San Francisco vs. New York

People like to compare NY and SF and having lived in both, I actually think they are more similar than most people give them credit. It's just that New York is the larger of the two and so gets pulled up to the ranks of London, Paris, Tokyo and Los Angeles.

Three years ago, there was an excellent post that compared New York neighborhoods to San Francisco ones. While some of the equivalencies felt a little forced, I thought many of them were spot on, e.g. Park Slope = Noe Valley. I would compare the gay Polk Street corridor to the West Village, especially Christopher Street but that's all I would really change.

There was quite a bit of disdain for this exercise, with many exclamations that no where in New York could possibly be compared to rinky-dink San Francisco because it's soooo much bigger. This supposition is not quite true.

People tend to forget that MANHATTAN is relatively small in terms of RESIDENT population – only about 1.5 million people live there. The parts that most people refer to – south of 125th – would be more comparable to San Francisco. People perceive Manhattan to be larger than it is because every day over 8 MILLION people commute into the enormous midtown and downtown business districts from all over the metro area. If Manhattan were set up solely for its' resident population, the scale of the city would be smaller than it is. San Francisco’s workday population merely doubles the city’s size and it’s concentrated in the Financial District and SoMa.

Another thing is both Brooklyn and Queens dwarf Manhattan in terms of population. They each top out at over 2 million with Brooklyn being the largest of the two at 2.5 million. With that in mind, Brooklyn is more comparable to the entire urban East Bay shoreline before the tunnels vs. just Oakland.

Apple v. Google

The geeks are going crazy over the recent Apple sly backhand of Google by restricting manufacturers of hardware or software platforms from obtaining analytics from AdMob advertising. For those who don't know, AdMob places text ads in applications that devs use to earn advertising revenue and help pay for development. This new rule is directed at Google, of course, because they just acquired AdMob. The cries of indignation have been amusing:

Anti-trust violations! Anti-competitive practices! Evil empire! If Microsoft did this...!

If you want to hate Apple, go ahead and hate them. But hate them for valid reasons, not spin disguised as a reason.

As I have posted on several blogs, there's a simple reason why Apple did this Google. Apple blocked Google from harvesting sensitive information about Apple's customer base. Pure and simple.

What people don't realize is AdMob is able to capture quite a lot of information about iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad users through advertising, such as user ID, location, demographics, time spent in app, and other apps on the device. In fact, AdMob has been able to discern new device specifications based on the network presence of equipment in testing. It captures all of this data to serve up more effective advertising but it can also be used to provide a competitor with valuable usage and equipment data.

Why would Apple hand over sensitive behavioral information to a competitor? No smart company would do that.

Apple has no problem with AdMob. Its' presence has underwritten free/low-cost apps in the App Store. But now that AdMob is part of Google, this data treasure-trove has to be turned off. That's why Apple created iAd – to offer developers a means to continue to offer free/low-cost advertising without the risk of sensitive information falling into the wrong hands.

Of course Google/AdMob is angry; they make a lot more money off the iOS platform which has far greater market share than Android devices. I'm sure they could have made a lot more by selling integrated advertising – desktop and mobile alike. But to paint Apple as Godzilla trampling the rights of users, developers and advertisers alike is hyperbole. You don't give your enemies the keys to your castle. User data is one of those keys.

I do want to address the Microsoft angle. Whether we like it or not, Apple has proven to be a far better steward of privacy than most people give it credit. Private browsing has been part of Safari for a long time, before it was fashionable. Unlike other phones, the GPS function in iPhones is off by default and users must explicitly provide permission to turn it on. Things such as viruses and other information harvesting bugs occur far less frequently on the Apple platform. Apple hasn't sold its' customer list' to millions of spammers nor does it change its' privacy rules every few months. Microsoft has made and continues to make so many security gaffes, one would look askance at promises to 'keep information private.' Google has made a number of well-publized errors – Google Buzz, Wifi location harvesting etc. I'm glad Apple takes security seriously.

So let the moaners moan. I'm sure the FTC will find that Apple has done nothing wrong. AdMob isn't banned; they are simply restricted from harvesting sensitive data. I don't mind.

Another day, another agency

Mitsubishi selects 180/LA in Santa Monica for creative duties. It will be interesting to see what they come up with that hasn't been done in the past.

Font Joy - Sirba

Reminds me of Stone Serif with a little more weight to it.

Hat tip [Typography Unlimited]

iPhone 4

Is it as revolutionary as the first one? No. Is it a vast revolution from the 3GS? No. Is it awesome? Yes.

There are three things that I'm most looking forward to with this new iPhone.

1. Sharper screen. I think this will make reading a much more enjoyable experience.
2. Improved camera. Flash is probably the most important addition here but I'm also looking forward to the improved resolution, clarity and the dual lens. HD recording doesn't hurt.
3. Three-way Gyroscope. Finally the iPhone will have the hardware that will make games like Super Monkey Ball an enjoyable experience.

There are many (many) people who will dismiss these improvements as things that have been available on other platforms. Very true. But there's no arguing with Apple's installed base. And developer base. Once devs optimize their software for the improved hardware, there's no telling what could come about.

Beautiful lounge

I haven't posted much furniture lately. Here's a lounge chair that I really like, constructed from recycled and certified sustainable wood. The designer is Paolo Alves for Marcenaria.

Hat tip [Trendir]

Packaging - the unsung hero

I love Method. I use their bathroom and cleaning wipes and their hand soaps. I haven't strayed from my beloved Tide to try their relatively new laundry detergent but I may give it a shot. I love their commitment to the environment, their light natural scents, and most of all, their efficacy.

One of the directors of industrial design at Method wrote a great article for dieline, a packaging blog that I follow and have cited here from time to time. So many companies treat packaging as that thing that you bung the product into before getting it out the door. Method took the opposite tack, creating a breath of fresh air on crowded drug store and supermarket shelves all over the country. I suggest you read Joshua Handy's article. His point is that packaging is often created by 'best practice,' which leads to duplicating all the wrong things and throwing out the good stuff.

To me the money quote is:

My experience has taught me that effective packaging has three dimensions that need to be equally considered: Beauty, Functionality and Responsibility. Traditional “best practice” emphasizes the functional aspect over all others, which is why most packaging is ugly both aesthetically and environmentally.

Great read.

Crowd sourcing = committee thinking?

Call me crazy but I always thought that committee thinking was a bad thing. It tends to lead to weak advertising and uninspired product development. Agencies and partners have been railing against 'the committee' for years.

So it's a bit odd to hear companies going 'ga-ga' over crowd-sourcing – or as I like to call it, letting consumers dictate your product or creative strategy because you have run out of ideas.

I know there are a lot of smart people out there that do not work in the marketing communications field. Harnessing their brains is to be encouraged. But if 'the crowd' is the idea, then it's not a sustainable one. Are clients willing to pay their ad agencies to manage their accounts if every major ad is outsourced to 'the crowd?' What about product development?

I fear crowd-sourcing is going to go the way of the customization craze. Brands everywhere tossed consumers a bone under the guise of 'having it their way,' such as changing the color of one's yogurt. The reality is infinite options and economies of scale tend to be fight against one another.

Before I come off as a total grump, crowd-sourcing has a role in certain spheres, such as refining concepts or troubleshooting. But there comes a point when it's simply 'committee thinking' with a fancy 'web 2.0' name.