I was linked to this post by Mark Wilson via a tweet from Tim O'Reilly:
This critique of an Apple ad may well be the most important thing you'll read this year: http://bit.ly/115U5uT Take it seriously.
My terse comment on Twitter summed up my response, but I decided to follow O'Reilly's lead and “take [the piece] seriously.” I'll try to keep it short.
The thesis of the article argues that Apple is pushing us to focus on products and digital experiences as opposed to people and the real world around us. Wilson uses Apple's “Designed in California” ad and its opening line as an example of this phenomenon:
“This is it. This is what matters. The experience of a product.”
Wilson thinks the line prioritized products over people, and should read, “This is it. This is what matters. The experience of a person.”
While true, people matter more than products, the mental leap and context dropping to make this point was unnecessary. Wilson reads Apple's line as a sweeping statement of all importance in the world, as opposed to what it is: a simple line about what matters in the context of a product. The line should be read as:
“This is it. This is what matters. The experience of a product.”
not:
“This is it. This is what matters. The experience of a product.”
It's a commercial that's talking about products and what's important in them, namely, a cohesive user experience. The products have no intrinsic value, only that which is created by their value to people.
Wilson then selectively pulls out scenes from the commercial and adds his own narrative that we're supposed to take at face value:
- A woman closes her eyes on the subway to soak in electronic music.
- A room of students looks down at their desks instead of at their teacher.
- A parent and child cuddle, focused on a screen that’s so powerful it illuminates the kid’s face.
- A couple kisses in the rain, then immediately turn away to look at a phone.
- A tourist opts to FaceTime instead of bathing in visceral, smoky yakitori.
In the first example, if you drop the word “electronic” it'd be hard to criticize the moment – closing your eyes to focus the senses is pretty common when listening to music. If we re-add the word “electronic”, any criticism simply relies on Ludditism.
If we removed the iPads from the second and third examples and replaced them with books, I'm not sure the criticism would stand (though maybe we're all supposed to be anti-books too?).
The couple kissing in the rain captured a lovely personal moment. They were able to preview the photograph instantly and ensure that it would (in some sense) last forever. That seems nice.
As for the last example, I'm struggling to see how someone in a far away land taking a brief moment to connect with a distant loved one illustrates the bad state of our world. I guess if you watch a six second slow-motion clip with some preconceived notions, it's possible.
Wilson also omits any commentary on scenes that might work against his point:
- the sea of people at a concert all dancing in union to a shared real-live experience,
- or the warm smiles and laughter of an old couple and surrounding family brought on by photographs of a life well lived.
Trite, vapid, and misleading.