Daniel Jakult, on his Red Sweater Blog, breaks ranks and suggests that the ad campaign is in fact genius, as it is trying to tackle Microsoft’s uncaring image.

Seinfeld’s sense of humour is not something I have ever particularly enjoyed, though I did get a warm fuzzy feeling from these ads. More so from Gates’s performance than from Seinfeld’s.

Daniel points out that:

“Most critics of these ads point out, quite rightly, that the message doesn’t ask viewers to buy anything. If an ad doesn’t ask you to buy something, surely it’s a failure.”

Remind you of another ad campaign designed to change the image and brand of a poorly regarded company? It reminds me of nothing more than Apple’s Think Different campaign. At the time it was criticised for being grammatically incorrect, vague and completely unrelated to the benefits of Apple’s products. It was the complete anti-thesis of current iPhone ads.

Apple’s marketing since Think Different has been an evolution from establishing a new brand through to promoting specific features, via customer endorsements (Switch campaign) and product differentiation (Mac vs PC). At the time of Think Different, Apple’s image was terrible, even if its products were actually quite strong. At the time, Apple needed to change people’s perceptions and expectations of it as a company, before they would even be willing to consider its products.

Microsoft is in a very similar position. Kevin Hoffman’s first take on the ads at The .Net Addict’s Blog points out that Vista is actually a strong product. Microsoft’s other products are also beginning to show considerable signs of improvement. However, the company still receives a lot of criticism, some of it less justified than in the past.

Microsoft has understood that any sympathy towards it is the result of Bill Gates’s philanthropy. Any company whose chief executive gives that much money to charity can’t be all bad, can it?

Apple needed to re-establish its credibility. Microsoft needs to show that it cares about its customers and they seem to be thinking different to do just that. An excellent move on their part.

It is also an excellent demonstration of how Google, Apple, Sony, Mozilla and Oracle’s competition with Microsoft is hugely important for consumers. A Microsoft as a monopoly in all computing markets is terrible and worthy of scorn. A Microsoft that has to compete will be great for everyone.

There are continued criticisms of Apple’s lack of focus on the enterprise. With the iPhone, Apple made a concerted effort to answer their critics with one big software update. Whereas with the Mac, support for VPNs, Exchange, workgroup sharing, security keycards has been a slow, but steady process. The main outstanding issues are the lack of a public product timeline, guaranteed configurations available for 3-5 years and the lack of some key third party enterprise software.

With the switch to Intel, Apple’s product timeline is now at least translucent, if not transparent. With Apple’s financial stability, I believe that Apple can afford to be less secretive about its future product road map. Certainly with the iPhone and Apple TV, it has been willing to pre-announce products and deliver a roadmap. Whilst this is less critical when Apple’s minor updates can be accurately predicted from Intel’s plans, Apple should bring more openness to its Mac plans. For example, the MacBook Air was only a rumour until just a few days before the announcement. An enterprise client looking to make a large laptop purchase would have been very disappointed to have that announcement sprung on them just after placing a large order. Pre-announcement of better Exchange support in Snow Leopard is a step in the right direction.

With Mac OS X’s tight integration with Mac hardware, having a guaranteed configuration is a minor issue. IT departments are unlikely to face major issues with even major updates to the Mac line. The only concern here will be employee envy, where the newest staff may end up with the newest, fastest, computers.

The lack of third party software is a chicken and egg situation. Apple has slowly but surely been adding enterprise class software to Mac OS X Server, but there is still a lack of key software. Namely middle-ware, such as IBM’s Websphere MQ, TIBCO Rendezvous or Orbix; CRM software and HR software. As the Mac’s presence in enterprise grows, this is really an opportunity for small Mac software firms to become big Mac software firms.

The iPhone will undoubtedly be a success in the enterprise market. Anyone who doubts that is kidding themselves or trying to downplay the iPhone for marketing their own products.

The question is whether success with the iPhone will lead to increased enterprise Mac sales. There has been a long debate as to whether the iPod Halo effect exists. Will there be an Enterprise iPhone Halo effect.

The key factor is that enterprise IT departments will have to purchase Macs and learn Mac development tools to develop custom, internal, iPhone apps. Whilst many enterprises have a small number of Macs in their design, web and media departments, having Macs in their IT departments is much more likely to lead to a wider uptake of Macs.

Although administration and development functions are normally quite separate in enterprise IT departments, administrators are going to make considerably more effort to better integrate Macs into their environment for IT users, than for design or media users. Once IT administrators are confident that they can integrate Macs into their infrastructure, the door is opened for wider scale adoption. With significant misgivings over Vista, readily available Mac VM software and continuing Windows security concerns, removing the biggest barrier to entry – a Mac cynical IT department, will lead to a significant increase in the number of Macs in enterprise.

There is another key user group that will help to drive adoption – gadget hungry executives. As key executives increasingly purchase Macs for their own use, they will demand full access to their corporate infrastructure. Again IT departments will prioritise keeping this user group happy, further weakening barriers to entry.

Combined with the “one” feature of Snow Leopard being better Exchange integration, Apple stands well placed to take advantage of a “perfect storm” of iPhone developers, executive decision makers and a weakened Microsoft to finally make that breach into the enterprise computing market. The question is whether they will listen to enterprise demands for the Mac, in the same way as they have listened to their iPhone demands.

It also opens an opportunity for Mac software developers to develop enterprise class business software, a market segment where the Mac currently suffers. Products like Differencia will hopefully be well placed to help Apple win new business.

If you are interested, please email david at macmacdev dot com. Further details and updates can be found at the MacMacDev website.

There are already 8-9 attendees, so a healthy number. More the merrier, so please let David know if you would like to come along too.

Performance

Steve Jobs has stated that the iPhone lacks 3G due to poor battery life, and that a 3G iPhone would be released when this issue was resolved. Soon after the iPhone’s release, AnandTech did an in depth analysis of this claim. They found that 3G does indeed use significantly more power than the iPhone’s EDGE network on a device that supports both. The article demonstrates that WiFi actually uses less power than both 3G and EDGE, whilst offering significantly better performance. WiFi’s inclusion in the iPhone, in place of 3G, therefore makes considerable sense. In addition, 3G has the biggest impact on battery life when being used for a phone’s core function; telephone calls. Although a sensible implementation would fall back to GSM for phone calls, this has serious implications for key 3G selling points – making calls whilst transferring data and video calling.

The AnandTech article also touches on another key issue – identifying applications where the bottleneck is the CPU, not the network. Interestingly, the iPhone has a CPU that balances performance with battery life.

The question is now whether users are willing to sacrifice battery life for networking performance? Has Apple made the right compromise on their behalf?

My Feature List is Bigger Than Yours!

The criticism levelled at the iPhone has been a typical list of feature-envy. The lack of 3G, “only” a 2 megapixel camera, no physical keyboard, no GPS, no removable battery and no expandable memory.

Similar criticisms have consistently been levelled at the iPod. With hind sight, it is easy to demonstrate why Apple made the decisions it did with the iPod. A non-removable battery allows for a more durable portable device. Early iPods used smaller physical Hard Drives, which had smaller capacity than their rivals, but also made them more portable. Using a better quality music format, AAC, rather than MP3, mitigated this issue. Instead Apple included FireWire, in place of its competitors’ USB 1.1, allowing for fast transfer of thousands of songs.

For its Portable Music Player, Apple focused on the portability, the music and the player experience. They looked at the whole experience, rather than aim to have the longest feature list simply for bragging rights.

With the iPhone, the 2 megapixel camera is a sensible option. In a small device with limited optics, a larger resolution camera would only give marginally better quality photos, whilst eating up limited storage space. No GPS? Cell tower and WiFi hot spot triangulation are good enough, without additional electronics and greater expense. No Physical keyboard? Sacrificed in favour of a larger screen and robust enclosure.

Apple has consistently foregone a long list of features, in favour of products that focus on doing a limited number of things, very, very, well. When Apple does add new abilities to their products, they are complete solutions, rather than half baked features included just to add to the list.

The Business of 3G

Some of the rumours about the 3G iPhone have come directly from Apple’s mobile network partners. Many network operators have invested huge sums on 3G licenses and deployment. Many seem to be struggling to recover these costs. They have stuck to their traditional business model – subsidised handsets, basic tariffs, supplemented by expensive, “value added services”, such as sports clips, video calling and pseudo-internet services. With business-as-usual, networks are struggling to recoup their investment in 3G.

The iPhone has shown them that there is another way. The handset is not subsidised and is only available with an expensive Pay Monthly tariff but includes unlimited data usage. Apple has also identified the killer application for mobile data services – the full Internet. Despite its “painfully slow” EDGE network, iPhone owners use the internet more than those of any other handset, including other Smart Phones and the beloved Blackberry. Little wonder then, that Apple’s partners are desperate for a 3G iPhone.

Oddly it is not anything about 3G itself that begs for it to be included on the iPhone. Nothing about the technology, with its high dropped call rate, and the under-whelming value added services, is particularly appealing. Instead it is Apple’s redefinition of the mobile phone business model, that makes 3G an appealing technology.

Even more ironic is the fact that iPhone’s expensive tariffs have also received a lot of criticism. And yet, it is precisely that all-you-can-eat data pricing that has led iPhone users to embrace mobile browsing and justify the need for 3G.

Imagine a cheap, subsidised, Pay-As-You-Go iPhone, with a sand boxed internet in place of Mobile Safari and metered data charging. 3G has little appeal in this environment.

3G or 4?

When Apple introduced the iPhone, there was little appeal for 3G and yet, perversely, they have created the killer handset and killer apps that could make 3G a success.

There is also another question raised by the iPhone’s success. If WiFi already performs better than 3G, shouldn’t Apple simply wait for the next generation, WiFi based 4G networks to be built? There can be little question, with the history of mobile networks, that 3G will be replaced sooner rather than later. 3G has been available around the globe for over six years. Limited uptake of 3G suggests that, like High Def DVD, it may be a technology that is leapfrogged by the market place.

Should Apple perhaps ride out the criticism about the lack of 3G support? Or should it popularise the stagnant technology, as only it can, with the combination of the iPhone’s rich mobile internet experience and unlimited data plans?

Despite my lack of enthusiasm for 3G, Apple should probably introduce a 3G iPhone once battery life improves. Unfortunately, with the investment the network operators have made with 3G, they are unlikely to build 4G networks before they have recouped their 3G investment. The window before 4G becomes available is just too great. 3G support will deflect criticism, whilst being an anti-climax for those who see it as some nirvana for mobile internet use.

The first browser, WorldWideWeb, was written in the precursor to Cocoa, the tools used to create most of the great, new, software on the Mac, including Differencia.

As I mentioned in “Web 0.9 beta“, Tim Berners-Lee always envisaged the web to be read/write, presaging Web 2.0, as can be seen in this screen-shot.

What is fascinating is that if you read the text in the about box, you can see that Berners-Lee already had the concept of helper applications. In this case, specifically for a NNTP news-reader, presaging RSS links on pages being opened by a third party news reader application such as NetNewsWire or NewsFire.

I used to be surprised that Apple did not make more of its Web heritage, but I guess you cannot really say much about how great your current products are, based on a third party product developed 17 years ago for a platform created by a company that you paid $400m to do a reverse take over of yourself.

This might feel quite unseemly and create a negative image of the Mac developer community amongst our customer base. It may even suggest that there is some fragility in the traditionally zealot-like support for the Mac. As I suggested in “The Year of Hubris“, there is certainly a new willingness to criticise Apple, by its customers and developers.

Should customers be worried? Should Developers keep their arguments private? Or is Daniel Jakult right, when he suggests that the developer community is still one big happy family?

Well, I would argue “No” in all cases. The infighting amongst Mac developers signals the end of a siege mentality. We are no longer worried that Apple may go bust, that the Mac may disappear as a product and our beloved platform will be swamped by Windows. For the last decade, or more, the Mac community has stuck together to defend their platform. Now that the Mac market is buoyant, Apple is financially healthy and the future looks bright, the need for solidarity is gone.

In fact the Mac market is large enough and growing at such a pace, that there is room again for multiple competing products. Developers want to do their best to differentiate their products, and promote their approach to their customers, as being “better than the next guy”. In short, traditional market forces have come into play.

As with any good, transparent, competitive market, competition is a great thing for customers. It means that developers are desperately fighting to improve their products to steal a march on their competitors. All of the arguments are centred around what is best for customers. Customers who now have a genuine choice.

Why the sudden change? After all Apple has been financially healthy, and the Mac market has been growing, for quite some time. I would suggest that the speed, success and mere fact of the Intel transition has been the catalyst. Apple is no longer one failed delivery from its chip vendor away from disaster. Intel is a reliable partner, and if they stumble, AMD and IBM are waiting in the wings. I have been nervously waiting for a bake off showing how much faster Windows is than OS X on the same hardware. Instead we discover that a Mac is, in fact, the fastest Vista capable laptop.

If the Mac developers stop arguing, start worrying. In the mean time, sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

Of course the next day, Apple announced that there would be a proper iPhone SDK in Feb. This does highlight Apple’s hubris at claiming that Web tools were a full SDK as I had previously claimed.

More importantly along with the iTunes Plus price reductions, it does appear that Apple is responding to the wave of criticism that has come its way over the last few months. With a bit of luck, Apple will also open up iPhone ring tones as part of that response.

Back the the iPhone SDK, my biggest concern is that I will fall into the same trap I did with my previous smart phone. Installing all manner of “cool” apps that I never use and which clutter up the limited resources on my phone. When I get an iPhone, I’ll be interested to see whether I prefer using web based tools to full blown, native, apps. Of the shareware that I currently use on my Mac, a GTD solution is the only app that I feel that I would want on my iPhone. Of course I’d happily do without the YouTube and Stocks apps as well.

Presenting web tools as a “proper” iPhone SDK was patronising to developers at WWDC ’07, and symptomatic of Apple’s “Year of Hubris”. But developers need to accept that this is the reality of the situation. We also need to accept that iPhone updates will delete third party hacks, close loop holes and possibly render the phones inoperable.

The iPhone Elite Team have released a way to unlock “bricked” iPhones, having accepted the reality of the situation. John Gruber has it completely correct when he says that there is a “misguided mindset” in thinking Apple “screwed them over” with the 1.1.1 update.

As a developer, if you want to bring your app to the iPhone, you either need to add web development to your tool-chest or get involved in the hacking process. However, making money out of that app on the iPhone maybe a tricky business model.

My prediction is that, as with iPod games, there will be a coterie of developers who will be allowed to bring Apple sanctioned apps to the iPhone and iPod Touch, delivered through the iTunes Store.

Apple has hat its “Year of the laptop” and “Year of HD” and this year seems to be the “Year of Hubris”. A number of decisions this year have led to major backlashes from their normally ultra loyal customer base.

Most of the controversy has centred on the iPhone. Before WWDC there was strong demand for an “iPhone SDK”; a set of tools to allow developers to create iPhone applications. Steve Jobs tried to fob developers off with web based tools. Many felt Apple would have been better stating they were not offering a proper SDK, rather than patronise intelligent developers, by telling them Web 2.0 tools were just as good.

Then there was the dramatic iPhone price cut. Whilst I appreciate the humour that suggests that this “was a repeal of the nerd tax“, it highlights that whereas most handsets are subsidised when on a contract, the iPhone was actually sold for two months at a $200 premium.

Ring-tones for the iPhone are another sore point, with users having to pay an additional $0.99 to use a snippet of a song they already own and no way to create ring-tones from songs not bought from the iTunes Store. John Gruber covers this issue far better than I can. Though I would point out that long before the iPhone, ring tone buyers have shown a bizarre willingness to pay through the nose for poor quality song snippets. The best that Apple can say is that they are pricing below the current market rate.

Of course in the UK, at the current exchange rate, the iPhone should be priced at around £200 before tax or £235 incl. VAT. The extra £34 for additional business costs seems a little excessive.

Some criticism from the press feels contrived to avoid appearing to pander to Apple. Unfortunately in the UK, we all to often like to bring success stories down to earth. For example, the criticism of the iPhone’s lack of 3G seems perverse. 3G has hardly lit up the UK market since its release in 2003 and it appears to be a flawed technology. Jobs’ complaints about 3G battery consumption are completely valid. Power consumption should have been resolved long ago, given how long 3G has been available. I, for one, am happy that Apple is not championing a technology that benefits networks looking to sell content, more than is solves problems for consumers.

As with each succession of the iPod, the press are always keen to point out missing features without justifying the customer benefit for those features.

Away from the iPhone, Apple’s decision to charge more for DRM free tracks from EMI has surprised many, given Steve Jobs’ open letter of criticism of DRM. Apple’s recent public stance on DRM has also been somewhat confused.

iMovie ’08 has also generated criticism for being a step backwards in many ways. Apple, fully aware of this, quietly ensured that iMovie ’06 was still available for free to iLife ’08 purchasers. Whilst there is a need for an app like iMovie ’08 in this modern Max Headroom / YouTube era, there is still a need for iMovie ’06 type app as well. Many feel that Apple should have found some way to have both applications coexist within iLife and update the original iMovie, rather than replace it.

And finally there was considerable disappointment at the “Top Secret” features in Leopard and the redesign of key UI elements in the new OS. There will undoubtedly be further backlash if Leopard is delayed again beyond its October time frame. The lack of new seeds for developers and testers, suggests a delay is more than possible. I personally predict that Leopard will be delayed until MacWorld in January.

Many of these issues come down to poor PR or Marketing, or simply bad timing. They suggest some hubris on Apple’s approach to its existing customer base. As Wil Shipley says:

That sure reminds me of the old, crappy Apple. The one that almost went bankrupt because of its hubris.

Apple will undoubtedly learn from the backlash, but more worrying than the Marketing missteps are the ring-tones pricing and restrictions, along with Apple’s drive to increase gross margins despite strong sales volumes. It appears that Apple is trying to maximise returns from loyal customers. Fortunately, Apple continues to produce great products to increase its customer base, unlike its previous period of hubris.