Archive for category marketing
A Tale of Two Microsoft Names
Microsoft needed a search engine to complete with Google. Windows Live was not doing it for them. Google had already become a verb – who hasn’t told someone else to “Just Google it”? So they needed something catchy and easy to remember. Bing! I’ve got it.
Bing! Short, catchy, and an onomonopia for when you’ve actually found what you want. It’s perfect. As good as, if not better than, Google.
Microsoft needed a new phone operating system to compete with the iPhone, Android, WebOS, and Blackberry. They needed something new and fresh after the holy disaster that is Windows Mobile. They seem to have done a good job with designing the system. But now they needed a name. Zune Phone? Windows PhoneOS? Wait, no, I’ve got it. How about…
Wow. That’s… a mouthful. It’s not catchy, it’s not easy to remember. Windows Phone 7 Series? Windows 7 Phone Series? A Series of Windows 7 Phones? Windows Phone Series 7? I can’t even remember the order that the words go in!
Microsoft Marketing Department: WINS: 1. LOSSES: 1.
The Apple iPad: Thoughts
Posted by jasonwong in bad design, good design, marketing, thoughts on January 28th, 2010
Disclaimer, in case you didn’t know for some reason: I have a MacBook and an iPhone and I enjoy them very much.
The iPad is intriguing. I have seen many people ask why they would want one. I think Apple essentially presented several use cases (eReading, couch surfing, airplane video watching), but it boils down to this: if you’re in the market for something that’s cheaper and less useful than a laptop but is more expensive and useful than an iPhone, the iPad is your device.
I am just curious as to how big that market is.
A friend of mine has an iPhone and Apple desktop. He doesn’t do work when he’s mobile, so he is interested in this device. For me, I can’t justify one right away. I would not get the more expensive 3G model, so I’d be stuck with just a WiFi connection, which means mostly home use. Since I already have a laptop as my main computer that I can bring with me, I don’t see the iPad use case working for me.
In terms of striking the balance between a cheaper laptop and a more useful iPhone, they leaned more towards the iPhone. However, they brought along many iPhone shortcomings – namely, multitasking and Flash in the browser. Therefore, you cannot have Pandora streaming, have your IM client going, and also work on something in Pages at the same time. With a $500 iPad (which Josh Gruber says is fast, fast, fast), you can only do one thing at a time. This just kills it for me.
I don’t think a big enough deal is being made about the fact that Apple is using its own Apple A4 chip in the device that makes it “fast, fast, fast.” Apple bought P.A. Semi and is now designing their own ARM-based chips in house. So, from this, the iPad is faster. I would like to think the processor can handle more than one application at a time, though. Yes, you could say that the iPad would bog down running too many apps, but so too can the MacBook. People expect multitasking and, if Apple could design an elegant system to do so, they should. Essentially, my argument boils down to this: Apple can’t possibly have unitasking as a written-in-stone design goal; at some point, they are going to have to introduce multitasking. It seemed like the introduction of the iPad, with its wickedly-fast processor, was as good of a time as any.
John Timmer, Science Editor of Ars Technica, nails it for me (scroll to the bottom of the page to read his thoughts directly):
Steve Jobs very explicitly placed the iPad in the category class between the phone and notebook, and it very nicely splits the difference between the two. And that’s precisely why I’m a bit disappointed by it—it doesn’t share enough of the features of either one of those two devices to actually make it useful to me.
When I leave the apartment for anything beyond local errands, I’m almost invariably carrying both a cell phone for communicating and a laptop for getting work done. A truly useful device would be one that could let me leave one of those devices and its added bulk, cables, and worries about charge status at home. The iPhone went a little way towards that dream—it was a phone, but its ability to handle a bit of web browsing and some light e-mail meant that leaving the laptop at home was possible in a few additional circumstances—but, for the most part, I’m still stuck lugging two devices.
The iPad doesn’t fix that. It’s clearly not a phone, so my phone would still have to come with me. It would do a better job of e-mail and web browsing than the iPhone but, if I’m carrying one of those anyway, that’s not a huge help. On the other side of its category divide, the iPad might add a few more cases where a laptop is unnecessary, but very few. I’m a touch typist; I take notes on presentations while watching the speaker, and I am often writing in one application while looking over a document in a second. With no physical keyboard and no multitasking, the iPad simply wouldn’t work for me. It’s just too limited to mean I could leave my laptop home any more often than I already do.
Apple looks like it nailed its target of creating a truly distinct device that’s somewhere in between the phone and the laptop. And, for precisely that reason, it doesn’t seem like it would be all that useful to me.
Instructions Fail
Posted by jasonwong in bad design, data visualization, marketing on September 27th, 2009
I understand that some people do not know how to floss. However, I do not think the diagram on the lower right will help anyone floss unless they can split their head open like a ripe melon.

Flip-flop head idea courtesy of Reach toothbrushes:
Recession to reduce number of consumer choices
Posted by jasonwong in decision making, marketing on June 20th, 2009
First: I am finally settled in Rhode Island and mostly unpacked. My job with the Navy as a Human Factors Scientist begins this Monday, June 22. Now that I’m mostly back to normal, hopefully I will be able to post here more often. Thanks for your patience and continuing to read this blog. And now, to the content.
The recession has hit everyone hard, of course, and the New York Times has an article detailing how big chain stores (Wal-Mart and Target, of course, but also Saks Fifth Avenue and Macy’s) may drastically change the way they operate in order to respond to how consumers shop these days.
This is a human factors blog, so a majority of the article (while interesting) does not apply here. Except for one snippet that has to do with too much choice, which has been dealt with on this blog here and is the subject of an entire book by Barry Schwartz (The Paradox of Choice). It all boils down to decision making, and anyone who has been overwhelmed by the number of cereal, laundry detergent, or new car choices has experienced this crippling cognitive/decision-making process.
However, due to the recession and the fact that stores cannot keep as much stock on hand at any given time (because money is tied up in unsold products), soon consumers will have less choice. From the article:
Another change is that consumers will have fewer brands from which to choose. Wal-Mart, Target, Home Depot, and PetSmart are just a few of the chains winnowing their brands. As Home Depot’s executive vice president for merchandising, Craig Menear, put it: consumers are “time-starved” and “looking for simplification in the entire shopping experience.”
That may delight minimalists, because it will be easier to find items on the shelves. But it also limits choice.
In the case of the cereal aisle, fewer choices may not be a bad thing.

McCain-Palin Web Ad: What were they thinking?
Posted by jasonwong in bad design, marketing, perception on October 28th, 2008
I just saw the weirdest ad on the political site FiveThirtyEight. It must have been animated (like many Flash ads out there), but I missed the animation. Once the animation finished, the ad just displayed a single frame. reinforcing the message. Since I missed the animation, I just caught the single frame. The picture was this:

It’s Obama blue using the Obama logo. But wait – what does the bottom tagline say?
Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008. What?
People tend to skip over ads. They try to avoid reading them. But their eyes can’t ignore them entirely. They see the picture, they see the color, and they are likely to think “Obama.” In order to actually understand the ad, they have to read the text and realize it’s a McCain ad.
Wow, what a mess.

