Monday, May 21, 2012

Wiredglitz

The Tech Savvy Website

Apple’s secret to selling.

Posted by Max On January - 23 - 2010 ADD COMMENTS

Flash an exotic prototype, then—Presto!—get people to buy your more boring stuff. That kind of thinking still rules at most electronics companies. Apple under Steve Jobs only shows off actual products. The difference? Apple’s arcane secret to success.

A specter harrows the consumer electronics industry: malaise. Like washed-up Catskill magicians unable to let go of old routines while a brash upstart steals their audience, nearly every maker of consumer electronics in the world clings to a quaint song-and-dance about prototypes.

“Here is your possible future,” they bark, flourishing the latest conceptual product from the lab. “Now watch us make it disappear!”

Apple’s chief magician knows better, pulling solid objects out of the aether; products you can actually buy.

If this sounds like a minor complaint about most of the industry’s lack of imagination in marketing, you’re misunderstanding the whole act. The fact that Apple does not reveal prototypes but shipping products is the fundamental difference between their entire business strategy and that of the rest of the industry. It evokes a feeling of trust between Apple and consumers—that when Apple actually reveals a product, it’s something that they’re confident enough to support for years to come.

For the better part of the last century—starting arbitrarily with the 1934 Chicago World’s Fair and its stark, Randian slogan: “Science Finds, Industry Applies, Man Conforms”—the producers of consumer goods have stuck to a basic formula: Show off a prototype; gauge public response; then release a commercial product that is less ambitious, if released at all.

It worked in part because it told a compelling story. “Here is what the future looks like; and here’s an intermediate step towards that future that you can buy today.” Electronics’ sister industries followed the same tack. Car shows were populated with prismatic concept cars hewn with non-Euclidean angles rotating on raised daises. Videogame tech demos showed graphics too impossible to believe, but entrancing enough to betray our better judgment.

But in Jobs’ encore performance, Apple has changed the routine.

Outwardly Apple’s showmanship is competent, workmanlike. Jobs-as-performer wears an understated uniform that does not distract from the act. His humor, when it exists, is subtle. The closest an Apple keynote gets to pomp are pie charts that look like wooden logs.

Yet when Jobs reveals the company’s next product, there’s a critical difference: It exists. When possible, it is available for retail purchase the same day. There are few maybes or eventuallys tempering the presentation: “Here is the tiny miracle we’ve created. We want to sell it to you today.”

As a counter-example, let me pick on Lenovo for a moment: At CES this year, they showed off the Ideapad U1 prototype, a netbook with a screen that could be decoupled from the keyboard to operate as a multitouch tablet. Clever idea, seemingly well considered and brain-bendingly not available for purchase today.

Do you see the story that Lenovo is spoiling for themselves? First, they’ve deprecated the imagined utility of every other laptop they sell without the flashy removable tablet screen. Yet they’ve also whispered a nervous apology to potential customers: “We could make something this cool, but we’re not so confident in our plans to fully commit to them. Maybe you could tell us if you think you’d like this trick?”

Lenovo might make the U1. They might sell a few units. But simply by revealing it before it was a living, breathing SKU on retail shelves, they’ve relegated it to a quirky sideshow.

See also: The Chevy Volt, announced so long ago that GM has gone through a bankruptcy and shotgun CEO transition without actually being available for sale. Bet those will be flying off the lots.

Some of Apple’s peers understand the need to manage expectations. Have you ever seen RIM show off a BlackBerry prototype? What about Nintendo? They don’t pull a Microsoft-like move of showing very early-stage products to reporters and potential customers. They simply pull out a Wii or a DS and say, “This is it. Give it a try.”

Everybody loves a prototype. Engineers get a chance to strut their stuff. If you’ve got a 40-inch OLED TV in a lab somewhere, bring it to your trade show. Executives take pride in their company’s technical prowess. Marketers get an excuse to throw an even fancier party. And customers and press get idyll fodder for a daydream.

None of those things equal units sold. None of those things turn a customer into an ardent fan.

That an industry exists around rumors and leaks for unreleased products may be useful to Apple, but it is a side-effect of their product strategy, not the basis of their marketing. Consider that when Apple finally does release a product, the marketing tends to showcase the device itself in clear, comprehensible ways. Apple isn’t shy to make claims about the grandiose, epiphanal nature of its products because—whether they pull it off or not—they have built a culture in which every product they make is designed to be world class.

Instead of prototypes, Apple makes patents. Although I’m certain Apple would keep these patents behind the curtain if they legally could, their existence proves something amazingly pedestrian: Behind the scenes, Apple is essentially the same sort of company as every other electronics star in the world.

They’re developing prototypes. They’re trying new tricks, seeing what works. They know experimentation is the lifeblood of innovation.

But like the consummate showmen they are, they temper the wooly process of building the future with something missing from nearly every other technology company: restraint. Apple may come off at times as a bit soulless, but at least they’ve got class. And when that class allows them to sell more products that make happier customers, I’ll take class over flash every time.

That the Consumer Electronics Show is held in Vegas is no accident. It’s a derelict spectacle meant to cater to mid-level buyers, gilt with the threadbare trappings of Innovation and Progress, but sending most of its audience home with nothing but a hangover and a t-shirt.

When Apple pulls a tablet out of its hat next week, it’s likely that we won’t be able to purchase it for a couple of months, but rest assured that’s only because of regulatory pitfalls. And besides, there will be no doubt that when Jobs shows us his vision of the future, Apple will be doing everything they can do to get them into our hands.

That’s the trick of it. Consumer audiences have grown wary of nearly a century of predictable sleight-of-hand. We’ve seen too many companies promise us the future, then fail to deliver it.

I believe that there are dozens of companies out there with the talent to pull the future toward us along some retail tesseract. But until they conquer their stage fright, leave aside the vaudevillian antics that savvy, jaded audiences no longer find compelling, and embrace a more honest and practical sort of conjuration, Apple will continue to be the defining technology performance of our age.

3-D Technology Behind Avatar

Posted by Max On January - 23 - 2010 1 COMMENT

James Cameron is stubborn. He decided nearly a decade ago to film his humans-versus-aliens sci-fi adventure Avatar in 3-D, but he refused to start production until technology could convince the viewer that he or she could step through the screen and pick up a bow alongside the Na’vi, the film’s 10-foot-tall, blue, cat-faced alien protagonists.

To give scenes realistic depth, Cameron, who brought a computer-generated liquid-metal T-1000 to life in Terminator 2, and camera whizzes Vince Pace and Patrick Campbell built the Pace/Cameron Fusion Camera System to capture images the same way as a human eye does. Cameron then used a virtual camera to walk—or fly—around in the virtual world to record any shot of the Na’vi that he wanted and combined that with the real-life footage. Here, a guide to making the most convincing 3-D film yet.

Build The Stage: Courtesy Mark Fellman/Twentieth Century Fox

How James Camerson Made a Truly Lifelike 3-D Movie

1. Build the Stage
An array of 72 to 96 cameras, depending on the size of the set, hang around the perimeter of a sound stage and are configured in a grid. Later, a computer replaces the studio walls, floor and ceiling with digitally rendered three-dimensional environments and structures. The grid is also marked on the floor to provide reference within this virtual world.

2. Capture Motion
Actors, weapons and props marked with reflective dots move around the stage while the camera grid tracks only the dots. A computer records the dots’ movement, triangulates their location, and assembles these data points into wire-frame skeletons that in Avatar will be “dressed” with computer-generated Na’vi bodies.

3. Shoot in 3-D

Capture Motion: Courtesy Mark Fellman/Twentieth Century Fox

Next Cameron films the flesh-and-blood characters in 3-D so that they will look at home alongside the Na’vi in the virtual 3-D world. Older 3-D tech used two cameras mounted side by side to create a left eye/right eye effect. Because of their bulk, those cameras were placed far apart and could shoot only straight ahead. The Fusion Camera System has two cameras, but by using small high-definition digital image sensors, the lenses can sit closer together than your pupils. The line of sight of the lenses is adjustable so that, during a shot, they can be angled closer together to focus on nearby objects, or farther apart for those in the distance, just as your eyes do. The system combines the images into a single image with realistic depth.

4. Climb into the Movie
After a computer inserts the motion-capture performances into the digital environment, Cameron carries a virtual camera—an LCD display with buttons and grips similar to a videogame controller—onto the set. As he moves, radio and optical detectors track the camera’s location and relay it to computers offstage, which render the virtual world as viewed from that vantage and send it to the tablet. This allows Cameron to walk through the virtual action to record any shot he wants—he can even set the vantage point to take shots that would require a crane or helicopter. Later, the 3-D footage of human characters can be added to these scenes.

5. Watch It
At RealD 3-D shows, a projector alternately displays the left-eye and right-eye images, each in an oppositely circular polarized direction, 144 times per second. Polarized glasses ensure that each eye sees only the image meant for it.

Climb Into the Movie: Courtesy Mark Fellman/Twentieth Century Fox

PopSci Interview: James Cameron

Behind the 3-D magic is a director who won’t let even the laws of physics get in the way of an epic story

Science Advisers are Annoying:
I have just enough of a science background to get me in trouble. When I’m writing, I’m thinking: What can cause a mountain to float? Well, if it was made out of an almost-pure room-temperature superconductor material, and it was in a powerful magnetic field, it would self-levitate. This has actually been demonstrated on a very small scale with very strong magnetic fields. Then my scientists said, “You’ll need magnetic fields that are so powerful that they would rip the hemoglobin out of your blood.” So I said, “Well, we’re not showing that, so we may just have to diverge a little bit from what’s possible in the physical universe to tell our story.”

But Sometimes Scientists are Useful:
I wanted to put Pandora in the Alpha Centauri star system, but we haven’t found any large planets there. One of my astrophysicists said, “Well, if a planet’s ecliptic was inclined at 60 degrees to our line of sight, then the Doppler method would not work because the planet would perturb [the star] Alpha Centauri A or B on a different axis, and so we wouldn’t be able to see it. You wouldn’t be able to see it using the transit method, either.” So there might be planets there. But you can only have stable orbits out to about 230 million miles from Alpha Centauri A, so your planets have to be close in, blah blah blah. So we went through the steps of creating two possible solar systems there, because it’s a binary star, and gussied it up with technical research.

Audiences Will Like it Anyway:
My goal was to tell an epic story with visual power and to impress the crap out of the audience, like my goal is every time I make a movie. When it comes to the science behind the camera, what it took to produce the images—I think the viewer likes the idea that they’re being shown something new, but I don’t think they really care how you did it. I mean, I’m happy to talk about it, but I don’t think it sells the damn ticket.

    Copyright © 2009 WiredGlitz.com