Hacker News Reader

Comment by skyebook | Hacker News Reader

I would argue that in Sprint's case it was less of a branding move than a "we have it too!"

One thing I have noticed is that every iPhone commercial I've seen, regardless of carrier, looks like its been approved by Apple in name as well as appearance. If you watch a commercial for almost any Android device, it looks like it could be either a carrier or device commercial. I remember when the Motorola Droid first came out seeing the 'energy core with static discharge' with a bunch of red hues and knowing immediately "oh, Verizon's got this". Sprint does the same by shoving yellow text anywhere that negative space hasn't yet been sullied. I find it oddly telling about the difference between the two camps, as having owned both Android and iPhones, the difference in commercial is roughly analogous to the user experience in terms of carrier integration.

View on HN

One thing I have noticed is that every iPhone commercial I've seen, regardless of carrier, looks like its been approved by Apple in name as well as appearance

Those are ads that Apple is almost completely paying for it, but via a partner agreement rather than directly (which is how there can be many times more Apple ads in media, yet people talk about how little they spend compared to Samsung). Most carriers also have carrier-specific, and sponsored, iPhones ads, and they do all of the same things that every "Android" ad does.

As for Droid...yeah it's on Verizon, as that whole line exists only for Verizon. Not sure what the relevance of that is. If the name includes "Droid", you don't need to see red hues to know it's Verizon.

This is a selectivity bias writ large. It reminds me of conversations shortly after Apple releases a product listening to people declaring how wonderful it is that Apple focuses on experience and not specs...after a release that is a sea of specs.

> As for Droid...yeah it's on Verizon, as that whole line exists only for Verizon. Not sure what the relevance of that is. If the name includes "Droid", you don't need to see red hues to know it's Verizon.

And how else would you, as a consumer who doesn't spend their time on HN, know that Droid is from Verizon? Its like saying to someone who doesn't know much about cars "Hey you should buy an Elantra!" where the immediate followup from those who don't know as much say "well who makes that?". For a Mustang, Corvette, or something of similar ilk, the make is less important since its already icon. Apple has succeeded in making the iPhone an icon where others haven't.

> This is a selectivity bias writ large. It reminds me of conversations shortly after Apple releases a product listening to people declaring how wonderful it is that Apple focuses on experience and not specs...after a release that is a sea of specs.

How, exactly? Apple has maintained a strong enough brand control over its products that people are easily able to identify them. This has simply not been the case with the vast majority of Android OEM's.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com