Although the principal conceit of Apple’s latest Mac vs. PC ad is, as always, “PCs suck,” the ad does a nice job pointing to the difference between innovative thinking and the mere creation of features.
While the cupholder suit that appears at the ad’s end is presented as a joke, many companies do have an unfortunate habit of burdening their products with clunky, grafted-on features as they try to push their ideas into new territory.
Compare the cupholder suit to Apple’s breakaway MagSafe cord, which the ad references. While there’s some debate over how well the Magsafe cord actually does what it’s supposed to, it at least intends to address a real issue that computer manufacturers had previously ignored (people’s cords get tripped on, yanked out).
Discovering that aspect of the user experience – however Apple may have done this – and recognizing it as one worthy of design intervention is the real innovation here.
Tags: ad, advertising, apple, computers, design, design thinking, feature bloat, features, innovation, mac, Mac vs. PC, Macintosh, marketing, needfinding, PC, ue, user experience, UX
I think there are number of companies that will look at the time and dollars spent on understandding the user experience as unnecessary. Their school of thought is to invest no more than “necessary” to stay with the competition. Therefore the grafted on features and or me too solutions appear all over in the market place.
I would not be surprised by many of the stories designers, researchers and or developers could tell about “that client” who wants the deliverable just like the competitions only better and with out the front end work.
I think it comes back to the wants vs need question.
Comment by steve 09.17.09 @ 9:19 amSteve – I wonder if that’s a valid business strategy? To be a “fast follower” and let the other guy be the pioneer with the slings, while you improve the product. You might be able to take market share that way, depending on who you are. I feel like Microsoft is a possible example but I guess there are plenty of less glamorous firms that do me-too (only better) design and development. Do you think?
Comment by Steve Portigal 09.17.09 @ 9:44 amSteve-
I would like to think the fast follower strategy is a short term finical solution at best. However I may be proven wrong.
I think Microsoft could fall into the me-too category. They do appear to not want to push the boundaries. I perceive them as one of the companies that watch others break new ground. When and if the market shows interest Microsoft will then start work on and or introduce the MS version.
As a designer this can drive me up a wall. Sometimes it is a wasted opportunity to design something that solves a unmet need, that is beautiful or otherwise enhances someone life.
Comment by steve 09.17.09 @ 10:27 amI think the point about “wasted opportunity” is a huge one. I think people that do what we do are excited about potential but the money people take a different look at things. I think it has to do with how we each define success. You can get a return on investment and still leave a lot of wonderful opportunities behind; that is valid for some but not for others. It sucks obviously to be trying to help the wrong organization go in a direction it doesn’t fundamentally support!
Comment by Steve Portigal 09.17.09 @ 11:06 amI don’t find these Mac ads very compelling, even as someone who uses a Mac at home. There is a new ad for PCs that’s playing in movie theaters now that I think is far more effective at convincing someone to actually buy a PC instead of a Mac.
Comment by jamie 09.17.09 @ 1:24 pmMy feeling is that I’m neither a Mac nor a PC – I’m a person!
But as far as advertising goes, Apple’s certainly created a campaign with legs. You raise a good point though; to what extent is the campaign actually influencing purchasing decisions?
Comment by Dan Soltzberg 09.17.09 @ 1:33 pm