through a lot of the content of the program, I find myself stopping and reviewing some of the commercials and “sponsored” content. I’ll admit, some of this may come from my professional curiosity of what is taking place. Over the years, the show has gone from rudimentary “product placement” marketing (Coca-Cola cups on the judges table) to sophisticated and non-offensive “branded content” marketing that shows what “post-advertising” can be. Apple has become a major sponsor this year and, as typical, has displayed how “content” can be the most effective form of marketing. I may do a separate post on everything Apple has done this season, but, let’s just say: what Apple did this season on American Idol is the most brilliant display ever of network TV marketing. I doubt more than 1% of viewers recognized the array of brand-marketing, product marketing and (and this is the amazing part) direct marketing they were being bombarded with throughout each program. While Ford and Coca-Cola used the program effectively, Apple used it masterfully and in a way that proves once more their understanding of media is on a higher plane than we mere mortals.
3. The program has universal (omni-demographic) appeal: Over the years, I’ve discovered my love of NFL football means I have a topic I can strike up a conversation with people everywhere I travel in the U.S. Unlike politics or religion, a conversation about the hometown team is typically a “safe” place to start a conversation. American Idol is the same deal, except better. If you watch American Idol, you can have a bubble-gum conversation with waiters and waitresses, flight attendants, teenagers, retired couples from Florida. “What’s the deal with that Justin dude?” is good for a five minute conversation in a Southwest Airline boarding line.
4. I love story-driven competition: Next year, even if you think it would be the last sports thing you’d ever be interested in, watch the coverage of the Ironman Triathalon — the one in Hawaii. Typically, it’s a 90 minute documentary shown weeks after the event. It is mesmerizing because they focus on the stories of just a few of the participants who represent the different reasons why someone would get involved in such a sport. If American Idol was just a talent competition, I would have tuned out after a week or so — I don’t watch any other such program. However, the producers of the show find contestants who are both talented and have something about themselves that is compelling. Indeed, it can be argued that the final decision of this year’s winner came down to whose story the viewers preferred, as both of the contestants were very talented singers.
5. It makes me appreciate how very unique star-quality talent is: Living in Nashville and going to places like the Blue Bird has enabled me to be blown away by extremely talented people who will never be stars. Watching American Idol over a few months will amaze you when someone you think can’t lose ends up breaking under the pressure — or blossoming. It’s fascinating to watch who gets better and who peaks at the right time. Carrie Underwood went from being okay into super stardom during her year. I think David Cook did the same this year. Others prove that many people have a lot of talent and have worked hard and have not given up on their dream and have been lucky — but still don’t connect with the only folks who matter: the people.
6. It’s user-created content: Think about that one long and hard. While the program is perhaps one of the most over-produced and packaged programs in history, at its essence is this: People who aren’t stars and are on no-body’s A-List get a shot at getting to perform in front of a bigger audience. In the end, millions of people get to decide if they have what it takes to make it to the big-leagues, fame and fortune. There are lots of analogies there for what is taking place across all forms of media.
I must say, I’m beginning to admire Henry Blodget for his unabashed willingness to ignore any irony others might see in his analytical posts about Amazon.com, like this one that looks at Citi analyst Mark Mahaney’s report that the Amazon Kindle could be a $750 million iPod-like franchise in a couple of years.
Blodget does not explicitly agree with the prediction, indeed, he points out some holes in the theory. He doesn’t fully repudiate it, however.
I’m clearly not a financial analyst and so any disagreements I may have with Mahaney’s predictions have nothing to do with market-share numbers. I have no idea about the revenues or bottom-line impact of future Kindle developments. However, since some of his analysis is based on his personal experience with the device, I feel I can at least weigh in on that front.
First, let me say I use the Kindle frequently. Not quite daily, but several times a week. My review of the Kindle from last December is still accurate. I haven’t really been surprised by anything about it during the past five months. It’s still a clunky, poorly designed piece of hardware with a ridiculous interface. Yet the EVDO (digital cellular)-powered feature that allows one to instantly purchase books from Amazon for less than $10 is near magic. That price-point for books and the instant download are what make the device work for me — and, apparently, the Citi analyst, also.
However, I stand by my earlier prediction — and this is where I find a flaw in Mahaney’s analysis: Apple won’t stand still and let Amazon have this market all to itself. As I’ve written about ad-naseum, a slightly larger iPod Touch linked to eBooks distributed via the iTunes store would match and raise the game with Amazon. At that point, Amazon would be competing with the iTunes distribution channel, but with Amazon hardware that looks and feels like it was designed in Soviet-era Russia.
Also, with Apple in the game, its eBook format would be readable via the Mac or iPhone, as well. The Kindle format is locked into a Kindle device.
Of all the gadgets I’ve ever owned, my iPhone has launched the most conversations with people I meet in airports and on airplanes. (Those being the most likely places I’d use it where people I don’t know would notice and not hesitate to ask.) My iPhone starts more conversations than even my MacBook Air — which may be confusing to people because I’ve covered the Apple logo with a Hammock “H” sticker. But even after I tell people how great the iPhone is, I always recommend that they delay purchasing one. “Wait until the 3G version comes out and they drop the price,” I say. “Heck, if you can live without it, don’t purchase one until you can use it with any cell phone carrier.”
I doubt the people who really want an iPhone can wait until they are “officially” unlocked, but the 3G and price-drop may be close at hand if the report on Fortune.com proves true.
Quote:
When the 3G iPhone is introduced this summer, AT&T, the exclusive U.S. iPhone sales partner with Apple, will cut the price by as much as $200, according to a person familiar with the strategy.
Saul Hansel, blogging at NYTimes.com, notes that one aspect of the Fortune report is illogical: that AT&T will only offer the $200-off deal on phones purchased at AT&T Stores, not Apple Stores. I couldn’t agree more with Hansel: there’s no way that part of the story is correct. And if that is from the Fortune’s source, does that not call into question the veracity of anything from the “person familiar with the strategy.”
With that caveat — the Fortune article contains some information that defies logic and all known insight into how Steve Jobs works — if the 3G costs less than $200 for an 8GB model, I will be changing my “friendly advice” from “a wait” into “a buy.”
On NPR this morning, I heard this story about a Duke reseacher who conducted a study that suggests individuals who see an Apple logo are stimulated to be more creative than those who are shown an IBM logo. Checking the calendar, I noted that we’re several days past April Fools Day, so I assume this was presented as legitimate news.
Yesterday, I read that Apple lawyers (better known as the boys named Sue) had filed a copyright infringement action against New York City related to the logo of its GreenNYC environmental campaign.
At first, I wondered where that lawsuit idea came from, but now I figure the lawyers came up with it during an all-night session of Apple logo starring.
As usual, Chris Anderson is a voice of reason when he answers a question that implies magazines will be replaced in a decade or so by something digital that is distributed via a new device. Will it happen in a decade? he is asked. “No,” says Chris, “Technology adoption happens slowly. This is the editor of Wired telling you no. Obviously, newspapers are going to be changing dramatically over the next few years, but magazines are not newspapers. And I think magazines 10 years from now are going to look something like they do now.â€
I’ll go further: magazines (like Chris, I won’t extend the following prediction to newspapers) will never be “replaced” by any digital device, especially the device hypothesized in the article:
“…you’ll walk onto a plane, or a subway, or a soon-to-be-invented mode of transport, and you’ll tuck a little electronic book under your arm. Inside that little book, which will be very expensive at first but soon will cost $150, there’ll be a series of mylar “pages,†and there will be small buttons off to the side, and once you hit one of them, whoooosh, words and photos from Vanity Fair will suddenly appear.
The problem with this future-scape is this: The technology/delivery channel being described is not a magazine. It may use the metaphors associated with a print magazine, but it’s not a magazine. It’s another media platform. It’s another distribution channel. And frankly, whenever the device being described breaks the $200 barrier, the last thing people will be doing with it is flipping through a souped-up PDF of Vanity Fair.
Moreover, the media platform being described in the scenario is more likely to replace whatever you’re reading this blog post with than replace the print magazine format.
You see, the device being described is already here — it’s just not the right size yet. For years, I’ve been writing about the device I now call the iPod Touch Book (or Rumor #3). Last year, I even comp’d up an illustration of what it would look like.
The device could be widely available 1-3 years from now. Indeed, today’s announcement about a new Intel chip could have a direct bearing on this new device.
So why won’t this incredible device replace magazines? Well, if you have this device that will provide you access to all the video, audio and digital content there is, will you be using it to flip through a souped up PDF? There’s an easy answer to this question that anyone who has used the Internet can answer: No. You’ll be using it to do the kinds of things you do with your computer. You’ll access all the content published by magazine companies in the form you’re now accessing it via the device you’re using to read this.
When it comes to magazines, you’ll be reading them on paper.
Addendum for those who aren’t familiar with this blog:
As I’m sure there are some who will stumble onto this post and who will be convinced I’m out of my mind, I’ll restate several things that are known by those who read this blog with some regularity (all 12 of you): I own an iPhone and use it all day, everyday. I’m fairly comfortable with my understanding of the incredible potential with that device. I own a Kindle and download and read about 2-3 eBooks a month using it, so I’m fairly comfortable with my understanding of that device. Indeed, I’m a huge fan of the potential of eBook readers — especially if Apple creates the iPod Touch Book.
However, my enthusiasm for such devices does not overwhelm my understanding of the history of media, technology and user adoption. As I’ve said every time I head into one of these magazine apologist rants, the magazine format is not a business model. Business models that depend on magazines — newsstand distributed mass-consumer magazines, for example, or transaction-oriented trade magazines — could one day slide into a Smithsonian Exhibit. However, magazines that support a business model (university development, for example) will likely grow as online strategies strengthen the communities who will want to expand their story-telling to print.
I also refuse to accept the notion that advertisers will leave magazines — or broadcast TV, for that matter. Why? Well, for one thing, the world’s best brand spends only a fraction of its advertising budget online: the majority goes to TV and, wow, magazines, along with a healthy chunk of outdoor spending. If you want to follow the leading brand (that’s what marketers do), you’ll hesitate before shifting all your advertising dollars online — even if it’s distributed on devices created by the world’s best brand.
Later: As often happens, when I write things during flights and that are responding to something that causes me to rant, I write in a way that confuses even me — when I read it later. My point is not to dismiss the appropriateness of digital magazines in certain circumstances. And if you enjoy reading or publishing digital magazines, I am not suggesting you’re wrong — as mentioned, I am currently working on projects that have digital publications as a component and I enjoy reading books on my Kindle. In these rants, I’m merely emphasizing my belief that the roles of print magazines and so-called “digital magazines” are not the same — and that digital magazines may grow in importance and acceptance, but they will not replace print magazines as a medium, even if certain titles “convert” some or all of their circulation to digital products. My second, and perhaps more passionate argument is focused on those who believe the highest and best usage of hand held digital devices is replicating a physical product. My argument is this (and has always been this): New technology enables new experiences and new media — rarely (if ever) is new technology’s ultimate use in replicating old media.
You can transfer audiobooks
from Audible.com to your Kindle.
That is, unless, you use a Mac.
Here’s some big news for audiobook listeners (I’m one): Amazon has announced this morning they are buying Audible.com. If you’re an audiobook listener, you probably already know that Audible serves as the back-end for audiobook downloads for Apple’s iTunes Store. However, as I’ve said on this blog before, it’s crazy to purchase audiobooks via the iTunes Store rather than directly from Audible.com as the direct purchase allows re-downloads of any books you buy — and the iTunes Store doesn’t. Amazon.com has a similar “library” backup feature for digital media purchased there (except MP3s), like Kindle eBook files.
I have some problems with audiobooks via Audible.com, however — some problems Amazon could solve. First, audiobooks are incredibly expensive — just like the inflated cost of eBooks before Amazon stepped in with the Kindle and a price around $10 for best-sellers. An audiobook of a bestseller is more likely to be more expensive than the print version — and in the same range as the cost of an audiobook you’d purchase on a CD in a bookstore. To get around such inflated pricing, I have a subscription plan on the service that provides one book credit per month. I never go over the limit as the per-book cost can be stratospheric — as in, provide me all the incentive necessary to drop by the Nashville Library and check out the book on a CD. Oh yes, and on a CD, those audiobooks don’t have all the DRM one finds on the same aduiobooks one downloads from Audible.com. Let me translate this: I can drop by the library and transfer DRM-free audiobooks to my computer. Gee, that sounds like the same issue Amazon.com fixed when they started offering music downloads recently. Hmmm. Dear Jeff: You can do it dude. Cheaper audiobooks. No DRM — just like the same books on CDs. Hey, you da man.
Speaking of audiobooks and Amazon and Audible, here’s a suggestion for Amazon: Quit locking out Mac users from using their Kindleto listen to audiobooks from Audible.com. Here’s what I mean: The only way to transfer an audiobook to the device (precisely, a DRM-ladened audiobook purchased from the leading online retail sources of audiobooks — Amazon, Apple or Audible.com) is via a computer. The only computer operating system with which one can authorize a Kindle to play an audiobook purchased from Amazon, Apple or Audible.com, is with software available only on the Widows operating system.
How did I discover this? I have both an iPhone and an old-school iPod nano for listening to audiobooks, so I hadn’t previously taken much of a look at the audiobook capabilities of the Kindle. And frankly, while the device has a headphone jack for listening to audiobooks, that feature wasn’t heavily touted in the roll-out of the product. After a bit of struggle recently, I can now understand why this little-touted feature is so little touted.
The first problem has been noted and is what the pundits would call “the elephant in the room”: While you can store the text and black/white graphics from 100+ books on the 256 MB of a Kindle, the number of audiobooks is considerably less — say, less than one, in some instances. In my experiment, on a Kindle with about a dozen text books already loaded on it, I was limited to one Audible.com file containing an eight-hour recording.
However, I couldn’t listen to any of that file, as I discovered the following message buried in the directions found on Amazon.com regarding using an Audible.com file on a Kindle (something allowed) if that file is transferred to the Kindle using a Mac:
“In order to play audiobooks on the Amazon Kindle, you must first activate the device to your account (using the Windows software, AudibleManager)…If you are a Macintosh user, you need to connect your Kindle to a Windows-based computer running AudibleManager to authorize your Kindle using the above instructions. You may be able to authrize your Kindle running AubibleManager on Windows on your Macintosh is you have your Macintosh configured to run Windows. Once authorized with your Audible credentialis, you can then use audible files downloaded through Audible Manger under Windows or itunes by copying them to your Kindle via USB.
Uh, no thank you. I’ll just use my iPhone.
Sidenote — a positive word about the Kindle: As I’ve written before, I have one and despite its god-awful hardware design and some of the most incredibly bad user-interface ideas I’ve ever witnessed (see earlier review), I like the convenience of having dozens of books in my briefcase and I especially like the think-it, buy-it instant-shopification features it offers with an EVDO-powered access to the Amazon store. Oh, yes, and I’m big fan of the way your ebook purchases are backed up on Amazon.com. Unlike most badly designed things — say, the QWERTY keyboard — the Kindle’s bad features never get easier to use with experience. Almost daily, I’ll pick it up to put it away to discover I’ve advanced dozens of pages in the process. It boggles me that its designers failed to take into consideration how people hold a book when they read it.
But that’s not what I wanted to rant about this time.
I grabbed this screen shot last night to go with a post I was going to make today, asking, Hasn’t it been two weeks since Steve Jobs announced that a free Apple TV software upgrade allowing movie rentals would be available within two weeks. Thanks to arstechnica.com, I got my answer before posting the question: Sure, enough, it has been two weeks but Apple is now saying (buried in a back-patting release), that the new Apple TV software will be available “within two weeks” of today.
Why I care? I’ve been planning a brief video demonstrating how the AppleTV is a great example of emerging new channels for mediacasting by companies and associations. In other words (Apple-groupies), I was merely trying to be an Apple fanboy evangelist.
Like every thing else about him, when it comes to corporate communications, Steve Jobs is an enigma.
A couple of years ago, I posted 
Sidenote: The Apple Core post includes a mock-up of such a product that appeared 
Wall Street Journal, 5/22/2008, from the article: 
On NPR this morning, I 
