Talk about biting someone else’s style. Not only is Microsoft trying to add some cool factor to its brand using celebrity influence, a game which Apple has long had in the bag, now it’s also opened its first official brick-and-mortar retail store, and it even just began offering PC hardware for sale via its online store. Next thing you know, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer will be wearing black turtlenecks.

A revamp of the web site is part of the Windows 7 launch campaign, and it includes a brand new store that stocks more than just software. You can now purchase a range of Windows 7-toting computers from HP, Acer, Dell, Lenovo and Sony, which are the real heavy-hitters in the PC arena. You can also pick up a single desktop, a Lenovo A600 all-in-one. Selection seems slim, but Microsoft is being a good copycat and not overwhelming consumers with an overabundance of choice.

All of the computers available on Microsoft’s web site come in stock configurations only, with no customization options beyond the ability to choose a color on select models. Users looking for more in the way of upgrades should still continue onto the manufacturer’s web site to order their machine, but Microsoft isn’t playing to that crowd. Instead, it’s aiming at first-time buyers or people with little to no computer expertise who just want the buying process to be as simple as possible.

And if you’re not too keen on the fancy new Internets, you can always take a trip down to Scottsdale, Ariz., where Microsoft today opened its first retail store. Here’s Microsoft’s own description of what it’s like, since I’m a little out of reach of the Scottsdale area:

As soon as you enter the store, there are laptops on large cedar tables, with seating so shoppers can sit and tinker. The walls are lined with giant LCD screens that envelop the space with landscapes and product images designed to create interest and spark curiosity. Below the images, stylish all-in-one PCs are set up with Zunes, Xboxes, headphones and widescreen displays, showing how all the items work together to create a multimedia experience.

Toward the back are laptop bags and an array of software titles before you turn the corner and reach a veritable mecca for Xbox enthusiasts — a gaming zone featuring a 94-inch widescreen, with immersive sound, seating and an array of controllers to play with.

Sounds like the whole premise is designed more around showing, rather than selling, as early speculation suggested. Microsoft is clearly pushing the experience, rather than trying to sell the component parts. I’d say something snarky about how this points to a lack of imagination on the part of your average PC customer, but being Mac users, I’m sure we can all come up with much more creative snark on our own.

All of this image and distribution re-imagining on Microsoft’s part is great news for one company: Apple. There’s no better sign that you have your main competitor on the ropes than when it resorts to parroting your moves. All Apple needs to do is continue to set the trend, and watch as Microsoft tries to follow it.

I’ll posture that not many of us know the anniversary of the date we purchased most of our cellular phones — at least not before the iPhone hit the streets. (And if you do remember, hopefully you remember other, important anniversaries, too!) But things changed on June 29, 2007. Lines formed, and tons of iPhones were sold. Similar happenings have occurred both summers since, as the iPhone hardware has been updated. And although I’m on my third iPhone model, I’m not concerned with what my next phone will be, because I’ll own an iPhone for life.

This concept seemed like a fairly singular thought when it crossed my mind recently. But then I saw a link on Gruber’s site to this photo on Flickr. The subsequent comments clearly indicate that I’m not alone in holding my iPhone above those that came before. No longer do I scour the Internet for news of the next big thing (unless it’s iPhone-related, of course).

iPhone for life (I’m not a tattoo guy, but if I were…) is a concept I absolutely believe in. It sounds awfully shortsighted and absolute, I realize, but I have faith in Apple. The company has proven time and again that it can innovate, and lead the pack. With my iPhone, I have all the features in my pocket that I could ever care to have. The army of developers who flood the App Store with hundreds of new apps each week mean that I’ll always be able to find whatever I want to extend the abilities of my iPhone. As competition, such as the Palm Pre, hits the streets, apps have become a big deal. And while marketing departments have hung their hat on the ‘apps’ buzzword as of late, they’re playing catch up in a big way.

Beyond just the iPhone, Apple has turned the act of purchasing — and using — its products into something special. The designs alone elicit awe and excitement. Apple gets at them early, too, with offerings like free camps so little ones can learn to love its products while they’re impressionable (my son is enrolled in Summer Camp at the local store over the next couple of weeks, and is totally stoked about it). Adding free technical support and workshops takes it that much further. There’s a feeling that you belong to something when you own an Apple product, and that is what I believe makes the brand as sticky as it is today. Apple is not just a brand; it’s a culture.

I’ve seen firsthand the way that the iPhone has taken the iPod’s “Halo Effect” to the next level. Many friends have picked up iPhones over the past 24 months. They’ve loved these smartphones so much that they’ve gotten excited about taking the plunge into an entirely new computer system as well. (Some are even going for a MacBook just because they figured it would sync with their phone easier — at the very least, a great excuse to jump on the bandwagon!) Once they’ve taken that step, almost unanimously, they’ve wondered to me how they ever got along on the PC for so long when such an awesome alternative was out there waiting.

Not everyone is a gadget junky, as I myself tend to be. This life tends to be one of neglecting the gadget you’ve got, while drooling over the one that will hopefully come. But I’ve found bliss with my iPhone. Using the iPhone is just a great experience, not necessarily perfection (blasphemer!), mind you, but it truly is a joy to use. Apple already had me as a lifelong customer with its computers. But the iPhone has nestled its way into a niche in my life that for a very long time, was up for grabs. No longer — iPhone for life, baby!

Greenpeace released the 12th edition of its Guide to Greener Electronics today (PDF), with Apple falling somewhere between tangerine and burnt orange. For those who take the rating seriously, Apple scored 4.7 out of 10, unchanged from last time, though the company slipped from 10th to 11th place in the ranking of 18 companies.

The guide is based on three “demands” (their word) by Greenpeace: eliminating toxic substances, e-waste recycling and energy usage. Those demands are then broken down into four sub-demands, which are ranked: bad, partially bad, partially good, and good. Overall, Apple scores mostly in the middle, but with several bad grades.

The single, wholly positive ranking Apple receives is for the timeline on phasing out nasty PVCs and BFRs from manufacturing. As Apple and the Environment notes, “Printed circuit boards, electrical components, mechanical parts, and internal cables are BFR-free and PVC-free.” However, Greenpeace even takes issue with that claim because Apple has “unreasonably high threshold limits for BFRs and PVC in products that are allegedly PVC-/BFR-free.”

Greenpeace criticizes Apple strongly on e-waste recycling, while at the same time noting the company has extended coverage of its recycling program to Asia, and that Apple has set a goal of a 50 percent recycling rate by 2010. The main problem, according to Greenpeace, is a matter of disclosure on the part of Apple. On the issue of energy, Apple again scores poorly. First, because the company does not report on GHG (greenhouse gasses) emissions, Apple fails. Second, because the company does not report on renewable energy usage, Apple fails.

If you don’t see a pattern here, what it comes down to is that Greenpeace grades companies on words as much as action. Apple is a secretive company by nature. Considering how confrontational Greenpeace has been with Apple in the past, it’s hardly a surprise that Apple makes no effort to meet the “demands” of Greenpeace.

The real question here is why Greenpeace focuses so much on Apple. Both Dell and HP sell far more computers than Apple. Both have dropped in ranking, according to the latest guide, and both now score lower than Apple. Does this mean we will see protestors at the headquarters of HP? Will there be advertising campaigns about a “yellow” Dell? If Greenpeace followed its own guide, that’s what should happen.

However, the difference between Apple and every company in the guide is brand. Apple is easily the most popular brand. By focusing on Apple negatively, Greenpeace can theoretically threaten Apple’s brand popularity. Further, any changes Apple makes because of pressure from Greenpeace could then be leveraged against companies that actually pollute more than Apple. Finally, attacking the most popular company raises awareness of Greenpeace itself, not that the environmental organization would ever be so self-serving.

Keep going green, Apple, but keep going without Greenpeace.

Yesterday I was reminded of a song I used to like in the mid 90s by McAlmont & Butler. I hadn’t thought of that track in years, but I figured I should get it. I opened iTunes, navigated to the Store, searched, bought and downloaded. From memory recall to new music took about 30 seconds. I’m sure you’ve had a similar experience, but do you ever stop to consider how amazing the iTunes experience really is? Finding obscure songs from the last century is only one tiny slice of the iTunes pie.

If you’re as old as I am, you remember when music first came to personal computers. I mean real music — not beeps and boops or nasty synth-heavy wav files. I mean music — the kind you get on CD. (In case you’re not as old as me, a CD is a type of storage media from the Bronze Age. It was, for a brief time, the dominant species of music distribution before the iTunes Store and P2P networks slashed and burned their way to the top of the food chain.)

In the early 90s, getting real music on my computer was a Big Deal; just a few short years earlier, I had been playing vinyl records on my parent’s turntable at home. In those days, portable music meant cassette tapes, which were hissy and clunky, and you had to turn them over half-way through!

Compared to vinyl records and rattling old tapes, CDs were practically magic. Not only could I play them on the family stereo, I could play them on my computer, too. Suddenly my favorite tracks from Michael Jackson’s “Bad” were a mere double-click away. Awesome.

It’s hard to imagine a time without iTunes, but if you grew up in those dark days, you know iTunes arrived really late to the Music Player party. Real Player and Winamp both appeared in the mid-90s (‘95 and ‘97, respectively) and, along with various flavors of Microsoft’s Media Player, dominated the market. Even when iTunes finally made an appearance in 2001, it would be another four years before Apple’s music management software would become the undisputed King of Music Players.

Magic

It was a magical combination of ingredients that propelled iTunes to global domination. The iPod plus iTunes Store was perhaps the most compelling reason to want to get the MP3 player. After all, the device was stylish and, for saintly types who preferred lawful content acquisition, the music was cheap. More importantly, iTunes made the portable music experience easy and hassle-free. Importing a CD collection, buying new music and getting it all on to a shiny new iPod was made so simple anyone could do it. And they did. Before iTunes, MP3 players were firmly rooted in the domain of geeks and tech-savvy kids. After iTunes, MP3 players were called iPods (including those that weren’t iPods) and even your grandmother knew how to subscribe to podcasts.

Thing is, we’re still talking about a venerable old iTunes from way back when. Take a look at the application today and you’re seeing something, superficially at least, that looks much the same as it always has. Now take a (metaphorical) look beneath the bonnet. (This is where I would insert some clever and funny car engine analogy if I knew anything about engines.) Where once lay a single-cylinder engine better suited to a lawnmower, now lies a Formula One beast. (Did that work? No? You get the point…)

iTunes has changed. Massively. What used to be an application dedicated to finding and playing digital music files on your hard drive has become a multimedia powerhouse for television shows and movies (in both standard and high-definition formats), music videos, games, podcasts and applications. It’s a management tool for your connected home media, from the Apple TV in your den, to the iPod in your pocket, to the iPhone you simply can’t live without. It’s a portal into the world’s biggest online media store. Oh yeah, don’t forget Audiobooks, Internet Radio, and the (somewhat gimmicky and underused) Ringtones. I strongly suspect we’ll be seeing eBooks make an appearance, too, once the mythical iTablet-thingy makes its debut later this year.

iTunes has become the standard for all media management/playback software. The rule of thumb for software developers in this space is now “If you can’t produce something at least as good as iTunes, you really shouldn’t bother.” (I’m talking ‘bout you, Windows Media Player.) iTunes achieved this status partly because the iPod has been such a sales success, but also because Apple’s “less is more” approach to user experience and elegant design has produced an application so intuitive that everyone can get to grips with it. (Cue earlier grandmother reference for added emphasis.)

Some might describe the software as “multifunctional,” while less generous souls might call it “bloated.” Whatever your opinion, with all these features and capabilities, I wonder if “iTunes” is still the right name? After all, it has been years since it was a music-only media player. You might argue the majority of iTunes users only fire it up when they want to listen to a bit of Michael Jackson, or dip in to their custom-made playlist of “Stargate” soundtracks, but there’s still an interesting dilemma here.

What’s in a Name?

In a previous article I noted how a friend recently had problems on his Windows PC (I know, hard to believe) and had to reinstall his email application. I won’t bore you with the gory details, but one of his stumbling blocks was not due to a lack of IT literacy, but entirely the result of Microsoft’s decision to bundle applications like Windows Live Mail, Photo Gallery and Messenger — all contextually sensitive and appropriate names given their respective functionality — into a single suite called “Essentials.” Baffling, really, because, unless you know what you’re looking for and what it means in advance, “Windows Live Essentials” absolutely does not communicate “Your email is here!” to the average user.

This is now happening with iTunes. The name doesn’t reflect the true scope of the application’s functionality. It might seem like I’m making a silly point, particularly if you have grown up with iTunes, but bear with me, I’ll explain myself…

Time for Some Role Play

Imagine you’re Granny. You’ve just got your first computer. You want to listen to music, and a cursory glance through your applications presents iTunes as an obvious candidate for the right software to use. Easy. Job done.

But what about buying and downloading episodes of “The Golden Girls”? What do you use for that? Or subscribing to the “Silver Surfer’s Videocast”? How about downloading that movie you saw advertised the other day (because you do like Matthew McConaughey, he’s such a polite young man). The question is, what makes more sense to you as the right application to launch — iMovie or iTunes?

No matter how you spin it, iTunes doesn’t quite fit the bill. The name implies music and nothing beyond music. I can’t help but think Microsoft, usually the least likely software company to come up with decent names for anything, managed a far more appropriate moniker with “Windows Media Player.”

Given all its features and functionality today, perhaps a name change would be useful, though I don’t envy any marketing executive’s task of dreaming up a replacement. iMedia? iPlayer? iDoEverythingSoStopClickingAroundAndJustChooseMe?

In January, Phil Schiller announced the iTunes store had sold more than 6 billion songs. With those numbers in mind, I’m sure Apple doesn’t feel any urgent need to worry about updating or changing the iTunes brand. But as iTunes continues to grow in both features and functionality, its name becomes ever more inappropriate and, at least for newbies, potentially misleading. Apple has a long history of choosing contextual names for its software; consider Pages, Numbers, iPhoto, iDVD and so on. There was a time when iTunes was the perfect fit. Not any more.

Is it too late to change it now? Apple certainly has the financial resources and the marketing talent to convince the world that any change is good. The real spanner in the works here, though, is how important the iTunes Store is as a source of revenue for Apple (6 billion songs, people!) The notion of doing anything that might, potentially, reduce those roaring cash rapids to, say, a babbling brook of Benjamins, would have Apple’s shareholders shaking in their boots.

What’s more important: honoring a well-established branding philosophy that communicates Apple’s commitment to simplicity and ease of use, or milking a cash cow for all it’s worth?

Consumers may be perceiving Apple as a more ecologically friendly company than they actually are, according to a new report by marketing research firm TDG.

Results of a survey of randomly selected participants found that roughly 30% believed Apple was the most environmentally friendly tech brand, with Dell and HP the next most popular choices, at 21% and 15% respectively.  The results are somewhat baffling, since Apple does not do nearly as much as some other companies to paint themselves as a so-called “green” company.

Survey participants were also just plain wrong about Apple.  While it has recently improved its standings in Greenpeace’s “Guide to Green Electronics,” it still falls behind Dell and HP based on the environmental organization’s comprehensive ranking system.  In the inaugural study in August of 2006, Jobs’ baby scored a paltry 2.7 out of a possible 10.  September 2008’s results saw Apple’s score climb to 4.1, which is still behind LG, Toshiba, Dell and HP.  Apple was listed as having improved in some categories, but still isn’t quite up to snuff on energy management and recycling.

So how does Apple get to be the greenest without actually getting the best scores or engineering their image through huge green-specific ad campaigns?  According to the author of the TDG study, Michael Greeson:

Chalk it up to effective marketing and the brand’s aura of simplicity in both design and usage.  In today’s market, aesthetics in branding and design matter when it comes to portraying a pro-environment message. Independent of whether Apple’s products and services are actually environmentally friendly, consumers perceive them as such. While other CE vendors may have to invest a fortune to improve their green image, Apple doesn’t seem to have this problem.

In other words, Apple’s branding seems to be subtly, inherently green.  It’s true that consumers tend to to cluster environmental responsibility with contemporary, clean, simple brands.  Apple is perhaps the best example in computer electronics, but Ikea demonstrates the same effect in the home furnishing sector.

When marketing trend analysts, and even some environmentalists, are forecasting an end to the effectiveness of green marketing, Apple may represent the green company of the future.  Commercials with voiceovers about carbon emission reduction are beginning to fall on deaf ears, but a company that appears casually environmental seems to strike a chord with those resistant to the in-your-face approach.  So how best to capitalize on this consumer misconception?  Bottom line is that Apple should just continue doing what they do, offering more services like iPod battery disposal and reducing their ecological footprint, but without showing off.  It’s the “Meh” approach to green marketing, and it sure seems to beat wrapping everything in bamboo.

I remember standing in line last year for the iPhone. It was a momentous occasion. There was excitement in the air and people just having a great time waiting for 6 PM when the iPhone went on sale. People were camped out in lawn chairs and owners of shops came out to see what the fuss was about. They even brought us chairs from their stores to sit in and let us use their power outlets to recharge our laptops.

Contrast that to this year, when the much anticipated iPhone 3G was launched at 8 AM local time. I was in line (with a few hundred soon-to-be friends) at 8 AM when the “launch” started. After 2 hours we had barely moved 10 feet. Around 11 AM, we finally got reports that there were server issues. At first they said the issues were with iTunes software activating new iPhones, but then they quickly shifted the blame to AT&T’s servers.

The mood quickly went from upbeat and excited to tired and irritated. Standing in line, hour after hour, this year was a stark contrast from last year. At Lenox Square Mall in Atlanta, security guards wouldn’t even let people sit down (on the floor, or in mall-provided seating) even though we were mall customers waiting to spend quite a bit of money in their stores.

The whole atmosphere of this year’s launch was of disappointment, disorganization, inconvenience and irritation. Very un-Apple.

I know of at least 20 people around us in line who gave up and simply went home, disillusioned at the company they admired so much earlier that same day. I personally have mixed feelings about the competencies of both Apple and AT&T after such a botched event.

Last year, Apple was hurrying to get FTC approval and launch a brand new product with new technology to the world. It was much anticipated and they knew they were on a tight time frame. In spite of the very limited time to plan and the long lines (which seemed to be even longer than this year in most places), the event was overwhelmingly successful. Even though I didn’t get my 1st generation iPhone activated until after 10 PM, over 4 hours after I got it, I never even associated that with Apple. It was simply AT&T’s activation, a typically slow telecom company doing what they do best.

But when Apple and AT&T decided to subsidize the phones this year, and force in-store activations they should have known there were likely to be issues. As a developer and manager of enterprise-level applications, I’m shocked that AT&T and Apple did not sufficiently stress-tested their systems to ensure it could handle at least the same volume as last year.

I finally got my iPhone last night at 8:15 PM, over 12 hours after I got in line and 12 hours after they went on sale. Contrast that to last year, when I got to Lenox Square Apple Store at 8 AM and had an iPhone shortly after 6 PM, minutes after they went on sale.

This years iPhone launch was already complicated with in-store activations, which were enough to slow lines, but added to all the iTunes and AT&T server issues yesterday made me seriously question attending another launch event.

Apple is a master of creating emotion and excitement. They do it with their products, keynotes, launch events and even inside their products, which are typically elegant and just easy to use. Apple fanatics… err, I mean, customers… will spend any amount of money and wait in line (in the cold or rain) without complaining, just for the privilege of giving Apple their money or attention.

That changed on July 11, 2008. As I walked down the line as I left, I spoke with several people that had been in line for more than 12 hours for the new iPhone. The only reason most of them were still in line is simply the fact that they couldn’t imagine spending 12 hours in line and not having anything to show for it at the end of the day.

Apple is just a company and is bound to make mistakes, but I wonder if this is to become a recurring theme or if Apple will work harder in the future to ensure that product launches go smoothly. Only time will tell. One thing’s for sure though, if Apple launches iPhone 3.0 in July 2009, I won’t be in line.