"How do we advertise our new MacBook Pros?"
"Obviously we start with malfunctioning light bulbs."
"Oh, of course! And they need to be in a line, too!"
"Exactly. People won't be able to see this ad and think anything but 'MacBook Pro with Touch Bar'."
All I got out of the ad (saw it last night) was that things (light bulbs) break.
I suspect that the irony of that was lost on them.
In watching the ad again (now), where I think the ad failed is:
* Too much lightbulbs ... not enough of the "change" paradigm.
* The change paradigm didn't show change, because they were disjointed.
For example, instead of just one telephone shot, give us an ancient telephone, followed by a rotary phone, followed by a touch phone, followed by an iPhone --> illustrate the advancement.
Ditto for airplanes & all of the other examples. A delta wing jet has no context without the Wright Flier.
-hh
[doublepost=1479483890][/doublepost]
$4 tiny inline highly rated USB C to USB A adapters are certainly available...
$4? So then why aren't these being sold in the Apple Store?
Is it an example of
Courage to only sell the $25 ones?
-hh
[doublepost=1479484172][/doublepost]
Also, for those who don't get it: The lightbulbs were "ideas". Each one exploded in the past by a newer idea.
But... Thomas Edison had hundreds of "exploding bulbs" ... these were his
failures.
If you're going to use a lightbulb paradigm, a better idea is a lightbulb that works better in some way, such as by being
brighter, not by going dark.
That's why in my interpretation their "exploding bulbs" represents failure.
-hh