• Home
  • about this blog
  • Blog Posts

Parasam

Menu

  • design
  • fashion
  • history
  • philosophy
  • photography
  • post-production
    • Content Protection
    • Quality Control
  • science
  • security
  • technology
    • 2nd screen
    • IoT
  • Uncategorized
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Recent Posts

    • Take Control of your Phone
    • DI – Disintermediation, 5 years on…
    • Objective Photography is an Oxymoron (all photos lie…)
    • A Historical Moment: The Sylmar Earthquake of 1971 (Los Angeles, CA)
    • Where Did My Images Go? [the challenge of long-term preservation of digital images]
  • Archives

    • September 2020
    • October 2017
    • August 2016
    • June 2016
    • May 2016
    • November 2015
    • June 2015
    • April 2015
    • March 2015
    • December 2014
    • February 2014
    • September 2012
    • August 2012
    • June 2012
    • May 2012
    • April 2012
    • March 2012
    • February 2012
    • January 2012
  • Categories

    • 2nd screen
    • Content Protection
    • design
    • fashion
    • history
    • IoT
    • philosophy
    • photography
    • post-production
    • Quality Control
    • science
    • security
    • technology
    • Uncategorized
  • Meta

    • Register
    • Log in
    • Entries feed
    • Comments feed
    • WordPress.com

Browsing Category design

Branding: my comments on possession of ‘mind share’

September 20, 2012 · by parasam

[Note:  I will be using names, logos, service marks, trade marks, etc. of various companies as ‘fair-use’ examples in this essay. The individual marks are owned and copyrighted by their respective owners, and should be respected as such. No association is implied or intended between myself and any of the aforementioned companies.]

Overview

I’m writing this article as a commentary on how I see the issue of “branding” has become so pervasive in our lives, affecting the design and manufacture of most things that we buy, and more importantly, how I see “branding” vie for a share of our minds, how we think and perceive reality around us, and how we make decisions. I believe that this trend has overstepped logic, rational thought, common sense and even good business sense. I will present a brief history, some examples of current practice, and summarize with some observations.

Brand {definition}

According to Webster, a brand is:

  • a mark made by burning with a hot iron to attest manufacture or quality or to designate ownership
  • a printed mark made for similar purposes
  • a mark put on criminals with a hot iron
  • a mark of disgrace
  • a class of goods identified by name as the product of a single firm or manufacturer
  • an arbitrarily adopted name that is given by a manufacturer or merchant to an article or service to distinguish it as produced or sold by that manufacturer or merchant and that may be used and protected as a trademark
  • one having a well-known and usually highly regarded or marketable name

The American Marketing Association Dictionary defines brand as:

  • a “Name, term, design, symbol, or any other feature that identifies one seller’s good or service as distinct from those of other sellers.”

History

The word “brand” is derived from the Old Norse brandr meaning “to burn.” It refers to the practice of producers burning their mark (or brand) onto their products.

The oldest known generic brand in the world is Chyawanprash, च्यवनप्राश – which describes a jam-like mixture of approximately 45 herbs, spices and other ingredients. It has been in continuous use in India and other areas since the Vedic period, about 10,000 years ago. Indian historical evidence shows that this formulation was originally prepared, according to Ayurvedic tradition, by the ‘Royal Vaids’, named ‘Ashwini Kumar brothers’, the twins, who were medical advisers to Devas for Chyawan Rishi at his ashram near Narnaul, Haryana, India – which is where the name Chyawanprash derives. The first historically documented formula for Chywanprash was found in the Ayurvedic treatise Chakara Samhita. The current annual market for this product is about $80million US.

Other early ‘branding’ examples include the use of watermarks on paper by the Italians in the 1200s, the use of distinctive signatures by artists during the Renaissance (1500s), and the branding of cattle and criminals with hot iron tools (1800s). There is other evidence of ‘marking’ or ‘branding’ such as potter’s marks on porcelain and pottery in China, India, Greece and Italy as long ago as 1300 BCE; some early reporting of livestock branding dating back to 2000 BCE [no physical evidence survives today to assert this]; and some archeologists believe that the Babylonians used advertisements as long ago as 3000 BCE. So, for common discussion, the concept of branding has been around for the last 5,000 – 10,000 years – hardly an invention of Madison Avenue.

In terms of slightly more modern expressions of branding, the idea of permanence has long been associated with the concept of a brand – the use of a hot iron to burn a brand into the hide of cattle or the skin of a criminal was considered technologically advanced at that time. For instance, in England during the late Renaissance and right up the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (1600s – 1800s) criminals were frequently branded with a letter on the cheek [for men] or on the breast [for women]. V was used for being convicted of the ‘crime’ of being a vagabond or a gypsy, F for “fravmaker” [brawler or troublemaker], S for a runaway slave. M for malefactor, etc. France used iconographic brands such as the fleur-de-lis on the shoulder. In the American Colonies the branding of suspected/convicted adulterers with the letter A was common practice. The Puritans of that time were not known for their objectivity or legal accuracy, so the brand unfortunately ruined the lives of many based on conjecture and supposition. (And we’ll leave the issue of witches and early Massachusetts alone for now…)  The novel “The Scarlet Letter” is based in part on this most unfortunate part of early American history.

The ‘branding’ of humans with permanent marks also uses the technology of the tattoo, as opposed to burning. While this practice was also used by many governments to mark ‘criminals’ – perhaps the most notorious of which was the ‘prisoner serial number’ at Auschwitz – by far the larger use of tattoos has been by the individuals themselves, either as an expression of body art or alignment with a group/gang. I will address this form of branding further later in this article.

Although we often associate the branding of cattle with the “wild west” of America during the 1800s, this practice predates US cowboys by at least 3,500 years. Nevertheless, it is one area where this ‘hot iron’ method is still practiced today. The cattle still don’t seem to like it much. With the advent of modern technology, this may finally be changing, as various methods of alternative marking are being tested. Embedded chips, long-range RFID tags and other devices that can be read from a vehicle or airplane are much more useful for automatic counting and tracking of livestock than chasing down an otherwise uninterested cow to look at the burn mark on its hind quarter. In theory, using buried detector cables, Wi-Max and other combinations of modern technology, virtual fences may be a possibility, with real-time maps showing each rancher where their livestock is at any time, and allowing easy sorting and retrieval for breeding, medical treatment or harvesting.

As we moved into the 1800s, most parts of the modernizing world started to make rapid use of marking or branding. Silver and gold smiths, book publishers, manufactured goods – the list gets long very quickly. In the UK for example, Bass & Co [brewery] claims their red triangle brand as the world’s first trademark. Lyle’s Golden Syrup, with their green-and-gold packaging – unchanged since 1885 – claims status as Britain’s oldest brand. All of this was done for various reasons.

To the proponents of branding (marketing oriented people, and obviously many consumers), the reasons commonly listed are:  to ensure honesty, provide quality assurance, identify source or ownership, hold producers responsible, and differentiate one product over another.

Current Practice and Effects of Branding

The current use of ‘brands’ is primarily commercial in nature: to increase or maintain sales and market share of a product or a service. The practice and concepts associated with branding are typically overseen by the marketing department of companies that own or manage such brands. From the point of view of brand owners/users, the following elements are often associated with the practice:

  • A brand is the personality that identifies a product, service or company.
  • The brand experience is the experiential aspect of the points of contact with a brand; the perception of a brand’s action or function.
  • The brand image is the psychological aspect of the brand within the mind of the user/consumer. This is a symbolic construct composed of thoughts, information and expectations of the branded product/service.
  • A brand is one of the core elements in an advertising campaign, as it is often the identifier used to relate a particular product, model, individual service, etc. with the larger commonality of the company.
  • The art and business of creating and maintaining a brand is known as brand management.
  • Focusing of the entirety of a business or organization is called brand orientation.
  • A brand which is widely known in the marketplace has achieved brand recognition. Examples are Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Mercedes, Luis Vuitton, etc.
  • A brand franchise is an achievement of successful branding such that a large positive sentiment is generally held towards the brand and the associated product/service. For example, a Ferrari is known as a “hip, cool, fast, desirable car” – whether or not an individual can afford either the car, mechanics or insurance.
  • Brand awareness is the impression that is instilled into a customer or user of a brand, such that they will recognize and link the brand to the underlying company or set of products/services. It involves both brand recognition and brand recall. Brand awareness is considered critical by marketers as consumers won’t consider your brand if they are unaware of it in the first place. Typically, brand awareness is promoted by repeated indoctrination of the consumer with a combination of brand name, logo, jingles, taglines, etc. to reinforce the awareness of the brand and associate it with a particular product or class of products.
  • The “Holy Grail” of brand awareness for a firm is called Top-of-Mind Awareness. This is when a consumer is asked without any external prompting which brand they associate with a particular product, an example might be “Kleenex” if asked about a brand association for facial tissues.
  • Aided Awareness occurs when a prompt such as a list of brands is shown to a consumer, and they express recognition or awareness of your brand once this memory aid has been provided.
  • Strategic Awareness is the combination of Top-of-Mind Awareness coupled with the belief by the consumer that this brand is superior to other brands in the marketplace for similar products or services.
  • The elements that typically comprise a ‘brand experience’ often include some or all of the following:
    • Name – identifying word or words of the product, service, company.
    • Logo – visual glyph or symbol that is associated with the brand.
    • Graphics – associated graphical elements that often supplement the name or logo to create a unique visual reminder that helps to visually associate the brand with the underlying product/service.
    • Tagline – a short phrase often used in advertising, and repeated on product packaging, that is used primarily for memory association of the brand.
    • Shapes – certain product shapes are often associated (and patented/trademarked/etc) with particular products. Examples might be Coca-Cola bottle, the iPod and the Hershey’s Chocolate Bar.
    • Colors – certain colors or color schemes can be associated (and protected if you have good enough lawyers and patent attorneys) with products. Examples are the red-soled shoes of Christian Louboutin, the distinctive pink color of Owens-Corning fiberglass insulation.
    • Sounds – similar to a jingle or a catchphrase, a short melodic tune can be trademarked to a particular brand: the NBC tv network’s ‘chimes’ when the animated logo is displayed; the “5 beeps” of the Close Encounters of the Third Kind’s alien spaceship; etc.
    • Scents – an example is the unique fragrance of Chanel No. 5 perfume: the top notes of aldehydes, bergamot, lemon, neroli and ylang-ylang; the heart of jasmine, rose, lily of the valley and iris; the base of vetiver, sandalwood, vanilla, amber and patchouli.
    • Taste – as noted in the introductory history to branding in this article, Chayawanprash is an Indian paste of typically 45 spices; another example is Kentucky Fried Chicken (not as healthy as Chayawanprash..) with its “11 Herbs & Spices”.
    • Movements – even the directional movement of a car door can be trademarked – as Lamborghini has done with its upward-swinging doors.
  • A Global Brand is one that represents a similar product or service no matter where it is sold. We see this more commonly now that both the internet and global consumption of products and services has proliferated. Some examples are:  Nike, Adidas, Mastercard, Facebook, Google, Apple, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Mercedes, VISA, Gap, Sony, etc.
    • The practice of global branding is somewhat new, and brings both advantages and challenges. Obviously this is only attractive to those that market in a global way, but that does not mean that only huge multi-national corporations should think in terms of global branding. If one offers a service over the internet, you are immediately exposed (potentially) to a global market. Even this blog is currently being read by 20,000 people in over 100 countries (Thank you all my readers by the way! Your interest and comments are what sustains my writing…)
    • Some advantages of global branding are:
      • Economy of scale (lower marketing, production and distribution costs)
      • Worldwide consistency of brand images
      • Increased exposure to media (international press as well as domestic)
      • Attractiveness to international travellers, both business and pleasure – as people show a preference for buying what they know as opposed to unknowns.
      • Potential of leveraging current domestic market share into international markets, even if your product is relatively new or unknown in those global markets.
    • Some of the challenges are:
      • All wording (company slogan, name, product names, description of services, etc.) must be thoroughly reviewed and translated for each global market segment. This must be revisited frequently, as language, custom and mores change quickly today. A seemingly innocuous tagline from two years ago could have an entirely different association in a region where recent political instability may have changed the landscape of expression.
      • The infamous product name of the Chevy Nova – when it was exported to Mexico without a thorough vetting of the model name meaning – should be remembered: “No Va” means “Doesn’t Go” in Spanish – probably not the best name for a car…
        • the Audi “E-Tron”… étron means “excrement” in French
        • Hulu [tv network] translates to “butt” in Indonesian
        • SyFy [tv network] means “syphilitics” in Polish
        • Gerber [baby food] translated to French means “vomit”
        • WaterPik [electric toothbrush] means [roughly] “morning wood” in Danish… (I’m trying to be somewhat PC here…)
        • Mensa [group of supposedly really smart people] translates to “stupid woman” {Spanish slang}
      • Different cultures communicate differently, so marketing material, focus and visual tone may have to differ from area to area
      • Different locales place varying levels of importance on products and services, so a differentiating factor in the USA may not be appreciated in Nigeria.
      • Regulatory issues, local legislation (most important with medicines, foodstuffs and products that carry liability issues [cars, boats, planes, structural elements, etc.]) must be considered carefully. All of these issues tend to counteract savings that may otherwise result from scale.
      • Consumption patterns can vary widely for both products and services.
  • A Brand Name is arguably the most important feature or aspect of an overall brand. Often this is first element of a brand that is trademarked, servicemarked, etc. Brand names come in a wide variety of styles, some of the common ones are:
    • Acronym Adaptation:  IBM, UPS, NBC, CBS, etc.
    • Descriptions:  Whole Foods, Best Buy, New Balance, etc.
    • Alliterations and rhymes:  Bed, Bath & Beyond, Coca-Cola, Spic and Span, Krispy Kreme (alliterations) [actually Krispy Kreme is also an oxymoron, Spic and Span is also reduplication]; Reese’s Pieces, YouTube, Lean Cuisine, Mellow Yellow (rhymes)
    • Evocative imagery:  Amazon, Crest, BlueSky, RedBull
    • Neologisms: (made up words)   Kodak, Wii, Accenture, Brangelina, webinar, Frisbee, Xerox, etc.
    • Foreign words:  Volvo (at least here the marketers got it right, it’s Spanish for “I roll”), Samsung (Korean for “Three Stars”), Häagen-Dazs (sounds Scandinavian but the ice cream was invented by Polish Jews in the Bronx…) [BTW it’s now owned by Pillsbury]
    • Combination:  Walkman
    • Tautology:  Crown Royal
    • Theronym:  Mustang  [a theronym is a name derived from an animal name, not Charlize Theron…]
    • Mimetics:  Google  [mimetics is the practice of mimicry, in this case to stare ‘google-eyed’ at something to better understand it]
    • Eponym:  Trump Tower
    • Synecdoche:  Staples
    • Metonomy:  Starbucks
    • Allusion:  London Fog
    • Haplology:  Land O’Lakes
    • Clipping:  Fed Ex
    • Morphological borrowing:  Nikon  [morphology of language gives us that the Japanese word Naikan, which is pronounced Nikon… – and the meaning of Naikan is a spiritual state of gratitude, even for small things – such as when you push a shutter button you get a great picture…]
    • Omission:  RAZR
    • Founder’s Names:  Porsche, Ferrari, Hewlett-Packard
    • Geography:  Cisco, Fuji Film
    • Personification:  Nike, Betty Crocker [no such woman, William Crocker was an advertising executive at Washburn/Crosby who thought this up, using the first name Betty because it ‘was a cheery, All-American name’.]
  • The concept of a brandnomer is highly desired, where Top-of-Mind association leads people to refer to a general class of products by a brand name. Examples are Band-Aid for an adhesive bandage, Kleenex as facial tissue, SkilSaw for a rotary hand-held electric saw, etc.
  • The concept of brand identity, particularly visual brand identity, has become paramount in the ecosystem of marketing, branding and intellectual property ownership. Many corporations now issue very detailed manuals on the correct usage of their visual brands, down to precise measurements of placement on written or screen material, etc. The courts are continually littered with ongoing process of various firms either suing each other over alleged violations of branding, or attempting to establish ownership over some aspect of a visual identity for a new or existing brand.
  • One of the original reasons put forth by early businesses (and this belief is carried into current times) is that a brand implies a certain trust or perception of quality by the consumer. This is getting to the core of what will be discussed further in this post, but advertisers, marketers and even top-level executives of the firms that own major brands view this as vitally important to their bottom line and ongoing customer allegiance. This concept of brand trust is part of what is often called “goodwill” when valuing a firm at a time of sale or stock appraisal. Some companies have been valued far higher than their actual assets or current sales warrant, based strictly on a collective belief in the value of the “goodwill” of that firm, which often include brand value, brand trust and brand identity.
  • The role that brands play in commerce, and cultures at large, have changed considerably since the late 1800s when branding of products started exploding as a practice. Initially, as discussed above, brands were used to help differentiate one similar product from another, with the hope of persuading the consumer that, A) there was in fact a difference at all [which was/is often just not true], and B) that once trust was established for a brand (based on one product) that same firm could trade on that trust and extend whatever consumer belief there was in the original product to a new and different type of product – which may or may not be of similar quality or value. For example {and please note, this is not an accusation or assumption of lack of value, it’s merely an example} that fact that Michelin became known for high quality motorcar tires was no guarantee that in a totally unrelated field (restaurant guides) they would provide an equal value. (Turns out they were correct, and have an excellent reputation for this:  a Michelin “star” is a highly sought-after mark of prestige for a restaurant anywhere in the world).
  • Brands today have become synonymous with the promise of a certain performance, reliability, quality, “cool-ness”, etc., not only for the advertised product, but the company (or organization, country, etc.) behind the product or service. Brands have inexorably become intertwined with politics, economics and social issues. The use of icons, visual identities and short taglines – all the elements of a successful branding campaign – has allowed  ‘branding’ to communicate complex feelings quickly. Brands have often become a shorthand for entire soliloquies on a particular subject. For instance, the term “McMansion” as used by the real-estate industry (originally in Los Angeles) is based on the generic type of food, often in “Super Sizes” that is typical of the McDonald’s chain to refer to a generic, over-sized house that is usually stuffed onto a lot that is proportionally too small for a home of that size. This somewhat pejorative derivation of a well-known brand in one sector has now been translated to completely different sector, and is often used in social commentary.
  • Modern branding is now a complex exercise that combines virtually all the senses, psychology, linguistics, cultural analysis, BigData, focus group testing, etc. We now have new buzz-words even in the esoteric world of branding (which as you have seen already in this article delves into the arcane sciences of words, glyphs, meaning and more than one ever thought possible). Such concepts as attitude branding [where the brand no longer represents a single product or service, but the entire ‘feeling’ behind the type of person that would consume such a product or service], and iconic branding [where the goal is for the consumer of such brands to self-identify with the brand to the point of using a brand to express personal identity and the preferred mode of self-expression] are now pervasive. For example, many consumers of Apple products (computers/phones) or Harley-Davidson (motorcycles) are often unreasonably attached to those brands, and view themselves as a particular type of person just because they use those products.

    • The consumer/user behavior of iconic brands is interesting, and worthy of a bit of additional analysis. One of the reasons is that people who use / identify with / consume iconic brands are the most loyal and exhibit two other tendencies that make this group exceptionally valuable to the brand owner:  1) very low ‘churn’ factor [they don’t switch brands, even in the face of objective criticism, without tremendous reason]; and 2) they actively proselytize the product/service without any inducement from the brand owner.
    • (Did you ever try to get a die-hard Mac user to switch back to a PC? Have you approached a guy in leathers on a Harley and suggested that he would be happier on a Suzuki??)
    • Several of the factors that help make a brand ‘iconic’ are:
      • It’s actually got to be a good product/service – the general reputation must uphold this iconic status. It should have a reputation of high quality, with a bit of an esteem factor.
      • There is a story/myth associated with the product/service. Again, like actual quality, the story has to be believable (I didn’t say real…) and cohesive with the product/service. For example, the stories/myths/perceptions of Steve Jobs filled this requirement for Apple.
      • The brand that wishes to be iconic must provide a solution for pent-up desires (doesn’t actually have to provide these, just appear that it can). Most people are less than totally fulfilled in some area of their lives. If a brand can offer a product or service that helps a person feel like they are overcoming one of those frustrations, they will be incredibly supportive and loyal. (Don’t you just feel more cool when you are typing on a Mac Air as opposed to a desktop PC???)
      • The iconic brand must be continually managed to keep its position in the constant change that inevitably surrounds all modern products/services. (Hmmm… didn’t we just get an iPhone5…)
  • The last area of brand analysis we will touch on here is brand extension and brand dilution. I have lumped them together, since the inappropriate use of the first inevitably results in the second… Once a brand has been established in one area/product, it is often the desire of the brand owner, in search of more… to attempt the success of the brand in other areas. The hope/assumption is that if Hugo Boss makes well-liked men’s clothes that this same cachet can be extended to fragrance, sunglasses, etc. I use this as an example (not picking on dear Hugo, just making an example of the fashion industry where it seems that every designer now can’t just make clothes but must equip us from shoes to hats and everything in between…) as here, more often than most, we see attempts at brand extension actually result in brand dilution. None of the current clothing designers actually make sunglasses. Not one. They are all made in China (or if not the bits are and then assembled in a more ‘respected’ country for purpose of labelling). And from an optical standpoint, they are about as differentiated from one another as one pineapple is from another.This is not to say at all that brand extension doesn’t work – just that the brand owner should actually treat a new venture as just that, and almost resist ‘carrying over’ the hard-won success of a current brand to a new segment. There are certainly many success stories (the example of Michelin that I used earlier is one that comes to mind, another [oddly enough another tire maker] is the iconic calendar of Pirelli which features some of the most prestigious fashion models and photographers vying each year to model/shoot for this event).

Observations on the Psychology of Branding

There is an interesting novel written by William Gibson, “Pattern Recognition”, [which I highly recommend, not only for the actual subject and story, but Gibson is a master storyteller, and just the act of digesting words so well laid down on the page is worth one’s time], which I bring to your attention not for the main story (go read it for that answer) but for part of the subtext: the protagonist of the story, Cayce Pollard, is “brand-phobic”. What’s fascinating is the level to which she attempts to be ‘un-branded’ – and just how obscenely difficult that is in modern times.

Here’s a challenge. Just spend a few minutes looking around right now in your immediate surroundings, and see if anything, anything at all, doesn’t have a brand mark on it somewhere. Usually in such a place that it cannot be easily removed/covered, etc. I’ll play guinea pig for a minute right now:  my keyboard is Kensington, as is the trackball. The graphics tablet is Wacom, computer is Dell, monitor is Eizo – all of which have logos and names baked in to the surface. No chance of ‘brand X’ here… If we move on to clothes, car, backpack, luggage, etc. etc. – well you get the picture. We live today in a completely branded environment. It is truly impossible to hide from branding. Part of the reason for this is that ‘brand marks’ have now been extended not just to names and logos, but actual colors, shapes, and even “look and feel” of software. In fact, the motivating factors that propelled me to write this treatise were the recent decisions of patent courts to award Louboutin the sole right (okay, really no pun intended, it just came out of my fingers that way – I write these blogs ‘live’ – i.e. directly online, very little editing – just a quick spell/grammar check and push the button – that’s what a blog is for me) to use the color red on the bottom of his shoes. The only exception granted to Yves St. Laurent (the challenger) was if the shoe is all red. So YSL gets to keep red soles on their red shoes, otherwise – if you see those flashy red contrasting soles on 6″ heels, you know it’s a set of pricy Loubs… The other two recent decisions that factored into my motivation were Lululemon (fashion again, against Calvin Klein – for yoga pants design) and Apple (the infamous case with Samsung which stung Samsung to the iTune of $1.5B).

All three of these cases had a couple of rather new features to the ‘win’:  the ‘brand mark’ was intrinsic to the actual design – this is a watershed statement by the courts, with many ramifications; and the ‘wins’ all went to the defenders (i.e. the designers that first came up with the designs). What this can be construed to mean is that new challengers to a market segment now have even a harder time ahead when desiring to upseat an established rival:  your design better not be anything close at all to what’s out there, or you will be spending time and considerable cash in court instead of on a marketing campaign.

But all this is just the surface, and not really the most important aspect of our current ‘branded’ reality. The more insidious aspect of this is how these companies fight, and win, our actual ‘mindshare’. We have now become so embedded with the constant barrage of branding that we have sublimated it – exactly where the brand owners want it! The last thing any brand owner wants is for a consumer to start thinking. Because then we might actually ask ourselves: is a Chevy truck really better than a Ford? Does it do more? At the end of the day, does any basic truck allow me to put a few hundred pounds of stuff in the back from the local hardware store and bring it home? How many of those tricked out gas monsters jacked up on 8 shocks and balloon tires (for the difficult to navigate off-road experience of Sunset Blvd.) that can – according to the tv ads – actually pull a jet airplane away from the gate really carry more than beer and groceries and an occasional box of bits from the DIY store? The most useful aspect of these high ground clearance Prius-eaters I have seen are the contortions – and resultant fashion shows – that result from the girlfriends trying to get in and out of a vehicle that is 4 ft off the ground…

But that’s all somewhat obvious surface commentary. The important, somewhat darker bits, are the subliminal messaging and actual thought patterns that become embedded in our brains. We no longer just put on a pair of jeans. It’s Levis or Sevens or TrueReligion or Calvins or… When you meet a well-dressed woman at a party, and ask her what she’s wearing, the automatic answer is “Oh, I’m in Vera/Burberry/Donna/Michael/whomever tonight.” I guess she assumes we already know she’s wearing a dress… We no longer think objectively – we don’t put on jeans or a shirt of a pair of shoes, we put on our Diesels with a Michael Kors and a pair of Cole Haan’s. We write with a Mont Blanc or an iPad or a Galaxy. We drive a Merc or a Beemer or a Lambo. (or to be egalitarian, Mini, Leaf, Prius). We eat not just a tomatoe, but a local, certified organic, Kenter Farms pineapple Heirloom. We spend time, money, status and nervous energy selecting the ‘best’ wine at a restaurant – when the vast bulk of us can’t tell the difference between a sauvignon blanc and a chardonnay in a blind taste test. Here is something that has been tested many, many times:  take five mid-range lager beers. Pour into identical glasses, let sit for one minute (some say the initial head can be a ‘tell’), then give to a group of die-hard beer drinkers who have strong opinions on Bud/Miller/Amstel/etc. Uh-huh… how many get that one right… (now this is from a dedicated personal set of testing with some of the brightest engineers and scientists that currently work in broadcast and post-production engineering and standards bodies – I mean these people are objective, right???). How about an average of 10%. That’s less than the statistical probability of chance! What our minds tell us is far more potent that reality. In fact, (and this is a discussion for another day) our minds actually make our reality in each moment.

None of the above should be construed to mean that I am against all branding, or that I don’t want companies to be successful in their marketing and sales efforts. What I am asking is for some semblance of objectivity to return to what I see as an imbalanced system. We are so focused on the ‘brand’ that we have lost sight of the product or service. Do we actually examine the stitching on a Kate Spade bag to see if it’s even? Do we compare the fit of the doors to the surrounding body on a Mercedes vs a BMW vs and Audi? Can we tell if organically raised asparagus by monks in Mendocino tastes better than what’s at Safeway? I’m not saying one or the other – but do we look? Do we see? Do we taste? Do we discern and formulate our own opinions?

Imagine this scenario:  a woman goes into the shop to buy jeans. There are no brand names. The pocket designs, attractive as they may be, are unknown to her in terms of an identifiable brand. How will she choose? She would actually have to look at quality of construction, try them on, feel the denim, see if the legs work with her calves, her thighs, her shoes. All of this can be done, but the biggest issue – that can’t be solved with examination, fit or feel: what will her friends think? How will she know if she is wearing ‘cool’ or ‘yesterday’? What if it didn’t matter…

We are so brand-focused today that we let the brands think for us:  we assume that if it’s a BMW that it’s a good car. We assume that if we pay $50 for a bottle of wine it must be good (don’t get me started: the absolute worst offenders on the planet, in terms of branding, brand extension, etc. are the wine farms and distributors. I love wine and respect the incredible effort and experience it takes to make good wine – but the marketing and distribution of this substance makes Barnum & Baily look like saints…) We have collectively abdicated our reasoning, observations, and critical thinking to the marketing departments of those who make products and services. We need to reclaim some of our own decision-making power.

So far, most of this article has focused on commercial products and services. However, the most important aspect of branding, in my opinion, is when these same techniques are applied to other areas – ones that have the capability to impact far more than our choice of a computer, phone or car: things like politics, religion, intelligence, health, sexual proclivity and so on. I would now like the reader to go back to the section above on iconic branding – but this time re-read this with the point of view of a particular religion as an ‘iconic brand’. Do any of the points raised ring a bell?

  • An iconic brand user won’t switch brands, even when faced with objective evidence that should spawn reconsideration.
  • An iconic brand user will often proselytize the brand, even without inducement of the brand owner.
  • At some point, the iconic brand had to offer ‘good’ and have some esteem amongst a population.
  • There must be a story or myth associated with an iconic brand, and it must be believable to at least some degree.
  • The iconic brand must offer the hope of fulfillment of currently unsatisfied desires, which use/consumption of the brand will provide.
  • The iconic brand must be continually managed to keep it alive as change occurs.

Interesting… and very, very, very profitable for the brand owners. Again, I am using this for analysis and asking ultimately for each human to take command of his or her own thoughts – to be internally responsible for choices of belief – not be a puppet in the hands of any particular religion, software, car, culture, shoes or lingerie. I am not taking any particular religion to task (I do personally not see much use for organized religion, which in my view has very little to do with spirituality, but that is just my own position and I am not arguing that here), but am pointing out that the vast cadre of ‘brand managers’ aka priests, rabbis, pastors, cardinals, sangomas, shamans, etc. do their jobs well, promoting and adapting the ‘iconic brand’ so that it continues to be seen as ‘necessary’ (for ‘saving your soul’, being better than the other tribe, being more likely to get more [fill in the blank] in the next life/heaven/etc. – very convenient that delayed gratification must wait until you are dead where it’s a bit harder to come back to customer service with a complaint about false advertising…)

None of this would be so much of an issue if it merely affected an individual – after all supposedly free choice is what makes us human, right…? But blind belief and adherence to some ‘iconic brands’ can be dangerous. When we are talking Manolos vs Louboutins, the worst that can happen is a catty comment from Joan – when rabid blind belief in certain deities lays waste to millions of lives, that is rather another thing entirely. Now, just to be accurate here:  many, many of the atrocities carried out in the past and present have completely incorrectly used the mantle of religion or other affiliation to attempt to justify just plain criminal or abhorrent sociopathic behavior. It would actually be very good ‘brand management’ if the current brand owners would police this aspect much more rigidly, and disallow the perverted use of supposedly benign deities by those that only aim to disrupt civilization with mayhem and murder.

Brand Trust for the Big Issues

As discussed earlier, one of the major underlying reasons for branding is to establish a sense of trust in the consumer/user of the brand. At the commercial level, firms like Apple, Hermes, Volkswagen, etc. all desire that the consumer will trust their products as being of quality, and that they can expect a continued level of similar form and function from the product in the future. This brand loyalty is incredibly important to the brand owner.

Now, carry this over to branded entities such as political parties, religions, nation-states, cults, social organizations, etc. – and we see that the same issues apply. Whether one expresses brand allegiance to the Democrats or Republicans, Labor or Conservative, ANC or DA – all of these groups wish to instill trust in their brand. They use most of the same advertising techniques that firms such as Ford, Calvin Klein, General Foods or Apple does to inspire loyalty, establish and preserve identity, etc. They all have unique brand names, logos, catchphrases, etc. Some logos of political elements have become so identified with a particular movement that they are ‘super-iconic’ – such as the swastika. That logo is now so identified with the Nazi movement and philosophy of a certain group that it can never again be separated from that meaning. This is the true power of branding – a single graphic element can say so very much. The ‘tagging’ of a synagogue wall with a spray-painted swastika says volumes…

Just as has been posited for brands of cars, clothing or computers, the giving of trust to a brand should be examined, tested and questioned on an ongoing basis. There is nothing at all wrong or illogical about deciding that one prefers Calvin Klein jeans to Diesel: but once trust is given the tendency is to submit to inertia and go back to the same well. We often will stay with a current brand long past the time when perhaps a new analysis should have been performed and another decision taken. Inertia, brand trust (and existing contracts) have kept Blackberry alive far longer than an objective analysis of their performance would have mandated. Often times many people will just drift away from a high level of trust with a brand, but not ‘re-trust’ a competitive brand:  we may find many ‘lapsed’ Catholics – but rather few that switch to either agnosticism or Islam. We are nearing election time here in the US, and a concomitant amount of rabid brand awareness has taken over our airwaves, newspapers and conversations. Wait a couple of years, and the amount of brand allegiance will be much lower, as once again the actuality of political promise fades in the face of reality, coercion, corruption and apathy.

Social organizations that promote one viewpoint or another (whether for/against reproductive rights, gay/lesbian, global warming/cooling, etc/etc) also use the same techniques to gather and keep followers. If one reviews the above list on brand naming techniques (acronyms are big here: PETA, NOW, LGBT, etc), global branding, and so on it can be seen that most social groups have learned quickly from their commercial counterparts. With a little insight, we can see that branding and marketing has become absolutely pervasive in our cultures. And this is world-wide, cuts across all socio-economic groups and affects virtually all groups of people:  children are marketed to with as much fervor as yuppies in search of the next new car.

Personal Branding

We have discussed the issue of branding as it applies to groups, whether these be companies that manufacture goods, provide services, offer a belief structure, purport to provide a better method of government, etc. – but one of the remaining issues is how we brand ourselves. This has two distinctive connotations: actual physical branding (typically with tattoos or piercings/embedded jewelry), and psychological branding. Here I am not discussing alignment with external brands – what we have reviewed above, but something different.

In terms of personal physical branding, while it is true that a number of people will tattoo themselves to state alignment with an external group (gangs, religion, etc.) that is not the focus of this point. This is an individual choice (assuming that the person was afforded choice, as mentioned earlier in this article that has not always been the case) and one must live with that choice. A tattoo does make brand-switching somewhat more of an issue than changing which shoes you wear…  Tattoos are often an expression of rebellion, individual control, etc – they are not ‘mainstream’ – at least in western cultures – and have a high degree of individualism. Many are beautiful and are works of art in their own right. The issue here is not about the practice of tattooing or piercing, but rather the identification or ‘self-branding’ aspect of that choice. These are relatively permanent decisions, and therefore represent the expression of an internal psychological branding that is not transitory. (Well, as always there are exceptions:  the actions of an inebriated sailor on leave  when he inks his current girlfriend’s name on his shoulder may be reviewed later as a less than stellar decision…)

In one way or another, tattoos express a brand alignment that is strong. However, in this case, there is a strength to this choice that all of us could take away and use as a model for other brand decisions. The person that chooses to ink a motif, logo, design, etc. has a strong alignment with whatever that represents to him or her. And (as said, we are not discussing brand marks here that express alignment with well-known external brands) these ‘brands’ are individual. They represent what this person feels, and feels strongly enough to share (with either the world or someone close to them, depending on location of the tattoo…) potentially for the rest of their lives. Not many of us are courageous enough, feel strongly enough about anything, or are committed enough to make that kind of decision.

Now, let’s move on to what I will refer to as ‘the invisible tattoo’ – personal psychological branding that is as permanent, courageous and committed as external ink. This is the rarest form of branding. It is sustained only by strong personal will, continuous and committed choice, and at some level a degree of self-observation / self-honesty. Again, I am not discussing alignment here with any external brand – this is not being a Democrat, wearing Vera Wang or riding a Harley. This topic is referring to the brand of one – yourself. Some questions may make this point a bit more clear:

  • Are your views on (fill in the blank) consistent and strong enough to constitute a brand?
  • Is your personal brand cohesive enough to evoke a feeling, a visual description, etc. in others that interact or see you?
  • Does this personal brand inspire loyalty and respect in others? In other words, put the aspects of branding I originally stated at the beginning of this article to yourself as a gauge, and see what answers you find. Brand image / experience / orientation / recognition, etc.

A final observation:  people who have a strong personal ‘brand’ tend to be strong, powerful people. Writers, scientists, actors, political leaders, etc. do not arrive at those places by accident. The world is too brutal, the pressures too great, for accidental positioning to last more than a minute. No matter whether you like, agree with or support any of their actions or positions, people such as Regan, Newman, Angelina, Einstein, Coelho etc. have/had strong personal brands. You know/knew where they stood, what they felt, what they believed in.

People that have strong personal brands are interestingly enough the least subject to blind allegiance to external brands. They believe in themselves enough to take their own decisions, and whether due to arrogance or internal strength of character, will seldom ‘jump on a bandwagon’ without due consideration. This leads to the end purpose for writing this article: for each reader to take a moment to reconsider his or her own brand, to regain considered choice and not be a lemming to the tide of advertisements and pressure of campaigns for your attention, money and time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to wear Proenza Schouler instead of Brian Atwood – but if done each time as a personal decision based on considered parameters instead of an habitual following it’s a different decision.

In terms of fashion/cars/electronics, it would be nice to see visual corporate branding take a lesser position in terms of design: often now the logo/name/etc has overtaken the actual design of the product. If we all had a stronger personal brand we would possibly not feel as great a need to align/belong to some set of external brands. I for one do not like to wear what are effectively billboards for clothing or accessory manufacturers, and choose to not do so. Yes, it limits some choices, but I find there are more than enough alternatives to satisfy my need for putting on shirts, pants and shoes in the morning.

We as individual people have enormous power if we take it:  if certain branded items stop selling the vendors will very quickly adapt, believe me. If understated became “in” – the market would respond. Ultimately the choice is yours. Take back some power, some individuality, some level of informed choice – whether that be concerning a handbag, belief, social group or car. You’ll be better off for it, and will accrue individuality.

iPhone5 – Part 1: Features, Performance… and 4G

September 16, 2012 · by parasam

[Note: This is the first of either 2 or 3 posts on the new iPhone5 – depending on how quickly accurate information becomes available on this device. This post covers what Apple has announced, along with info gleaned from other technical sources to date. Further details will have to wait until actual phones are shipped, then torn down by specialists and real benchmarks are run against the new hardware and iOS6]

Introduction

Unless you’ve been living under a very large rock, one couldn’t help but hear that Apple has introduced the next version of its iPhone. This article will look at what this device actually purports to offer the user, along with some of my comments and observations. All of these comments are based on current press releases and ‘paper’ information:  the actual hardware won’t release until Sept. 21, and due to high demand, it may take me a bit longer to get one in hand for personal testing. I’ll go into details below, but I don’t intend to upgrade from my 4S at this time. I do have a good relationship with my local Apple business retailer, and my rep will be setting aside one of the new phones for me to come in and play with for a few hours as soon as she has one that is not immediately promised. Currently we are looking at about first week in October – so look for another post then. As of the date of writing (15 Sep) Apple has said their initial online allocation has sold out, so I expect demand to be high for the first few weeks.

Front and Back of iPhone5

The basic specifications and comparisons to previous models are shown below:

Physical Comparison

 

Apple iPhone 4

Apple iPhone 4S

Apple iPhone 5

Samsung Galaxy S 3

     
Height

115.2 mm (4.5″)

115.2 mm (4.5″)

123.8 mm (4.87″)

136.6 mm (5.38″)

     
Width

58.6 mm (2.31″)

58.6 mm (2.31″)

58.6 mm (2.31″)

70.6 mm (2.78″)

     
Depth

9.3 mm ( 0.37″)

9.3 mm ( 0.37″)

7.6 mm (0.30″)

8.6 mm (0.34″)

     
Weight

137 g (4.8 oz)

140 g (4.9 oz)

112 g (3.95 oz)

133 g (4.7 oz)

     
CPU

Apple A4 @ ~800MHz Cortex A8

Apple A5 @ ~800MHz Dual Core Cortex A9

Apple A6 (Dual Core Cortex A15?)

1.5 GHz MSM8960 Dual Core Krait

     
GPU

PowerVR SGX 535

PowerVR SGX 543MP2

?

Adreno 225

     
RAM

512MB LPDDR1-400

512MB LPDDR2-800

1GB LPDDR2

2GB LPDDR2

     
NAND

16GB or 32GB integrated

16GB, 32GB or 64GB integrated

16GB, 32GB or 64GB integrated

16GB or 32GB NAND with up to 64GB microSDXC

     
Camera

5MP with LED Flash + Front Facing Camera

8MP with LED Flash + Front Facing Camera

8MP with LED Flash + 720p Front Facing Camera

8 MP with LED flash + 1.9 MP front facing

     
Screen

3.5″ 640 x 960 LED backlit LCD

3.5″ 640 x 960 LED backlit LCD

4″ 1136 x 640 LED backlit LCD

4.8″ 1280 x 720 HD Super AMOLED

     
Battery

Integrated 5.254Whr

Integrated 5.291Whr

Integrated ?? Whr

Removable 7.98 Whr

     
WiFi/BT

802.11 b/g/n

Bluetooth 2.1

802.11 b/g/n

Bluetooth 4.0

802.11 a/b/g/n

Bluetooth 4.0

802.11 a/b/g/n

Bluetooth 4.0

     

As can be seen from the above chart, the iPhone5 is an improvement in several areas from the 4S, but in pure technological features still is behind some of the latest Android devices. We’ll now go through some of the details, and what they actually may mean for a user.

Case

The biggest external change is the shape and size of the iPhone5: due to the larger screen (true 16:9 aspect ratio for the first time), the phone is longer while maintaining the same width. It is also slightly thinner. The construction of the case is a bit different as well: the iPhone4S used glass panels for the full front and rear; the iPhone5 replaces the rear panel with a solid aluminum panel except for the very top and bottom of the rear shell which remain glass. This is required for the Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and GPS antennas to receive radio signals (metal blocks reception).

There are two major changes in the case design, both of which will have significant impacts to usage and accessories: the headphone/microphone jack has been moved to the bottom of the case, and the docking connector has been completely redesigned: this is now a new proprietary “Lightning” connector that is much smaller. Both of these changes have instantly rendered obsolete all 3rd-party devices that use the docking connector to plug the iPhone into external accessories such as charging bases, car charging cords, clock-radios and HiFi units, etc. While Apple is offering an adaptor cable in several forms, there are serious drawbacks for many uses.

The basic Lightning-to-USB adaptor cable ($19) is provided as part of the iPhone5 package [along with the small charger], if you have other desktop power supplies or chargers, or are fortunate enough to have a car charger that accepts a USB cable (as opposed to a built in docking connector as most do), you can spend the extra cash and still use those devices with the new iPhone5.

Lightning to USB adaptor cable (1m)

For connecting the new iPhone5 to current 30-pin docking connector devices, Apple offers two solutions: a short cable (0.2m – 8″) [$39] or a stub connector [$29]:

Lightning to 30-pin cable (0.2m)

Lightning to 30-pin stub connector

The Lightning-to-USB adaptor is growing scare already:  in the last 48 hours the shipping dates have slipped from 1-2 days to 3 weeks or more. Neither of the Lightning-to-30-pin adaptors has a ship date yet, a rather nebulous statement of “October” is all that is stated on the Apple store. So early adapters of the iPhone5 should expect a substantial delay before they can make use of any current aftermarket devices that use the docking connector. Another issue:  the cost of the adaptors. As part of their incredible branding the closed-universe of Apple/Mac/iDevice, users have been conditioned to paying a hefty premium for basic utility devices as compared to devices that perform the same funtion for other brands such as Android phones. For example, the same phone-to-USB cable (1m) that Apple sells for $19 is available for the latest model Samsung Galaxy S3 for between $6 to $9 at a number of online retailers. It’s very easy to end up spending $100 or more on iPhone accessories just for a case and a few adaptors.

Now let’s get to the real issue of this new Lightning adaptor – even assuming that one can eventually purchase the necessary adaptors shown above. Basically there are two classes of devices that use the docking connector: those that connect via a flexible cable (chargers and similar devices), and those that mechanically support the iPhone with the docking connector, such as clock/radios, HiFi units, audio and other adaptors, phone holders for cars, just to name a few. The old style 30-pin connector was wide enough, along with the mechanical design, to actually support the iPhone with a minimum of external ‘cradle’ to not put undue stress on the connector. The Apple desktop docking adaptor is such an example:

30-pin docking adaptor

The new Lightning connector is so small that it offers no mechanical stability. Any device that will hold the iPhone will need a new design, not only to add sufficient mechanical support to avoid bending or disconnecting the new docking adaptor, but to accomodate the thinner case as well. Here is a small small sample of devices that will affected by this design change:

As can be seen, this connector change has a profound and wide reaching effect. Users that have a substantial investment in aftermarket devices will need to carefully consider any decision to upgrade to the iPhone5. Virtually all of the above devices will simply not work with the new phone, even if the ‘stub adaptor’ was employed. While a large number of 3rd party providers of iPhone accessories will be happy (they can resell the same product again each time a design change occurs), the end user may be less enchanted. Even simple things such as protective cases can not be ‘recycled’ for use on the new phone. I’ll give one personal example: I have an external camera lens adaptor set, the iPro by Schneider. This set of lenses will not work at all with the iPhone5. Not only is the case different (which is critical for mounting the lenses to the phone in precise alignment with the internal iPhone camera), but the current evidence is that Apple has changed the optics slightly on the iPhone5, such that an optical redesign of accessory lenses would be required. A very careful and methodical analysis of the side-effects of potentially upgrading your iPhone should be performed if you own any significant devices that use the docking connector.

The other design change is the movement of the headphone jack to the bottom left of the case. While this does not in and of itself present the same challenges that the docking connector poses, it does have ramifications that may not be immediately apparent. While, for a user that is just carrying the iPhone as a music playback device (iPod-ish use) the headphone cable connected to the bottom is a superior design choice, it once again poses a challenge for any device where the iPhone is physically ‘docked’. The headphone cable is no longer accessible! For instance, with the original iPhone dock, I could be on the phone (using a headphone/microphone cable assembly) and walk to my desk and drop the iPhone in the docking station/charger and keep talking while my depleted battery was now being refueled… no longer… the cable from the bottom won’t allow the phone to be inserted into the docking station…

The bottom line is that Apple has drawn an absolute line in the sand with the iPhone5:  the user is forced to start completely over with all accessories, from the trivial to the expensive. While it is likely that some of the aftermarket devices can be, and will be, eventually adapted to the new case design, there will be a cost in terms of both money and time delay. Depending on the complexity (plastic cases for the iPhone5 will show up in a few months, while hi-end home HiFi units that accept an iPhone may take 6 months to a year to arrive) there will be a significant delay in being able to use the iPhone5 in as ubiquitous manner as all previous iPhones (which shared the same docking and case design).

The last issue to raise in regards to the change in case design is simply the size of the new phone. It’s longer. We’ve already discussed that this will require new cases, shells, etc. – but this will also affect  many ‘fashion-oriented’ aftermarket handbags, belt-cases, messenger bags, etc. With the iPhone being the darling of the artistic, entertainment and fashion groups, many stylish (and expensive) accoutrements have been created that specifically fit the iPhone 3/4 case size. Those too will have to adapt.

Screen

The driving factor behind the new case size is the increase in screen resolution from 960×640 (1:1.50 aspect ratio) to 1136×640 (1:1.77 aspect ratio). The new size matches current HD display aspect ratio of 16:9 (1.77) so movies viewed on the iPhone will correctly fit the screen. With the iPhone4S, which had full technical capability to both shoot and display 1920×1080 (FHD or Full HD), HD movies were either cut off on the left and right side, or letterboxed (black bars at top and bottom of the picture) when displayed. Many Android devices have had full 16:9 display capabilities for a year or more now. Very few technical details have been released so far by Apple on the actual screen, here is what I have been able to glean to date:

  • The touch-screen interface has changed from “on-cell” to “in-cell” technology. Without getting overly geeky, this means that the actual touch-sensitive surface is now built-in to the LCD surface itself, instead of being a separate layer glued on top of the LCD display. This has three advantages:
    • Thinner display
    • Simplifies manufacture, as one less assembly step (aligning and gluing the touch layer)
    • Slightly brighter and more saturated visible display, due to not having a separate layer on top of the actual LCD layer.
  • The color gamut for virtually all cellphone and computer displays is currently the sRGB standard (which itself is a low-gamut color space – in the future we will see much improved color spaces, but for now that is best thing that can economically be manufactured, particularly for mobile devices). None of the current devices fully reproduce the full sRGB gamut, even as limited as it is. But this improvement gets the iPhone that much closer. One of the tests I intend to run when I get my test drive of the iPhone5 is a gamut check with a precision optical color gamut tester.
  • No firm data is available yet, but anecdotal reports, coupled with known ‘side-effects’ of “in-cell” technology, promise a slightly more efficient display, in terms of battery life. Since the LCD display is one of the largest consumers of battery power, this is significant.

Camera(s)

The rear-facing camera (high resolution one that is used for still and video photography) is essentially unchanged. However… there are potentially three small but significant updates that will likely affect serious iPhonographers: 

  1. Though no firm details have been released by Apple yet, when images were taken at the press conference and compared to images taken with an iPhone4S of the same subject from the same position, the iPhone5 images appear to have a slightly larger field of view. This, if accurate, would indicate that the focal length of the lens has changed slightly. The iPhone4S has an actual focal length of 4.28mm (equivalent to a 32mm lens for a 35mm camera); this may indicate the reduction of focal length to 3.75mm (28mm equivalent focal length). There are several strong reasons that support this theory:
    1. The iPhone5 is thinner, and everything else has to accomodate this. A shorter focal length lens allows the camera lens/sensor assembly to be thinner.
    2. Many users have expressed a desire for a slightly wider angle of view, in fact the most popular aftermarket adaptor lenses for the iPhone are wide angle format.
    3. The slightly wider field of view simplies the new panoramic ‘stitch’ capability of the camera hardware/software.
  2. Apple claims the camera is “25% smaller”. We have no idea what that really means, but IF this in fact results in a smaller sensor surface then the individual pixels will be smaller. The same number of pixels are used (it is still an 8MP sensor), but smaller pixels mean less light-gathering capability, potentially making low light photography more difficult.
    1. Apple does claim new hardware/software to make the camera perform better in low light. What this means is not yet clear.
    2. The math and geometry of optics, sensor size and lens mechanics essentially show us that small sensors are more subject to camera movement, shaking and vibration. (The same angular movement of a full sized 35mm digital camera will cause far less blurring in the resultant image than an iPhone4S. If the sensor is even smaller in the iPhone5, this effect will be more pronounced).
  3. Apple claims a redesigned lens cover for the iPhone5. (In all iPhones, there is a clear plastic window that protects the actual lens. This is part of the exterior case). With the iPhone5, this window is now “sapphire glass” – whatever that actually is… The important issue is that any change is a change – even if this window material is harder and ‘more clear’, it will be different from the iPhone4 or iPhone4S – different materials have different transmissive characteristics. Where this may cause an effect is with external adaptor lenses designed for iPhone4/4S devices.

The front-facing camera (FaceTime, self-portrait) has in the past been a very low resolution device of VGA quality (640×480). This produced very fuzzy images, the sensor was not very sensitive in low light, and the images did not match the display aspect ratio. The iPhone5 has increased the resolution of the front-facing sensor to 1280×720 (720P) for video, 1280×960 for still (1.2MP). While no other specs on this camera have been released, one can assume some degree of other improvements in the combined camera/lens assembly, such that overall image quality will improve.

The faster CPU and other system hardware, combined with new improvement in iOS 6.0, bring several new enhancements to iPhonography. Details are skimpy at this time, but panoramic photos, faster image-taking in general, improved speed for image processing within the phone, better noise reduction for low-light photography are some of the new features mentioned. Experience, testing and a full tear-down of an iPhone5 are the only way we will know for sure. More to come in future posts…

CPU/SystemChips/Memory

Inside the iPhone5

As best as can be determined at this early stage, there are a number of changes inside the iPhone5. Some (very little actually!) of the information below is from Apple, many of the other observations are based on the same detective work that was used for earlier reporting on the iPhone4S:  careful reading of industry trends, tracking of orders for components of typical iPhone parts manufacturers, comments and interviews with industry experts that track Apples, Androids and other such odd things, and to a certain extent just experience. Even though Apple is a phenomenally secretive company, even they can’t make something out of nothing. There are only so many chips to choose from, and when one factors in things like power consumption, desired performance, physical size, compatibility with other parts of the phone and so on, there really aren’t that many choices. So even if some of the assumptions at this early stage are slightly in error, the overall capabilities and functionality will be the same.

Ok, yes, Apple has said there is a new CPU in the iPhone5, and it’s named the “A6”. But that doesn’t actually tell one what it is, how it’s made, or what it does. About all that Apple has said directly so far is that it’s “up to twice as fast as the A5 chip [used in iPhone4S]”, and “the A6 chip offers graphics performance that’s up to twice as fast as the A5.” That’s not a lot of detailed information… Once companies such as Anandtech and Chipworks get a few actual iPhone5 units and tear them apart we will know more. These firms are exhaustive in their analysis (and no, the phone does not work again once they take it to bits!) – they even ‘decap’ the chips and use x-ray techniques to analyze the actual chip substrate to look for vendor codes and other clues as to the makeup of each part. I will report on that once this data becomes available.

At this time, some think that the A6 chip is using 28/32nm technology (absolutely cutting edge for mobile chipsets) and packing in two ARM Cortex A15 cores to create the CPU. Others think that this may in fact be an entirely Apple ‘home-grown’ ARM dual-core chip. The GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) is likely an assembly using four of Imagination’s PowerVR SGX543 cores, which double the GPU cores that are in the iPhone4S. In addition to the actual advanced hardware, the final performance is almost for certain a careful almalgamation of peripheral chips, tweaking and tuning of both firmware and kernel software, etc. The design criteria and implementation of devices such as the iPhone5 is just about as close to the edge of what’s currently possible as current science and human cleverness can get. This is one area where, for all of the downsides to a ‘closed ecosystem’ that is the World of Apple, the upside is that when a company has total control over both the hardware and the software of a device, a level of systems tuning is possible that open-source implementations such as Android simply can never match. If one is interested further in this philosophy, please see my further comments about such “complementary design techniques” in my post on iPhone accessory lenses here.

There are two types of memory in all advanced smartphones, including the iPhone5. The first is SDRAM (which is similar to the RAM in your computer, the very fast working memory that is directly addressed by the CPU chips), the second is NAND (which is similar to the hard disk in your computer – slower but has much greater storage capacity). In smartphones, the NAND is also a solid-state device (not a spinning disk) to save weight and power, but it still is considerably slower in access time than the SDRAM. As a point, it would not be practical, either in terms of economics, power or size, to attempt to use SDRAM for all the memory in a smartphone. The chart at the beginning of this article shows the increase in size of the SDRAM over the various iPhone models, to date the mass storage (NAND) has been available in 3 sizes:  16, 32 and 64GB.

Radios:  Wi-Fi/Cellular/GPS/Bluetooth

Although most of us don’t think about a cellphone in this way, once you get all the peripheral bits out of the way, these devices are just highly sophisticated portable radio transcievers. Sort of CB radio handsets on steroids. There are four main categories of radios used in smartphones: Wi-Fi; cellular radios for both voice and data; GPS and Bluetooth. The design, frequencies used and other parameters are so different for each of these classes that entirely separate radios must be used for each function. In fact, as we will see shortly, even within the cellular radio group it is frequently required to have multiple radios to handle all the variations found in world-wide networks. Each separate radio adds complexity, cost, weight, power consumption and the added issue of antenna design and inter-device interference. It is truly a complicated design task to integrate all the distinct RF components in a device such as the iPhone.

Again, this initial review is lacking in hard facts ‘from the horse’s mouth’ – our particular horse (the Rocking Apple) is mute… but using similar techniques as outlined above for the CPU/GPU chips, here is what my best guess is for the innards of “radio-land” inside an iPhone5:

Wi-Fi

    • At this time there are four Wi-Fi standards in use, all of which are ‘subparts’ of the IEEE 802 wireless communications standard: 802.11a; 802.11b, 802.11g, 802.11n
    • There are a lot of subtle details, but in essence each increase in the appending letter is equivalent to a higher data transfer speed. In a perfect world (pay attention to this – Wi-Fi almost never gets even close to what is theoretically possible! Marketing hype alert…) the highest speed strata, 802.11n, is capable of up to 150Mb/s.
    • Again, I am oversimplifying, but older WiFi technology used a single band of radio frequencies, centered around 2.4GHz. The newest form, 802.11n, allows the use of two bands of frequencies, 2.4GHZ and 5.0GHz. If the designer implements two WiFi radios, it is possible to use both frequency bands simultaneously, thereby increasing the aggregate data transfer, or to better avoid interference that may be present on one of the bands. As always, adding radios adds cost, complexity, etc.

Cellular

This is the area that causes the most confusion, and ultimately required (in the case of the iPhone) two entirely separate versions of hardware (GSM for AT&T, CDMA for Verizon – in the US. Gets even more complicated overseas). Cellular telephone systems unfortunately were developed by different groups in different countries at different times. Adding to this were social, political, geographical, economic and engineering issues that were anything but uniform. This led to a large number of completely incompatible cellular networks over time. Even in the earliest days of analog cellphones there were multiple, incompatible networks. Once the world switched to digital carrier technology, the diaspora continued.. This is such a complicated subject that I have decided to write a separate blog on this – it is really a bit off-topic (in terms of detail) for this post, and may unreasonably detract those that are not interested in such details. I’ll post that in the next week, with a link from here once complete.

For the purposes of this iPhone5 introduction, a very simple and brief primer so we can understand the importance – and limitations!! of what is (incorrectly) called 4G – that bit of marketing hype that has everyone so fascinated even though 93% of humanity has absolutely no idea what it really is. Such is the power of marketing…

Another warning:  telecommunications industries are totally in love with acronyms. Really arcane weird and hard to understand acronyms. If a telecomms engineer can’t wedge in at least eight of them in every sentence, he/she starts twitching and otherwise showing physical symptoms of distress and feelings of incompetence… I’m just going to list them here, in all their other-worldly glory… if you want them deciphered, wait for my blog (promised above) on the cellular system.

 To add some semblance of control to the chaotic jungle of wireless networks there are a number of standards bodies that attempt to set up some rules. Without them we would have no interoperabililty of cellphones from one network to another. The two main groups, in terms of this discussion, are the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project) and the ITU (International Telecommunication Union). That’s where nomenclature such as 2G, 3G, 4G comes from. And, you guessed it, “G” is generation. (Never mind “1G” – that too will be in the upcoming blog…). For practical purposes, most of us are used to 3G – that was the best data technology for cellular system until recently. 4G is “better”… sort of… we’ll see why in a moment.

The biggest reason I am delving into this archane stuff is to (as simply as I can) educate the user as to why you can’t browse the web or perform other data functions while simultaneosly talking on the phone IF you are using an iPhone on the Sprint or Verizon networks – but can if you are on AT&T. The reason is that LTE is an extension of GSM (the technology that AT&T uses for voice and data currently), whereas both Sprint and Verizon use a different technology for voice/data (CDMA). Each of these technologies requires a separate radio and a separate antenna. For AT&T customers, the iPhone needs 2 antennas (4G LTE + 3G for voice [and 3G data fallback if no 4G/LTE is available in that location), if the iPhone was going to support the same functionality for Sprint/Verizon, a 3rd radio and antenna would be required (4G/LTE for high speed data; 3G fallback data, and CDMA voice). Apple decided not to add the weight, complexity and expense to the iPhone5, so customers on those networks face an either/or choice: voice or data, but not at the same time.

Apple is making some serious claims on improved battery life when using 4G, saying that the battery will last the same (up to 8 hours) whether on 3G or 4G. That’s impressive, early 4G phones from other vendors have had notoriously low battery life on 4G. Some assumptions, other than OS tweaks, are possibly the use of a new Qualcomm chip, the MDM9615LTE.

The range of cellular voice and data types/bands/variations that are said to be supported by the iPhone5 are:  GSM (AT&T), CDMA (Verizon & Sprint), EDGE, EV-DO, HSPA, HSPA+, DC-HSPA, LTE.

Now, another important few points on 4G:

    • The current technology that everyone is calling 4G… isn’t really. The marketing monsters won the battle however, and even the standards bodies caved. LTE (Long Term Evolution – and this does have a technical meaning in terms of digital symbol reconstitution from a multiplexed data stream, as opposed to the actual advancement of intellect, compassion, health and heart of the human species – something that I hold in serious doubt right now…) is a ‘stepping-stone’ on the way to “True 4G”, and is not necessarily the only way to implement 4G – but the marketing folks just HAD to have ‘higher number means better’  term, so just like at one point we had “2.5G” (not quite real 3G but better than 2G in a few weird ways), we now have 4G… to be supplemented next year with “LTE Advanced” or “4G Advanced”. Hmmmm. And once the networks improve to “True 4G” or whatever, will the iPhone5 still work? Yes, but it won’t necessarily support all the features of “LTE Advanced” – for instance, LTE Advanced will support “VoLTE” [Voice over LTE] so that only a single radio/antenna would be required for all voice and data – essentially the voice call is muxed into the data layer and just carried as another stream of data. However, and this is a BIG however, that would require essentially full global coverage of “4G/LTE Advanced” – something that is years away due to cost and time to build out networks.
    • Even with the current “baby 4G”, this is a new technology, and most networks in the world only support this in certain limited areas, if at all. It will improve every month as the carriers slowly build out the networks, but it will take time. The actual radio/antenna systems are different from everything currently deployed, so new hardware has to be stuck onto every single cell tower in the world… not a trivial task… Trying to determine where 4G actually works, on which carrier, is effectively impossible at this time. No one tells the whole story, and you can be sure that Pinnochio would look like a snub-nose in comparision to many of the claims put forth by various cellular carriers… In the US, both Verizon and AT&T claim about 65-75% coverage of their respective markets: but these are in high density population areas where the subscriber base makes this economically attractive.
    • The situation is much more spotty overseas, with two challenges: even within the LTE world there are different frequencies used in different areas, and the iPhone5 does not support all of them. If you are planning to use the iPhone5 outside of the US, and want to use LTE, check carefully. And of course the build-out of 4G is nowhere near as complete as in the US.
    • The final issue with 4G is economic, not technical. Since data usage is what gobbles up network capacity (as opposed to voice/text), the plans that the carriers sell to their users are rapidly changing to offer either high limit or unlimited voice/text at fairly reasonable rates, with data now being capped and the prices increasing. While a typical data plan (say 5GB) allows that much data to be transferred, regardless of whether on 3G or 4G, the issue is speed. Since LTE can run as fast as 100Mb/s (again, your individual mileage may vary…) – which is much, much faster than 3G, and in fact often faster than most Wi-Fi networks, it is easy for the user to consume their cap much faster. If you have ever stood on a street corner and s-l-o-w-l-y waited for a single page to load on your iPhone4, you are not really motivated to stand there for an hour cruising the web or watching sport. But… if the pages go snap! snap! snap!, or the US Open plays great in HD without any pauses or that dreaded ‘buffering’ message – then normal human tendancy will be to use more. And the carriers are just loving that!!
    • As an example, (just to be theoretical and keep math simple) if we assume 100Mb/s on LTE, then your monthly 5GB cap would be consumed in about 7 minutes!! Now this example is assuming constant download of that data rate, which is unrealistic – a typical page load for a mobile device is under 1 MB, and then you stare at it for a bit, then load another one, and so one – so for web browsing you get snappy loads without consuming a ridiculous amount of data – but beware video streaming – which DOES consume constant data. It will take users some time (and sticker shock at bill time if you have auto-renew set on your data plan!) to learn how to manage their data consumption. (Tip: set to lower resolution streaming when on LTE, switch back to high resolution when on WiFi).

GPS

Global Positioning Service, or “Location Services” as Apple likes to call it, requires yet another radio and set of antennas. This is a receive-only technology where simultaneous reception of data from multiple satellites allows the device to be located in 3D space (longitude, latitude and altitude) rather accurately. The actual process used by the underlying hardware, the OS and the apps on the iPhone is quite complex, merging together information from the actual GPS radio, WiFi (if it’s on, which helps a lot with accuracy) and even the internal gyroscope that is built in to each iPhone. This is necessary since consumers just want things to work, no matter the laws of physics (yes my radio should receive satellite signals even if I’m six stories underground in a car park…), interference from cars, electrical wires, etc. etc. The bottom line is we have come to depend on GPS to the point that I see people yelping at their Yelp app when it doesn’t know exactly where the next pizza house is…

Bluetooth

Again, we have become totally dependent on this technology for everyday use of a cellphone. In most states now (and countries outside the US), there are rather strict laws on ‘hands-free’ cellphone while driving a car. While legally this can be accomplished with a wired earplug (know your laws, some places ONLY allow wireless [Bluetooth] headsets! – others allow wired headsets but only in one ear, and it must be of the ‘earbud’ type, not an ‘over the ear’ version), the Bluetooth headset is the most common.

There are other uses for Bluetooth with the iPhone: I frequently use a Bluetooth keyboard when I am actually using the iPhone as a little computer at a coffee bar – it’s SO much faster than pecking on that tiny glass keyboard… There are starting to be a number of interesting external ‘appliances’ that communicate with the iPhone via Bluetooth as well – temperature/humidity meter; various sports/exercise measuring devices; even civil engineering transits can now communicate their reading via Bluetooth to an app for automatic recording and triangulation of data.

And yes, it takes another radio and antenna…

And last but certainly not least:  iOS6

A number of new features are either totally OS-related, or the new hardware improvements are expressed to the user via the new OS. The good news is that some of these new features will now show up in earlier iPhone models, commensurate of course with hardware limitations.

A few of the new features:

  • Improvements to Siri:  open apps and post comments to social apps with voice commands
  • Facebook: integrated into Calendar, Camera, Maps, Photos. (yes, you can turn off sharing via FB, but in typical FB fashion everything is ‘opt out’…)
  • Passbook: a little digital vault for movie tickets, airline boarding passes, etc. Still ‘under construction’ in terms of getting vendors to sign up with Apple
  • FaceTime: now works over 3G/4G as well as WiFi (watch out for your data usage when not at WiFi – with the new 720P front facing video camera, that nice long chat with your significant other just smoked your entire data plan for the month…)
  • Safari:  links open web pages on multiple Apple devices that are all on same iCloud account. Be careful… if you are bored in the office and are cruising ‘artistic’ web sites, they may reflect in real time in your kitchen or your daughter’s iMac…
  • Maps:  Google Maps kicked out of Apple-land, now a home-grown map app that finally includes turn-by-turn navigation.

Summary

It’s a nice upgrade Apple. As usual, the industrial design is good. For me personally, it’s starting to get a bit big – but I’ll admit I have an iPad, so if I want more screen space than my 4S I’ll just pick up the Pad. Most of the improvements are incremental, but good nonetheless. In terms of pure technology, the iPhone5 is a bit behind some of the Android devices, but this is not the article to start on that! Those arguments could go on for years… I’m only commenting here on what’s in this particular phone, and my personal thoughts on upgrading from a recent 4S to the 5. For me, I won’t do that at this time. A lot of this is very individual, and depends on your use, needs, etc. I tend to almost always be near either my own or free Wi-Fi locations, so 4G is just not a huge deal. The improved speed sounds very nice, but my 4S currently is fast enough – I am an avid photographer, and retouch/filter a lot using the iPhone4S, and find that it’s fast enough. I love speedy devices, and if the upgrade were free I would perhaps think differently, but at this point I am not suffering with any aspect of my 4S enough to feel that I have to move to the 5 right away.

Now, I would absolutely feel differently if I had anything earlier than a 4S. I upgraded from the iPhone4 to the 4S without hesitation – in my view the improvements were totally worth it: much better camera, much faster processor, etc. So in the end, my personal recommendation: a highly recommended upgrade for anything at the level of iPhone4 or earlier, for the 4S – it’s down to individual choices and your budget.

Blog Site Design Update

February 26, 2012 · by parasam

The site for this blog has been redesigned. It now supports additional features, including search, a more graphical selection pane, drop-down category selection and more. In addition, when the blog is viewed on an iPad a different ‘app-like’ interface is presented that is more appropriate to the “tap & swipe” navigation of a tablet. A slimmed-down, mostly text version is presented to smartphone users. The aim is to present the blog posts in a clean, uncluttered manner no matter what device is used to view the site.

Please comment to this post with any bugs or suggestions. Many thanks for reading!

  • Blog at WordPress.com.
  • Connect with us:
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
  • YouTube
  • RSS
  • Follow Following
    • Parasam
    • Join 95 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Parasam
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...