Crastinate

I’ve gotten a lot of flack for my recent “iphone bashing” post. Opposed to what people thought I was saying, I was not bashing the iPhone at all. It is, by far, the best user experience for any mobile user. But my belief that Apple won’t take over the mobile world (specifically in the business sector) still stands. And to prove my point, check out this post by Erik Schonfeld over at Techcrunch.

Just yesterday, Michael Arrington at Techcrunch used a picture of a nuclear blast to infer that all Apple rivals in the mobile world will be obliterated. Only one day later, Erik Schonfeld explains that Apple is in control on whether Flash will be available on the iPhone. Why wouldn’t Apple allow Flash for the iPhone? It’s the same reason why you can’t install any app on your phone and must go through iTunes. Apple wants control. Everything has to meet up to their standards. This limits innovation and opens doors for competitors in the future. The iPhone is awesome but it’s not the best phone it could be. And if Apple doesn’t ease up, we’re going to see much better devices out in the wild in a few years.

Productivity froze to a standstill at work today. The office was huddled around the one computer that was able to get a good connection to the live stream of the US Open. Tiger Woods and Rocco Mediate were tied at the end of the final round yesterday and headed to an 18 hole playoff. After another 18 holes, the two were still tied and headed to a sudden death one hole match. As Tiger won the tournament, the noise level of the room went from eerily quiet to rambunctious. Hugs, high fives, and overall excitement ensued. What is it about Tiger Woods that makes us so excited? I think golf is a good sport, but I don’t follow it. But I really enjoy watching Tiger Woods. I don’t think I’m alone. Tiger Woods is greatness in golf. We all appreciate greatness.

Companies, as well,  have been able to achieve greatness in the public’s eye. eBay used to be great (some may argue they still are). Google still is great (even though Michael Arrington thinks otherwise). I think WordPress is great. So is Wikipedia, 37 Signals and scores of other companies that are doing a damn good job of creating quality products at reasonable prices. This greatness, however, blinds us. We fail to see the problems with a company that we love so much.

A perfect example is the Apple fanboys who aren’t willing to acknowledge that Apple is going to have an extremely hard time competing against RIM in the business mobile market. The opposite effect happens as well. The hater effect. So many people refuse to acknowledge that AOL might have some value and that Microsoft can come out with a good product.  At least I’m willing to admit that my admiration (and dissention) for people and companies can blind me from the bad (or good) things they might do. With this in mind, however, I’m still in awe of Tiger Woods today. Congratulations Tiger. Give that knee a rest. You deserve it.

Business Week and Michael Arrington have both predicted that any company competing in the smart phone market is in a lot of trouble this coming year. With the latest version of the iPhone coming out in July, both BW and Arrington think that Apple will dominate the space like they dominate the MP3 player industry with the iPod. I expect this from Business Week, whose analysis of the situation is based on Apple’s previous ability to come out with a revolutionary device and dominate the market. But I expect more foresight from Michael Arrington.

In the short term, yes, Apple will sell lots of iPhones. And yes, I will (eventually) be one of those buyers. But both BW and Arrington are missing the bigger picture. Apple’ s significant  achievement with the iPhone is the standards of services that users will expect from their smart phones. People want to organize their voicemail the way they see fit. People want to be able to install applications that others create for free. People want an easy way to see the web the way it was meant to be seen. These are all standards that other companies will adopt. With Google Android’s entrance into the marketplace, we’re going to see a lot of competitors to the iPhone in the next few years. All of which will provide those same high level of standards.

So let’s look 5 years down the line. Here are the potential options for businesses thinking about implementing a new smart phone service for all their employees:

Option A: Apple iPhone
Pros: It’s SO cool. The UI is gorgeous! I’ll be the cool one on the block. Web pages look great and the lack of keyboard is only annoying if I email a lot.

Cons: No QWERTY keyboard. It’s not focused solely on business.

Option B: RIM Blackberry
Pros: Device made just for business. Possibly cheaper than iPhone. Already have existing relationship with company. It’s got a QWERTY keyboard!

Cons: Not as cool as the iPhone. Web pages are viewed in mobile format.

Option C: Handset device with Google Android installed
Pros: Open system that allows companies to install company-related apps easily. Has many options for handsets depending on the user’s preference. Users can easily view web pages. Because of the many handset options, probably cheaper than the iPhone and Blackberry.

Cons: Handset and OS is coming from different companies. Not sure about others, but there will be a bunch.

With all these options, I think most businesses will go with B or C. The iPhone will be huge with consumers but Apple is going to have A LOT of competition in the business sector.

For all those who haven’t heard yet, Yahoo entered into a partnership with Google that will effectively make Google the ultimate king of search advertising (just in case it wasn’t before). Google can monetize search much better than any company on the planet. So even with Yahoo giving up a portion of their revenues to Google, they should still make more money than if they were doing it themselves.

So the obvious question here, is this a good thing? The obvious answer is NO! This deal eliminates any potential competition for Google in search marketing. A monopoly in any market is always bad.  On the other hand, this might not turn out badly for consumers or businesses. Dominance in technology is extremely hard to hold onto. Former incredibly dominant companies include Microsoft, Palm, AOL, Yahoo, Sony…do I need to go on? The bigger a company gets, the more of a target they become.

The majority of people started their experience with the web through AOL. People didn’t understand how the web worked. They just knew that they sign onto AOL and can email, chat, and do whatever else we all used to do on AOL. At some point, the majority gained a better understanding of the web and learned that they don’t need AOL to do what they want to do online. They can access the web through any ISP and get the same information. AOL, as a gateway, became pointless. Through Internet Explorer’s dominance/monopoly, users developed a similar relationship with IE. They felt that they can use any ISP but IE was their connection to the web. Users learned more, and now understand that any browser can get them there.

Google holds that place in the many user’s minds at this point in time. It’s a gateway to the information they want. Google, however, doesn’t hold that information. The information is out there for anyone to organize and spit back to us. Google’s algorithm is good when compared to it’s competitors, but it’s not SO much better. There is a very good chance that a competitor will come along in the next decade and show us how Google is a gateway, and we don’t need them to get the information we need. Check back for an update in 10 years. We’ll see if I was right.

People are wired/trained to recognize the the slightest emotion in the human face. The slightest curve of the lip, raise of the eyebrow, or furrowing of the brow implies a different mood. There isn’t one other part of the body that we can analyze as well as the human face. Why is that?

According to the Face Perception Wikipedia entry:

The face is an important site for the identification of others and conveys significant social information. Probably because of the importance of its role in social interaction, psychological processes involved in face perception are known to be present from birth, to be complex, and to involve large and widely distributed areas in the brain.

So we know we’re wired to be able to interpret the face with more complexity. Does that mean that we can explain those complex processes? I don’t think so. I can very easily tell when someone is worried but might have a hard time defining what aspects of their appearance makes me think they are worried. It’s our developed brains that can analyze faces but cannot always verbalize those analyses.

Let’s take this analogy to the evolution of web users. I personally could never stand MySpace. I didn’t know why. It just bothered me. I signed up once and after a week or so and then closed my account. I knew I couldn’t stand the design, but so many people loved it (they won’t admit it now). It was more than the design, however. There was something in my subconscious that was telling me that I don’t like this site. It was something that I wasn’t able to explain in words. I figured social networking just didn’t appeal to me. Then Facebook comes along, and after pushing off signing up for as long as possible, I signed up and I love it.

I still wonder why I have such an affinity for Facebook but still can’t stand MySpace. I think it goes beyond design. It’s a mixture of design, usability, accessibility, and overall usefulness. All these things, combined with some undefinable qualities, create a conscious and subconscious decision on whether I like a website. And while I’d like to think I was ahead of the curve disliking MySpace, I think any new website has to deal with the refined tastes of web users. We analyze websites like we analyze faces. It’s hard for us to tell why in particular we don’t like or use a specific site. It’s just a feeling that we get. Some sites just make us want to use them. This is what developers should be working towards. They should be looking to find those key elements that unlock the “favorable” opinion in our minds. A lot has to do with design. A lot has to do with usability, accessibility, and usefulness. But there is more there that a developer needs to capture in the user’s mind. I know what it is but can’t put it into words. If it was definable, then everyone’s site would be successful.