Interestingly, basketballs are designed to be as standardized and replaceable as possible (so there’s no question about whether they affected the game.) Whereas musicians do not think of instruments that way. Nor photographers and their cameras, etc. The reaction might be specific to artists. They’re represented on HN, but not as much as non-artists, I bet.
Musicians might not think of their personal instruments in that way, but surely any musician will acknowledge that there exist cheaply made imitations of their instruments that can be treated as more or less disposable. I can get a trumpet on ebay for $60 shipped to my door, and I expect to be able to do whatever I damn please with it, screw what anyone else says.
As a musician, the availability of cheap instruments doesn’t reduce the impact of the symbolism in this ad from my perspective.
It’s not just a question of monetary value or quality, and is more about the implications of the imagery and the resulting questions it raises about the goals of a multi trillion dollar company.
You’re welcome to do whatever you want with your $60 trumpet, and that’s not going to bother me. I see that as orthogonal to the issues with a company of Apple’s size and reach symbolically destroying an entire room full of creative objects while selling to people who are deeply invested in those objects in their own lives.
> a company of Apple’s size and reach symbolically destroying an entire room full of creative objects while selling to people who are deeply invested in those objects in their own lives.
Is it the symbolism that's the is the issue or what's actually been happening for the past 40 years? There's a reason it is called "Garage Band". There's a reason it is called "Paint". Apple isn't investing in the camera tech for the past 15 years so people don't use it. Their ads showing the incredible non-retouched photos with iPhones seems like much more of an attack than this ad.
I think the two go hand in hand, i.e. what's actually been happening for the last 40 years is the context in which this ad was introduced, and the reason the ad feels so bad for many people.
There's a big difference between using product names that align with the analog versions of the tools and symbolically destroying a room full of tools that people often find give them purpose and meaning. It just feels gauche.
> Their ads showing the incredible non-retouched photos with iPhones seems like much more of an attack than this ad.
The difference to me is that one is saying: "look how good our cameras are now, and here's an example of what you can get out of them" and the other is saying "we can just crush this entire room full of tools now because look at this iPad".
I'm not bothered by the camera ads. As a person who carries a camera and loves cameras, the iPhone is a supplement to my kit and the better it gets, the more flexibility I have.
But crushing a shelf full of lenses just makes me cringe.
Definitely their goal is to stop people from playing trumpets and instead play angry birds.
Somebody who worked on this ad probably feels passionately about one of the things which was crushed, and thought it would just be a fun ad. Sure, marketing is their main gig, but they love to get home and throw on some Miles Davis after a long day. They probably never bothered to think too hard about the ramifications of a stupid ad because it’s just their dumb job.
Or maybe they knew 100% what they were doing and it’s evil turtles all the way down.
This means you’re scared a tablet can replace you as a musician. If you have that fear, maybe you should look into it more because from a non musicians perspective, I don’t believe it replaces them, just makes those sounds available to everyone.
Musicians become emotionally attached to instruments that have been with them for a long time. To musicians, instruments feel like they have souls and personalities of their own.
You can do whatever you want with your trumpet but it's not something I'd want to watch.
This is the correct answer. It was taken as an assault on what everyone grew up with and learned their particular trade on (and still may use).
It's also a bad comparison on Apple's part. An ipad is another creative tool and provides a different experience than other methods (like traditional painting). For example, I play acoustic and electric guitar, but also use Ableton. I love my acoustic for the feel and experience, something I can't get in Ableton. I use Ableton for digital composition and sampling, something that's completely different from the feel of strings and how the notes feel through the wood of my acoustic. They are different experiences and usage and purpose.
Okay so don’t watch it? If I buy a $60 trumpet and a $30,000 dollar ad slot, I expect to be able to show whatever I damn please involving my $60 trumpet on my $30,000 ad slot, modulo laws of the land concerning acceptable use of broadcast media. If you are emotionally attached to the $60 trumpet I have used as a prop on my $30,000 ad slot in service of my personal artistic expression: fuck off, I don’t give a a shit, and there’s no reason I should. (Apologies for the crassness, but I really do believe the laws of the land correctly provide us significant rights of “uncouthuness” on public broadcasting channels)
?? I don’t understand this response. People aren’t saying that they shouldn’t have been allowed to run the ad. You seem to be responding as if they were.
People are saying they found the content of the ad objectionable/upsetting.
Is your position that no one should find any ads to be objectionable or upsetting?
What are you arguing here?
Edit: to be clear, I’m not upset with apple over this. I wasn’t upset by the ad (which I haven’t even watched)
My position is that if people find it objectionable (and it’s not actually causing any real harm) they should carry on with their life pretending like it doesn’t exist. This pitchfork army debacle is a load of bologna.
> they should carry on with their life pretending like it doesn’t exist
No, they don't have to listen to you or pretend it doesn't exist. They are perfectly entitled to loudly express their own free speech criticism of Apple's ad or criticism of anything, really.
Creators are also likely one of the biggest market sectors for iPads, so if you were Apple it would do good for your sales to listen to their voices and not offend the people you are trying to sell to.
Did the ad suggest to you that the iPad was a replacement for cheap, low quality physical objects? That would not be very good copy for Apple. On the contrary, all the instruments etc. seemed rather nice to me. The piano alone was probably worth thousands of dollars.
Basketball may be designed like that, but trust me -- hoopers care about their basketballs. There are arguments all the time about the Wilson Evolution vs Baden Elite vs the Spalding TF-1000 vs Wilson EVO. And at AAU games the home team gets to pick the ball -- this is the only advantage they have (since there are no real home arenas) and I've definitely seen teams not be able to shoot because they practice with Evolutions (which are heavier on average) but they play the game with Evos.
Even in college the home team gets to pick the ball (except in situations like tournament play), and players definitely complain about balls (e.g., the Nike balls are horrible).
My point -- almost everyone who cares deeply about an endeavor has strong opinions and ties to their tools (I suspect just as many, if not more, kids sleep with their basketball as they do their musical instrument of choice). My bigger point -- unless Apple came to my house and took the ball out of my bag, I don't really mind that they used a ball which they probably just bought from Amazon.
Yes, a closer analogy would be "look, this guy had a basketball signed by Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant in 1996, and now it's being blown to smithereens and replaced by a 3D model on his iPad".
True but another article I read mentioned Hollywood types being "upset". In what way did the advert hurt them?
Might someone somewhere been rubbed the wrong way? Perhaps. With 8B+ ppl on the planet, anything is possible. But I agree with the post you commented on. That is, the "outrage" felt manufactured. It's been a slow tech news week and perhaps the media was bored and needed some web traffic?
Note: I recently read Kara Swisher's "Burn Book". In a way, entertaining. But when you realize that she - openly and shamelessly subjective to a fault - considers herself a journalist you quickly realize what a cluster fuck that profession has become. Editorial is not journalism. Op-ed is op-ed. We outside The Media shouldn't have to explain the difference to those on the inside.
