The real Ajay Bhatt, co-inventor of the USB port(engadget.com)
engadget.com
The real Ajay Bhatt, co-inventor of the USB port
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/10/conan-obrien-talks-to-the-co-creator-of-usb-on-the-tonight-show/
35 comments
Almost all interview spots on late-night talk shows are pure marketing. Without fail, the interviewee always has a book or a movie coming out. Or, at most, is a former or current politician, seeking publicity for their latest cause (a foundation they set up or the upcoming election, respectively).
I think it’s quite respectable for Tonight Show to both acknowledge that this is a sponsored interview and to make light of the fact.
I think it’s quite respectable for Tonight Show to both acknowledge that this is a sponsored interview and to make light of the fact.
This monkey will dance for anyone
That seems unlikely to me.
The "submarine" essay is a good one, but it has caused people here to overestimate the cleverness of PR people. It's better to think more in terms of the press being lazy.
The "submarine" essay is a good one, but it has caused people here to overestimate the cleverness of PR people. It's better to think more in terms of the press being lazy.
That Conan (a) felt like Ajay would be relevant for a general audience, and (b) didn't bring him on for the sole purpose of humiliating him speaks well for the acceptance of engineering in US society. A decade ago, he would have been reduced to caricature -- "nerd" glasses and the like.
What I don't understand is why Intel didn't use the real Ajay in their ads. Here's someone who they are supposedly honoring as a rock star, and yet when it comes to the ads, instead of using him, they hire an actor. How big of an Intel star can you be, if you aren't good enough to appear on TV?
From a NYT article on Intel:
The real inventors are not in the ads; they are played by actors. Mr. Bell said he wanted to ensure the commercials were humorous, and avoid arguments with Intel employees over which should be featured.
"When you are required politically to cast certain people and get everyone involved, you tend to get this watered-down, feel-good campaign that works really well internally and makes the company itself feel good," but does not appeal to consumers, he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/business/media/06adco.html
The real inventors are not in the ads; they are played by actors. Mr. Bell said he wanted to ensure the commercials were humorous, and avoid arguments with Intel employees over which should be featured.
"When you are required politically to cast certain people and get everyone involved, you tend to get this watered-down, feel-good campaign that works really well internally and makes the company itself feel good," but does not appeal to consumers, he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/business/media/06adco.html
That argument does not really hold much water. The fact remains that you are portraying the same person, so these arguments which Intel wanted to avoid would still come up. Considering that, they should just have gone with the real guy.
Its an advertisement, a lower grade of information than even a puff piece or glossy brochure.
For TV advertisements, you need people who can act. Engineers aren't actors. Save the real engineers for informational pieces like this interview.
For TV advertisements, you need people who can act. Engineers aren't actors. Save the real engineers for informational pieces like this interview.
Most people are able to act as themselves quite competently! For a TV ad featuring a person as themself the requirements are that you are that person ...
Unless you're under the impression that Ajay really does strut around Intel to the sound of screaming girls, "acting as themselves" wouldn't really be what they'd need to do in the commercial.
Fine, I'll say it if no one else will - the actor portraying Ajay looks funny and acts hilariously pompous, even in such a short ad.
"A decade ago, he would have been reduced to caricature" and the same thing happened now, so who knows whether the real Ajay would've been cool with it or able to pull it off. Consider all the wooden ads by sports stars that come off as stiff and rely on the recognition factor only.
"A decade ago, he would have been reduced to caricature" and the same thing happened now, so who knows whether the real Ajay would've been cool with it or able to pull it off. Consider all the wooden ads by sports stars that come off as stiff and rely on the recognition factor only.
The real Ajay's time is likely a lot more valuable than some random actor who does commercials. I other words he is probably too valuable to appear on TV. Think about it when it is all said and done the guy would have had to take at least a week away from his normal responsibilities when you include travel, filming time etc...
Only B list celebrities play themselves on TV.
Only B list celebrities play themselves on TV.
How much money do you think an Intel Fellow makes over the course of their career? There are 46 of them. I'm guessing Ajay's just fine with how this played out.
Yes, I'm sure he's doing quite well, although I don't think it's a given that he measures his success by the size of his paycheck.
As far as a positive portrayal of an engineer -- I think it kind of undercuts the message to have an actor take his place in the commercial.
As far as a positive portrayal of an engineer -- I think it kind of undercuts the message to have an actor take his place in the commercial.
Yeah. You'd think that a day spent shooting a commercial wouldn't be a horrible inconvenience given the value. After all, CEOs often put themselves in front of the camera. Perhaps the real Ajay wasn't deemed nerdy enough?
My dad works for Intel and can vouch for his rock star status. Intel makes money by selling chips and standardization makes adoption go through the roof. They have bankrolled many things, to then open them to all (USB, moblin, WiMAX).
USB certainly was a huge step and made them a lot of money, much of which Ajay is responsible for. This makes him a rock star.
USB certainly was a huge step and made them a lot of money, much of which Ajay is responsible for. This makes him a rock star.
Maybe Ajay didn't want the spotlight - so what they did was the next best honor by atleast using his real name.
I found it odd that he didn't share the credit with more people at Intel and its partners, and spoke negatively about Firewire[1].
[1]- Firewire lost mainly because the cheaper+slower USB1.1 became ubiquitous first, and then came the backward-compatible (in connectors/cables) and comparably-fast USB2.0.
[1]- Firewire lost mainly because the cheaper+slower USB1.1 became ubiquitous first, and then came the backward-compatible (in connectors/cables) and comparably-fast USB2.0.
I'm surprised someone voted you down and that you are still at 1 point.
USB 1.0 seems like one of the many interfaces that will eventually end up obsolete just like ISA PCI AGP PCMIA etc...
I really don't see anything technically superior about USB (feel free to correct me). The main reason it won out over Firewire was of course Intel and Microsoft backing, and that it was in the sweet spot for the price/feature trade off.
USB 1.0 seems like one of the many interfaces that will eventually end up obsolete just like ISA PCI AGP PCMIA etc...
I really don't see anything technically superior about USB (feel free to correct me). The main reason it won out over Firewire was of course Intel and Microsoft backing, and that it was in the sweet spot for the price/feature trade off.
It was cheaper because it was not proprietary like the firewire port. I think that was the only issue really. Firewire has a smaller protocol overhead so at a given bit rate the throughput was faster. Did the original firewire spec allow for multiple devices on the same bus or was that included in a later revision?
The physical data interface of USB is simpler (only two signalling wires, D+, D- instead of the two differential pairs for firewire). Supply of power to the devices is simpler (+5V instead of >20V with firewire, which needs an additional DC/DC converter on the device). For most primitive low-speed devices (mice, keyboards, toy rocket launchers) the data transfer implementation is simpler (see e.g. the bit-banging software-only V-USB implementation for microcontrollers).
So on the low-performance side, the advantage is clear. And end-users like the simplicity of having the same physical port for all their computer peripherals (which can use low- (<1Mbit), full (12MBit) or high (480MBit) speed, without the user knowing or noticing).
While I personally think that Firewire is the more elegant, better performing and more flexible communication technology, I can see why USB surpassed it in the marketplace.
So on the low-performance side, the advantage is clear. And end-users like the simplicity of having the same physical port for all their computer peripherals (which can use low- (<1Mbit), full (12MBit) or high (480MBit) speed, without the user knowing or noticing).
While I personally think that Firewire is the more elegant, better performing and more flexible communication technology, I can see why USB surpassed it in the marketplace.
I have not idea why they embedded the commercial, but did not even link to hulu: http://www.hulu.com/watch/101471/the-tonight-show-with-conan...
Does this really matter? IMHO, this is more of an ego issue to 'nerds' than selling the product in itself. The latter being the purpose of ads.
Dont give a fuck. Just sell things.
http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
Interesting that a Tonight Show advertiser initiated this interview, the show said yes, and even admits this interview was prompted by a sponsor. (Also interesting that the ad-block HN crowd isn't complaining about watching sponsored content)
Intel's PR and marketing people played this one really well.