Ploafmaster General

So a few days ago HP posted a video to their YouTube channel. It’s on HP’s channel, but the video is basically Adobe selling HP’s “Slate Device” for them.

Yesterday Apple premiered their television ad for the iPad during the Oscars.

It struck me, as it did John Gruber, that the iPad commercial is quite a bit like many iPhone ads. End users are the focus and we hear no explanations of what you’re seeing or how it works or why it’s there. You just hear a rock song and see people in comfortable, informal situations using the iPad with ease.

In Adobe’s demo video for HP’s “Slate Device” (I hope they come up with a better name than that. Or at least better than “iPad.”) the focus seems to be on the content providers rather than content consumers. Sure, there are references to real people using the device. But there’s a saturation of seller-oriented themes in there about content publishers, developers, content distribution channels, and “branded site experiences.” A user likely won’t mind opening a separate video player to watch a clip if the transition is executed well. But MTV doesn’t want you to miss those Flash ads “in context of the site.”

Adobe also uses Alexa metrics to indicate how many top websites use Flash and how much web video is served up using Flash. Users don’t care about these numbers, sellers do. Users might want Flash video, but with so many people unaware of what a browser is they probably don’t know that they want Flash either. They just know they want to see that skateboarding dog on YouTube.

I noticed a specific ding against iPhone’s/iPad’s lack of flash in Adobe’s video when they mentioned the ability to consume content without the need for downloading a separate application. This is pure conjecture (though I’d love some real numbers), but I bet that’s not a real problem for end users. Not all downloads from the App Store are fart apps and games.

Okay, so it’s not a completely fair comparison. The Apple ad is a TV spot and the Adobe video is a demo spot and not necessarily a commercial. It should also be noted that I haven’t used either device and, if it wasn’t already clear, I hope you know that I’m not commenting on the quality or performance of the gadgets – merely the messaging and my perception of each message’s audience.

It just seems strange that one of the earliest demo videos for this device would focus on content suppliers/sellers. Maybe it’s because Adobe doesn’t have to convince users to buy the “Slate Device.” That’s HP’s job. Adobe wants to sell Flash to content creators. Last I checked, though, content consumers outnumbered content creators, so I hope HP has another partner company lined up to shill this thing to the people who are supposed to use them.

It appears that the FCC is on the cusp of implementing Net Neutrality regulations that would prevent Internet service providers, or ISPs, (like Comcast or AT&T’s mobile broadband) from charging more money to serve bandwidth-intensive content like video and other media. The ISPs don’t like this, and these choice quotes underscore a fundamental problem of letting some industries run unchecked (all quotes from the BBC’s coverage):

“…a new set of regulations that will limit customer choices and affect content providers, application developers, device manufacturers and network builders…” – Verizon

“…so it’s still fair to ask whether increased regulation of the internet is a solution in search of a problem.” – Comcast

“We are concerned the FCC appears ready to extend the entire array of net neutrality requirements to what is perhaps the most competitive consumer market in America – wireless services.” – AT&T

This reminds me of a fantastic article I read on Rands In Repose back in March about the Brooklyn Bridge. I think this describes the ISPs fairly well:

When Brooklyn and New York’s population was booming at the end of the 19th century, the best way to get to and from Brooklyn was via ferries. As solutions were considered, I’m sure there were those who simply thought, “More boats!” These ardent defenders of the status quo were not engineers — they were the business. Their goal was not to build something great, but to make a profit.

AT&T and other wireless carriers will only increase their data capacity as much as they have to. Perhaps the FCC’s new rules will light a fire under their collective butt.