TechFold - Bold tech & web commentary

The Phone Rings for Thee: Google to announce Monday?

The WSJ is reporting that Google is set to announce its GPhone plans Monday (Nov. 5), announcing partnerships with T-Mob and Sprint initially. God willing, that will push bloody Facebook and OpenSocial off of TechMeme for a few days.

So - what does a GPhone mean to me?

Familiar Business Model: I’m assuming that the GPhone will be a mobile OS built by Google, deployed on hardware built by others, serviced by multiple carriers, supported by localized advertising of some kind. That layout seems like a natural fit for Google: its got a familiar business plan, a familiar ethic (open platform!), and forwards the mission of organizing all of the world’s data, an increasing amount of which, in the form of call records, contact data, videos, and photos is tied up in mobile devices. Hell, if you think about it, its an near mirror of the desktop world: Google writes apps and services, deployed on hardware by multiple vendors (every desktop and laptop ever made), supported by ISP’s.

Optimized for the Cloud: IMHO this is where Google will really differentiate. If the OS provides a well-conceived conduit into Google’s cloud, it will be golden. I want to…

1. Access my mobile voicemail through GMail online.
2. See my call history online.
3. Be able to make voice calls online and see that history on my mobile.
4. Have a single online/mobile contact infoset.
5. Save & load pictures and video too and from a GDrive storage cloud automatically.
6. Enjoy true calendar integration - i.e.: if a GCal event is set with an alarm 15 minutes before, I want my phone to ring with a reminder, wherever I am.
7. A full suite of API’s and mobile developer tools to spur development and innovation on the platofrm.
8. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Apple is inching its way there with the iPhone/iTunes marriage - but its synchronization is limited to your desktop, whereas Google’s is global. Of course, Apple’s strategy is tuned to the mass market - its a model that people are familiar with, as reflected in sales. I’m guessing that Google’s geek-centric value propositions are going to see slower initial adoption, buy greater long-term penetration, even if white labeled.

Fundamentally, a single repository for your communications info, accessed through multiple channels (phone, internet) just makes sense. Google, as others have noted, is a natural fit to quarterback this combination of software, hardware, and infrastructure. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Google can pull it off.

apple, google, gphone, iphone, microsoft, sprint, tmobile wsj

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

How did time confuse evolution with invention?

It bugs me that the iPhone has been voted “invention” of the year by Time magazine. To me, an invention is something that does something fundamentally new, or does something done elsewhere in a fundamentally new way.

The last time I checked, the iPhone bundles up a bunch of well-executed ideas into a nice phone that plays music and browses the Internet in a uniquely Apple way. Nothing it does is “new” though - and though it may push the industry as a whole to rethink their offerings, its still evolutionary. A light bulb 2.0 is still a light bulb, invented by Thomas Edison, even if its red, shatter proof, lasts 10x longer, and leased for a monthly fee instead of bought outright. Was the first laptop considered an “invention?” Or just a different type of something that existed already - the personal computer?

IMHO, Time is confusing media frenzy with true creativity. Apple, for all their greatness, IMHO is best at creatively refining existing products or categories - not “inventing” new ones.

apple, inventions, iphone, time time magazine

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Sometimes Apple “Misses It” - the ipod calendar “add” button

Yesterday I opined that Apple “got it” - and indeed, in most ways they do.

However: Apple doesn’t acknowledge that technologically savvy early adopters can see through “Value Proposition Engineering.” Case in point: the ipod Touch, identical to the iPhone in hardware and software (phone & bluetooth excepted) cannot “add” an appointment to its calendar (despite having the software/hardware to do so), making it functionally crippled as an organizer, thus “clarifying its value proposition” vis-a-vis the iPhone.

Killing zero-cost, value-added features for the sake of brand positioning does not sit well with those in the know. So says Gizmodo, Engadget, TechWhack, TechShout, AppleTell,
iPhoneAtlas, MacUser, AppleGazette, Technovia, ack/nak, etc.

To be honest, brand-engineering like this is something General Motors would do. That’s about the biggest insult I can imagine for Apple - comparing them to an out-of-touch corporate behemoth famous for its pathetic, superficial badge & feature engineering. Lets hope this Calendar Add function is an abberation.

Of course, to the mass-market the move makes sense - as most things Apple usually do. 95% of the ipod buying public will not recognize the bald-faced chicanery behind this move; indeed, 95% of the public will probably never use the calendar at all anyway. Its just the loyal Apple-fan base and techno-savvy geek-corps who feel let down - not an uncommon sensation from Cupertino these days.

apple, calendar, iphone, ipod touch

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Apple Continues to “Get It”

Wired has an article today on how to create your own iPhone ringtones for free, which starts with this quote:

“Apple started selling iPhone ringtones for $2 apiece through its iTunes store last week, but if you aren’t afraid of a little tinkering, you can get that “Hey Ya” or “Sexy Back” ringtone without shelling out the extra bucks.” [from Wired]

What has made Apple a powerhouse is that 95% of the population is afraid of tinkering, or doesn’t have the time/knowledge [edit: or energy…] to do so. Its a question of “marginal benefit” vs. “marginal cost.” The marginal benefit from spending $1 on a ringtone is proportionate; the marginal benefit from spending however long it takes to figure out Wired’s instructions is not.

One might argue that Apple has created this circumstance artificially by wrapping a controlling software environment around the iPhone when an open one was possible. That’s your prerogative; but again, Apple is selling to the mass market who cares little for openness/accessibility, and everything for simple operation. Apple has built a money producing ecosystem around simplicity, and priced it to consumer’s expectations.

apple, iphone ringtones

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Apple vs. Sony: Why a $600 phone soars and a $600 console tanks

Jeff Nolan writes on the Sony’s PS3 debacle. IMHO, the best part of the post is Jeff’s comparison between the PS3 and the iPhone:

What I do find interesting to consider about the price point is that more than a million people shelled out $500-600 for an iPhone (plus $80-100 a month). What does that tell me? Not sure because the Apple reality distortion field makes people do things they would otherwise consider irrational (me included), but perhaps it’s that communication capabilities outweigh all others in terms of the perceived value of a device. Let’s also not forget that the iPhone is fashion, the PS3 simply isn’t. [Jeff Nolan]

Jeff identifies two good reasons for the success of the iPhone and the failure of the PS3 - value from communication, and value from fashion. I’d like to add a few other reasons as to why one $600 spend is justifiable and another isn’t:

1. Marginal Benefit: the marginal benefit of a PS3 over a PS2, for the average person, is comparatively low. A bump in graphics quality (which incurs secondary costs, see below), combined with an unresolved format-battle tie-in (Blu-ray) creates a murky “pro” list with which to justify a purchase, vs. a very clear “con” in the form of $600 for a living room entertainment device.
2. Secondary Costs: Realizing the full benefit of the PS3 requires (for many) upgrading a TV, receiver and speakers, and cabling - potentially thousands of dollars to be spent. Secondary costs quickly erode the already shaky core proposition of slightly better graphics (see Marginal Benefit above).
3. Usage Credibility: Justifying a major purchase requires some credible utility that you’ll get out of it. As Jeff pointed out for the iPhone, “communication” is perceived as such; unfortunately for Sony, living room game-playing is not.
4. Usage Frequency: Your iPhone is going to be in your pocket all day, every day, and used repeatedly in a variety of ways through-out each day. A PS3 will spend 97% of its existence in an idle state gathering dust between playing sessions while owners eat, sleep, and otherwise lead their lives.

What it all adds up to for Sony is a lesson in marketing super-premium products. Premium prices require a clear, credible value proposition that can be realized regularly.

apple, iphone, ps3 sony

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Shudder: I agree with Dvorak

Shut up about the iPhone already!

apple, dvorak iphone

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Apple, Steve, and Burnout

This is pretty much a collection of random thoughts, prompted by Michael Gartenberg’s post on similarities between Windows 95 and the iPhone. I hate to be the “rain on the parade” guy - lord knows, Apple is riding high and shows little sign of slowing down. That being said: reading around I can feel an undercurrent to Apple coverage, that maybe things are getting stretched a little thin over there. The AT&T “deal with the devil,” 2.5g instead of the obvious 3, Leopard delays, a stagnating core-iPod lineup — Are Apple and fearless leader Jobs burning out?

Anyway - Micheal Garetenberg’s posted pointed out that (a) rarely does a tech device elicit such public interest as with the iPhone (w95 being the last such example), and (b) that the iPhone is - like Windows 95 - a better mouse trap, not a paradigm changing device.

Two solid observations, that highlight the core of Apple’s approach: iterative design contextualized within an overall strategy (seeming media dominance in Apple’s case; compare to data-dominance in Google’s), actualized through a consumer-facing design process that eschews compromise and accepts a smaller slice of big markets for the sake of cultivating brand excellence.

Boy, that’s a buzz-word heavy description. “Brand excellence” - please - this is taking me back to my B.Comm. case study days. That being said, Apple is the stuff of case studies:

1. They’ve profitably commoditized the geek-subculture;
2. They’ve broken down the barriers between fashion and technology; and,
3. They’ve created a corporate structure that enables breakneck innovation.

But - can it last?

On points one and two: Technology is no longer distinguishable from the other components of our day-to-day lives; some may have more interest in the tech-details than others, but fundamentally, everyone that carries a cell phone or uses and iPod is a “geek,” based on yesterday’s definitions. My parents understand Bluetooth, WiFi, device pairing, DRM, syncing devices, and so on; so do all the other parents I know.

Geekdom has gone from subculture to mainstream. Apple was ahead of the curve on this trend, recognizing it and bundling it premium design and prices to maximize margins on the early adopter segments. RIM (Blackberry) got on the same curve via the corporate market. Other companies (LG, HP, MOTO, MSFT, ETC.) are still struggling to hit their stride with but I’d contend that Apple’s edge in design excellence is being eroded daily.

On point three: Apple’s corporate structure is a weird blend of benevolent dictatorship and hippy commune. Dictatorship allows for quick execution and long shot plays that steering committees, boards of directors, and so on would other-wise pass up, while the commune underneath allows for a wealth of ideas to land on the dictator’s desk. Problem: the success of the company depends on the dictator and their ability to dictate. (1) Who do you see as Steve Job’s successor? (2) As Apple grows, will there come a time when the board will go activist?

apple, iphone ipod

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!