The BrandForward Blog

Being the resident tech girl among my IRL friends, I frequently get asked which computer someone should buy. I’m no hardware expert, but there’s hilariously no understanding in the free world that not all technophiles know everything about everything. Some techies are hardware people, some are networking, some are programming, and still others are application gurus. And some just know all the good porn sites.

But these distinctions do not exist for the technologically uninitiated. They think if you owned a computer in the pre-historic era (1990’s), you obviously must know everything there is to know about the entire world of computing, you regularly meet Bill Gates for coffee, probably have Steve Jobs on speed dial, and therefore are the elite authority on the secret inner workings of all the cheap laptops piled high at Best Buy.

If only.

So this time my friend Steve (not Jobs!) sidled up and asked that eternal question: “Which $500 laptop should I buy?”

Oh boy, this is gonna be good. I lick my chops in anticipation of bringing another PC user into the Mac collective.

I explain to him that he should get beyond the $400-$500 price point and look at features and ease of use. I ask him to remember the things he hated about his current laptop. The one he literally punched the daylights out of, after it crashed on him for the bazillionth time. Yes. He did.

I asked him to recall the pop-ups and lagging virus scans. All the crashes and freezes, the fruitless defrags, the 10-minute boot-ups.

Yeah, I’ve owned a PC or two.

I asked him how much time he’s spent waiting for the hour glass to show signs of life, how many times Microsoft Windows has eaten half a day’s work, and exactly how many times he’d wanted to violently obliterate the thing before finally succumbing in a frustrated outburst.

I asked him to put a value on his time. I asked him how his blood pressure is doing.

And you’d think all of that would have been enough to convince him that leaving the land of PC for the world of Mac would be a no-brainer.

But he can’t get past that $500 price point.

He can easily afford whatever he wants. But that $500 sticks in his craw like a beckoning belly dancer.

OOOOOOHHH AAAAAHHHH. Look at meeeeeeee. Five hundred dollaaaarrrrrs.

Unfortunately, until a PC user experiences a Mac it’s hard for them to imagine how wonderful computing can be and what a difference it makes to take for granted that your computer is going to work flawlessly at any given time. If you’ve ever owned a PC and migrated to a Mac, you know how dramatic and valuable the difference is.

Like I told him, you can buy a $500 computer. But then you’d have to use it.

To add to the confusion of whether to go with PC or Mac is the recent freedom thing. Apparently, everyone who uses a Mac is stuck behind Steve Jobs’ walled garden. The tech elite complain that he’s controlling Mac users, that we don’t have freedom, and that it’s ridiculous that he’s blackballing Macromedia Flash.

Au contraire.

The best argument I can use to demonstrate that Apple’s walled garden does not take away the kind of freedom that matters to an end user is to compare a Mac experience with the PC experience.

When I had a PC, I had no semblance of computing freedom. A day did not go by without some sort of system crash, app freeze, or other event that created a blockade to my creativity and productivity. I spent a decent percentage of my time cleaning up the hard drive and pricing out upgrade RAM. I was never free to just sit down at my desk and work endlessly, letting the creative juices flow. It was only a matter of time before something was going awry on the PC. And even the little annoyances like browser crashes or virus detection pop-ups can really get you off track.

Sure, I had the freedom to load every software app known to man. I had the freedom to initiate every hardware upgrade that might (on the off chance) improve my system’s performance. I had the freedom to attach any number of peripherals my heart desired. But the things I did not have were freedom from interruption, freedom from the complications of viruses, and the most important thing:

The freedom to forget about the computer and focus on what I want to accomplish on it.

That’s why the Apple devoted are so vigilant. It’s not so much that we prize the design or the brand or the caché. (Although we obviously do). It’s because when we’re using a Mac, it’s all about what we’re doing, not what the computer is doing. I no longer have to peruse the stack of PC parts catalogs, or camp out in troubleshooting forums. With a Mac, computer becomes background. In the foreground is creativity and productivity.

And Steve Jobs’ walled garden makes sure nothing is getting in my way.

Sure, some say it’s big brotherish. And a few of my friends who are hardware and networking techs bemoan the intrusion. But those of us who prefer a smooth computing experience with a superior product, and don’t necessarily want to earn any IT stripes, can happily co-exist within a walled garden and don’t mind paying more for the pleasure.

And because we’ve had bad experiences with those “free-wheeling” PC’s, we listen when Steve Jobs talks. When he says Apple will no longer support Flash on mobile products because it causes crashes (and there’s a better way to deliver content), we recall the cost of freedom.

Time, money, sanity.

So to answer the question. What is the best $500 laptop? I’ll paraphrase and borrow from my friend Erik’s advice on $500 laptops. If someone only wanted to invest $500 in a new laptop, I’d tell them that for $500 they’re going to be getting a low-grade processor, minimal ram, and few bells and whistles… if you’re only checking email and surfing the internet, that should be fine. If you plan to play video games and use editing software you’ll need “something beefier.” Either way, you’re going to face the decreasing performance that goes along with PC “bit rot,” and unless you buy a top-end model you’re on the “throwaway treadmill.” Erik, BTW is an uber user who’s a networking consultant, someone you’d probably expect to be the poster child for PC’s. Nope, Erik drives a Mac.

And I can guarantee the next $500 he spends on a computing device for himself will absolutely be an iPad. (He already has a 17″ MacBook Pro.)

I’ll take my walled garden, and PC die-hards can have their Waterworld of marauding pirates and mayhem. I’ll take my peaceful computing and they can have their high blood pressure.

I just hope my friend Steve takes my advice and ditches the $500 laptop idea. Or at least finds a good cardiologist.

————————–

(Update: 06-16-10) Which computer did Steve end up buying?
Yeah, he ended up with a PC. After spending about an hour in the electronics section of Best Buy, he picked up a 14″ Toshiba Satellite E205, ringing up at about $900.

It also came with a “free” wireless gizmo (Netgear Push 2 TV) that lets him display the computer screen on his mammoth TV.



Steve says the reason he didn’t go with the $500 laptop was because they had less memory, slower processors, and smaller hard drives. And when he started comparing, he started to realize it was worth it to spend the extra money.

So yeah, the elusive $500 laptop exists. But does anyone ever really buy it?

Wow. Wednesday. Big Day. Apple finally confirmed the rumors and unveiled its latest masterpiece. And now we have the iPad to add to our stack of devices that charge by the bedside every night. Well some of mine actually sleep in the bed with me. My iPhone has its own pillow. But move over. Because it appears the days of me and my iPhone cavorting alone in our own little world are coming to a close. This has just become an open relationship.

Because I will have an iPad.

And it will be getting a pillow.

So how can we be so sure that the iPad is really worth getting hot and bothered about? How can we get excited, get our debit cards ready and holstered, when pretty much everything we’ve heard in the last 48 hours is that the iPad is nothing more than a glorified iPhone?

And with less functionality?

Oh, Apple. Can we really have faith in your “magical and revolutionary” new device that apparently lacks all the features we’ve come to know and love?

(Such as:)

If you’re inclined to believe the interwebs, the iPad:

“is missing a lot”

“sucks and you shouldn’t buy one”

“is a giant iPhone”

“has some absolutely backbreaking failures”

and

“sounds like a F—ING tampon.”

Heck, some are even saying a netbook (gasp!) is a better choice than the iPad.

So with the realization that the iPad is covered in frosting but not fully baked, can we (and our debit cards) overlook what appears to be such glaring and fatal flaws and allow the liberation of $499+ from our checking accounts?

Yes. And I’ll tell you why.

Because it’s an Apple.

And if there’s one (or two) things history tells us about Apple, it’s that there will be a lot of critics.

And there will be a revolution.

The key reason the iPad is worth owning, despite its shortcomings, is because no matter what it lacks today, no matter which functional “oversights” the critics say will make it a lame duck or an irrelevant yet shiny toy… no matter… as the iPad evolves it’s pretty much guaranteed to exceed expectations. And most likely spark a user revolution that turns the iPad into a ubiquitous, can’t-live-without product that flies off shelves.

How do we know this?

The iPhone. Look back to when it was unveiled in 2007. Remember what it was lacking and what the critics were saying? It didn’t have GPS. It didn’t have MMS or 3G or downloadable apps. It didn’t have push notification or cut-and-paste or video recording. And we were walking to school uphill in the snow.

And lest we overlook the most heinous offense, it didn’t have Verizon.

But three years later, 75 million iPhones and iPod Touches have been sold, there have been more than 12 billion iPhone app downloads, and let us not forget the more than 125 million Apple borgs using the iTunes store.

Not bad for an irrelevant, shiny toy.

Sure, the first-generation iPad lacks some compelling features. Some essential features. But just like any long-term relationship, you have to accept some flaws in the beginning… overlook the mouth breathing… the outdated hair… questionable fashion choices. (And if you’re in New Jersey, the spray-on tan.) And have some faith in what could develop.

After 34 years and countless revolutionary ideas that have changed the way we connect with the world, Apple has earned at least that.

And certainly a little space on the pillow.

If you’d like to tweet this post, here’s a trimmed link you can copy and paste: http://tr.im/buyipad

(Statistics via Steve Jobs during Apple keynote on January 27, 2010. Story image from photo sharing site, imgur.com).

Oh Facebook, you devious little devil. What’s this new line in your Statement of Rights that essentially takes away the user’s ability to own and benefit from the content they generate? Wow. I personally always thought the ultimate beauty of Facebook, other than a clean design that did away with purple kaleidescope seizure-inducing backgrounds, was the idea that eventually a business model could be developed that allows Facebook AND its users to earn profits from individual content.

So much for Social Media 2.0.

It seems Facebook is having none of this “share the wealth” business. At least for now. According to an article on Mashable, Facebook is restricting user ability to sell statuses.

Funny, if you read the Statement of Rights closely you’ll notice classic doublespeak. At first glance, Facebook giveth. However, a few sentences later it taketh away: You OWN your content. (whew!) But Facebook has a worldwide royalty-free right to do whatever it wants with it. (p0wned!)

Now, don’t get me wrong. I like knowing my friends’ statuses are their own. Not someone else’s. But seriously. The idea that the user could profit from their own content is a revolution waiting to happen. Imagine brands creating opportunities for the Facebook user to integrate personal brand experiences into feeds, photos, and boxes to earn points, credits, dollars, or discounts for qualified referrals is a powerful one. Depending on the influence of the user, creating interesting content could be pretty lucrative.

That’s exponential social media.

EXPONENTIAL SOCIAL MEDIA. Write it down.

And let’s not overlook how this simple idea could be the affiliate marketing concept of tomorrow. A legitimate one. Gone would be the days of modern-day hucksters scraping other people’s websites for content or building 12 different link-juiced sites that promise outlandish sums of money just for clicking on a few links.

Think about it. All you’d have to do is create interesting, provoking, juicy content. Okay and have about 50,000 Facebook followers that actually care what you did last weekend. But let’s not get focused on logistics. The point is, as the creator of original content, ye Facebook user, you should be benefiting from the content financially. What makes you any different from People.com or CNN.com? Well, other than the partial nudity and embarrassing back seat sleeping shots.

You create content. And that content takes time. Time to plan. Time to create. Time to upload. Time to caption. Time to promote. Time to hide after friending your boss.

But yeah, when Facebook finally decides to fully monetize, why shouldn’t you get your cut? Facebook is zero without your content. Zilch.

Here’s how it works: Your life is lived in a branded world. Your friends are interested in your content. Your content can include brands. Brands pay money to get more customers. Brands prefer to get customers through trust and emotional association. Your friends trust and associate with you. They also want to keep up with you. Which is the ultimate in brand peer pressure.

You + your brands + your friends + your content = $$$.

Not to mention, knowing the content you upload as a user is tangibly valuable will be a key way for Facebook to maintain relevance as the internet evolves and users find they have less and less time to fritter away posting photos from last night’s pub crawl.

If Facebook evolved its current platform for a business model that allows users to make recommendations and include brand content, create their own personal brand mosaics, tag brands in their photos, and profit from the creation of successful brand fan pages, it would go a long way in cementing Facebook’s position. For at least another extra year or two. And with the new Facebook real-time search and the ability to have a more refined and timely search, the possibilities are staggering.

Sounds beautiful, but let’s face it. Facebook isn’t sitting indefinitely pretty. No one really expected MySpace to be dropped like a hot bowl of chili. But it happened. Because something was developed that had more relevance. And more legs. Giving users power through branded content and incentive-based profits is no doubt an idea with exponential value. For Facebook, for brands, and for users. It would be a win for everyone.

But for now it appears Facebook thinks it owns you. And your content. And any offspring you may conceive while engaged in any activity hereto posted on Facebook.

So when you get around to you might as well mark all your photos with: “©Facebook. All Rights Reserved.”

Yeah, right there. In the corner.

And can you make that font a little bigger?

Face it. Facebook p0wns you.

We all know how much I love to hate Microsoft. And today that love grows. It appears Microsoft has finally sold interactive agency Razorfish. And Publicis Groupe SA is the proud owner, out roughly $530 million. Sounds innocent enough, right? What does Microsoft want with a digital agency anyway? Makes sense to sell it off, yes? Well apparently, as part of the deal Publicis agreed to place some pretty hefty media buys into Microsoft’s properties including new search engine, Bing.

And there’s the rub. On the face of it everything looks innocent enough. And sure, Bing has plenty of users so it’s not like Publicis is agreeing to prop up a site that won’t supply reach. But if I was a Razorfish client, I’d have to wonder if my account is going to be one of the lucky victims of an automatic Bing buy. And does Publicis have a plan to charge premium rates on this discounted space? Or is that discount passed on to the customer? And hmmm. Has this Razorfish sell-off been strategically timed to coincide with an urgent need for an influx of advertising buys to propel Bing? Could it beeeeee, Sataaaaaan?

These are the kinds of questions that sometimes pop up when pondering the activities of Microsoft.

But seriously. The deal smells like roses. With that faint odorous whiff of conflict of interest.

But aren’t those executives quick with the comebacks. A Publicis digital exec from Vivaki assures clients there’s “no bias or no commitment to buy from Microsoft.” However, according to the Wall Street Journal, “as part of the wider deal, Publicis clients will be able to purchase display and search advertising from Microsoft on favorable terms, in exchange for certain minimum guaranteed aggregate purchase levels.”

Is it just me or do the words “minimum” and “aggregate” sorta work together to spell out:

YOU-WILL-BE-ASSIMILATED.

And let’s not even get started with “guaranteed” which somehow found its way into what was supposed to be an innocuous, lilac-scented sentence.

Maybe I’m just an old-fashioned ad girl who still thinks agencies owe clients the best media deal available. The most efficiency, the best placements, the perfect medium for their strategic objectives. That’s the job of an agency, right? It’s not about the agency, it’s about the client. Agencies are agents. Agencies don’t make deals for agencies, they make deals as agents on behalf of clients. That’s what makes this whole enchilada work. When agencies start making deals that they need to later back-end clients into, it all just turns to masa.

The “minimum” “aggregate” and “guaranteed” thing. That bothers me. When I hear an agency talk I want to hear “efficient” “effective” and “no obligation.”

And can an agency really achieve that in a deal with el diablo? Sounds to me like the soul’s already been sold.

Still not sure? Go ahead. Bing and decide.

Wow. It seems like just yesterday I squealed in glee when I realized there was a browser that might could actually put Microsoft’s incompetent Internet Explorer out of its buggy misery. Not that I needed to bother. For years as a dual PC/Mac user, eeking out enough space for that extra piece of clunky machinery also known as a PC, I spent most of my free hours squirreled away on the Mac. But there were times when I needed the PC. Like for Minesweeper.

Okay, and Tetris.

But being forced in those uber-productive moments to surf on the ol’ PC, I had to run the regular IE gauntlet of pop-ups, dead crashes, and mysterious error logs that were the comprehensible equivalent of the Beatles singing backwards. Yeah, I spent a lot of time calling Bill Gates the anti-Christ. And wondering why Microsoft didn’t have the presence of mind to start from scratch on a browser instead of recycling this 40-story monstrosity that used the elevator equivalent of a dumbwaiter for programming architecture.

So seeing that Firefox is about to hit a billion downloads, I’m giggling a little bit. And crossing my fingers Google is as smart as we all think, and has a big surprise waiting for Bing.

Hey Microsoft. Decision THIS.