I only use email if I know someone doesn't use or check Facebook very often.
I'm sure you'll get 20 VC funds camping on your lawn for the chance to fund that one, but that says more about them really.
Apple is a more inherently hipster company that (I'm guessing here) has a large hipster marketshare. It's known for being hipster, so the link is already there. No need for ads like this to form that link to try and capture the twenty something crowd that wants this lifestyle.
Hacker news is full of people that value function, results and optimised workflow, which are essentially all that matters with an email app. So this form of marketing is lost on them :)
(does email is cool, and happy?)
Such ads make less sense when you have too-happy hipsters dancing in a park about the latest Windows edition, admittedly. But showing ads in the context of their use and probable demographic seems reasonable.
> Young urban people fit that demographic a lot more than a suburban commuter would, since that lifestyle comes with a pretty set routine and a limited variety of schedules
Yeah, no way a person with three kids and a full-time job has a hectic schedule.
It also looks so confident that I thought I (31 years old) wasn't in their demographics anymore, and given I'm used to a Gmail interface which was invented in 2006, it may soon be going out of the door, but that's an inner fear of me which is talking.
After a bit of introspection, I think the turn off is the cheap emotional ploy that you will somehow gain a lifestyle from using their inbox filtering app.
You know, after finishing a shift on your kickstarted-funded peruvian food truck, you can go practice with your band and take selfies.
For me, it would be far more effective if they showed me how the product would help an average everyday person.
Take for example Google's "Material Design" in Android L, you can read all the articles you want, but the concept won't make sense until you watch a video of the animation/transitions/etc. There are a lot of products/ideas like that. They say an image is a thousand words, and this isn't a sixty thousand word article.
I think it is silly to suggest that people who prefer video content over an article are "less intelligent." Instead those people want to get an idea of how the product would actually work in reality rather than just eating up all the carefully crafted marketing language within the article.
This is why unboxing videos and amateur product demos are so damn popular on YouTube: They actually give you a true-to-life idea of how a product would be. Articles are too carefully crafted, and seeing the product without the person interacting with the product is only 1/2 the message or less.
When I get hit in the face with these cheap emotional ploys that feel like an early 2000s Microsoft Zune ad, I get distracted from the actual product being touted. My resistance goes up.
Does this approach work for anyone? If you really are a Williamsburg hipster, I'd expect this kind of pandering would feel off-putting. If you're not, it's alienating.
There's certainly a place for emotion in ads. But how about a bit more product, and respect for our intelligence?