(Mobile) Consumer's Dilemma

Google rolled out several new Android features that make choosing Android phones a lot more enticing: 

1. Voice Actions (that humans can actually comprehend and use)
2. Gesture Search Activated by an Actual Gesture
3. "Chrome-to-Phone" to Link PC to Mobile Phone

Just when people were beginning to think Google was about to join the dark side undermining us little people, Google does things like these that remind us it's still got it -- folks there actually take the time to think about how the available technology can be applied in real life and make the technology more useful, accessible, relevant, and fun to use, improving our lives in the process.  


But then, even yesterday, someone asked me over dinner which I prefer more (I've been using HTC's Incredible for about 2 months now after iPhone 3GS I had previously met an untimely demise, and I consider myself as a top 1-5% Android veteran).  Without any hesitation, I replied "Android is more powerful, but I love the iPhone more."  

Sure, this animation parody was created to poke fun at the Apple fanboys/girls, but I really can't help but feel this way sometimes.  iPhone was the device that made us mobile enthusiasts "see god" - it was the game changer that shifted the paradigm of what a mobile phone is and can be.  It actually elicits emotional response and attachment to the iPhone/Apple brand by moving us through its narrative: 

If you don't really feel anything looking at the clip above, you probably enjoy telling little kids Santa Claus doesn't exist in real life.  And the look and feel of the iPhone 4 -- zOMG.  I don't care (since I don't have one) whether the external antenna drops your calls when you hold it the wrong way.  The way its aluminum casing wraps around the sleek, modern lines of the phone itself, I die. 


So... which one do you choose?  I don't know -- I personally have seriously considered owning 2 phones just to have both (although I've come to my senses and decided not to).  2 remarks to end this rant: 


1. The smart guy, leader of the team responsible for the Android feature launch, said we're now "entering mobile supercomputing era."  I wish I thought of that phrase first.  I believe the previous dichotomy of "desktop VS. laptop" will no longer be valid.  Going forward, such discussions will veer toward "which laptop AND which phone to go with?"  I see the desktops being phased out from our every day consideration set unless you have a specific use for it (i.e. enterprise use).  Also, the question of device selection will no longer take the form of either-or (i.e. VS.), as, rightly so, there are rigorous efforts to link your PCs to your mobile phones to provide a seamless computing experience.  


2. Plea to both the Android and the iOS OS developers -- please please please x100 make your OSs compatible to each other.  As much as we understand why that exists and have lived through the Window/Mac OS dichotomy, we're older and wiser now.  You and I both know we don't need the inefficiencies that arise from the end users having to learn to use the same technology on two platforms with different rules. 

Hipster Attitude: Ruining the World?

Wow -- at first, I could not believe the angle of logic that the legal team of Coca-Cola, one of the stalwarts of Corporate America v1.0, decided to run with to defend itself against a class action lawsuit:

Coca-Cola is being sued by a non-profit public interest group, on the grounds that the company's vitaminwater products make unwarranted health claims. No surprise there. But how do you think the company is defending itself?

In a staggering feat of twisted logic, lawyers for Coca-Cola are defending the lawsuit by asserting that "no consumer could reasonably be misled into thinking vitaminwater was a healthy beverage."

Very first thing that immediately came to my mind was the following article from the Onion that I read several years ago:

Is it my fault none of you stupid conformists can understand how hilarious and ironic my cutting-edge fashion sense is?.. About five years ago, I was growing bored with the whole neo-'80s electroclash look that I had mastered years earlier. I figured, why not go all out and take the concept of ironic fashion to the extreme? Just do something so risky and completely out there that it would blow people's minds. So I dreamed up the suit idea. It was like, just create the squarest possible look and run with it. And I was hardcore about it, too. A lesser man might have just snagged a cheap suit at Goodwill, but I went all out, choosing a conservative, gray three-button suit and having it fitted by the best tailor in town. I even had my hair cut in a short, non-descript style parted to the side. I mean, who the hell does that? I looked like a fucking senator!

I picture Coca-Cola's entire legal team consisting of guys/girls like above, the ones that decide to go work for a suit-and-tie corporate machine after receiving their JD degrees in top-tier law schools because "it's be so ironic."

I also think their using this ground as a legitimate defense in the lawsuit is one of the telling signs of the times.  Somehow, all the cool kids these days are being cynical, being ironic, using non-sequitur responses, etc.  It's un-hip to genuinely express exactly how you feel and what you think without layers of irony that force people to read you between the lines.

Laughable for me to sound this much like an old fart -- Also, to criticize the prevailing attitude of today would be kind of like refusing to use Facebook because you're worried about its privacy issues.  It is what it is, and either you learn to adapt or you get left behind.  Still, this hipster attitude annoys me.

Do No Evil?

*** Update: What the Google/Verizon talk can be actually about

If this is indeed the case of gaining comparative advantage in delivering its content faster to the end users through a biz dev deal, then more power to you, Google. 

2 interesting news about Google out there this week:

1. Google + Verizon = Death of Net Neutrality? 
2. Brand Name KWs Are a Fair Game in AdWords

Imagine the internet bandwidth as a congested highway.  I think people generally agree that having a carpool lane is a good idea to relieve congestion and reward those that aren't contributing as much to the problem.  Equality doesn't always lead to efficiency, and a tier system can promote the most utility as long as the incentives are properly structured.  Although we don't know all the details of what have been discussed b/w Google and Verizon, at least from what we know, it doesn't seem like a good deal for us little people.  First, it incentivizes the publishers instead of the end users.  Instead of charging a premium on the end users that want to acquire information faster (this isn't new -- cable/DSL is more expensive than dial-up), it proposes charging the web publishers to have their content delivered quicker to the end users.  This will be equivalent to selling a carpool pass for cost that will allow you to always access the carpool lane regardless of whether you have passengers or not.  Second, there is no mention of how much of the bandwidth will be for sale -- what will it be like if we were to have 3-4 car pool lanes on a 5-lane highway?

Deciding to put Brand/Copyright keywords for sale on AdWords seems, at best, a questionable move to me as well.  Google's explanation is “[Google Search] users will benefit from seeing more relevant ads following a search on Google,” and okay, I will even buy that and concede the end users will marginally benefit.  However, from the perspective of advertisers that own the rights to these words, I can't see how this change won't come across as a f-you move by Google.  You can usually ride out the changes that affect your long-tail keywords, but these are high-traffic/high-conversion top keywords on which they didn't have to spend their marketing budget before.  With the change, they'll now have to spend a significant chunk of their keyword marketing budget, as the few top keywords take up the majority of that, just to hold pace.  The clear winner here is Google -- not only will these keywords bring in more AdWords revenue, it also cuts costs on having to maintain the AdWords/Legal teams that used to monitor these.

It will be interesting to see how these two developments unfold.  While it will be too big of a leap to say Google has turned to the Dark Side, it definitely no longer is the darling with a quirky name that epitomized start-up success.  It's a profit-churning machine that needs to keep its shareholders happy.

Sad Day...

I didn't think it would be that difficult.  I always knew I would be returning her once the 3-year lease period expired.  I never bothered with getting a parking spot.  Both her front and rear bumpers were covered with battle scars from LA/SF street parking, and the paint on the hood and the trunk were worn out by inclement SF weather.  I washed her only on 3 occasions - when I went on dates (which there weren't many), when I had to take work clients out for lunch/dinner, and when I took her in for service (okay, the service center washed her).  Whenever a service person would try to upsell me on the parts or services that she needed (say, synthetic engine oil), I would fight the sales pitch off by saying "I'm cool, man.  It's a lease."  I always thought of her as more of a nuisance -- I spent more on parking tickets than gas every month, and she was a magnet for scratches inflicted by punkass vandals.  I used her so sparingly that casual acquaintances probably wouldn't have known that I had a car.

Turning her in today was super sad.

She was the ultimate utility infielder.  She didn't excel at anything in particular, but she could do everything I wanted her to do.  She helped me move 3 times -- I moved my TV with her.  She was able to fit 4 sets of golf clubs in her trunk.  She never broke down, and all her electronic gadgets always worked.  Once she built up some speed, her VTEC kicked in to push her just fast enough to be able to pass pretty much any car.  Her spark plugs fired just fine even after I'd just abandoned her on the streets of SF for a couple weeks.  Even her navi voice wasn't (all that) female-warden-like.  She was never flashy, but she was always reliable.

What I will always remember is my drive up and down between SF and LA with her.  I'm not sure exactly how many times I've done that drive, but I know it was enough to elicit "you're doing that drive again?!?!" from the people around me.  Just me, driving her, soaking in the vastness of I5, zoning out, thinking, working things out in my head.  I've gone through the most honest, the most agonizing, the most cathartic self-reflections during these drives, and she was always there for me then.  The eureka moments through those self-reflections will always stay just between me and her.

If I Ever Come into Power...

I will ban Prius from the highway.  If the Prius owners don't abide by the law, I will give the Department of Transportation the right to launch missiles at them so we can get rid of those effers from ruining the traffic flow in the highway system. 

Hybrid cars, especially the Prius, is the biggest Marketing scam ever.  It is the epitome of false advertising executed to perfection.  If you drive a Prius, I'm sorry, you're an idiot.  Let me explain.  

The biggest selling point of Prius is its eco-friendliness.  Just look at this atrocity that is a Prius TV commercial: 

It's Prius!  It's better for the environment from all the other normal cars!  It'll bring back Bambi from the dead!  BUT IT'S NOT.  THAT IS THE BIGGEST MYTH ABOUT PRIUS, AND HYBRIDS IN GENERAL.  

The hybrid technology is a solution-in-progress to the big problem "how do we make environmentally-friendly cars?"  For quite some time, there have been different attempts at trying to solve that problem -- solar-powered cars, electric cars, hydrogen fuel cars, etc..  While these cars do generate less greenhouse gas emissions, these machines utterly fail at one thing -- being a car.  Such technology aren't practical enough for us to consider these as a viable option for our every day life.  How would you like to charge your electric car overnight EVERY DAY to recharge its batteries and 10x your electricity bill?  If you run out of hydrogen fuel, and there is no refilling station w/in 100-mile radius from where you are, what do you do? 

That's where the hybrid technology comes in -- it pairs up the electric motor with a petroleum motor that both generates electricity to charge the electric motor and powers the car when the electric motor does not have enough juice.  This definitely make electric cars a lot more practical, however, YOU STILL HAVE A PETROLEUM MOTOR THAT BURNS FOSSIL FUEL.  While you have effectively addressed the byproduct from proposed solutions (i.e. make the cars more like cars), you have failed to solve the actual problem at hand (i.e. make cars w/ lower greenhouse gas emissions). 

There is nothing wrong with such a problem-solving process in itself.  Big problems take a lot of time and resources to solve.  It's a process -- you need to go through many failures, iterations, and proof-of-concepts to arrive at an effective solution.  BUT, I think it's wrong to take the half-baked solution and masquerade it as a final solution just because you see the potential for commercialization in the idea, especially when you're PITCHING THE IDEA AS AN EFFECTIVE SOLUTION to the consumers.

So, basically, if you drive a Prius, that means you're a hippie-inspired pompous hipster prick that got tricked into paying premium (Prius isn't cheap) to be self-righteous about the evils of industrialism.  Yet, you're killing just any many trees, and you're only fueling the evils of industrialism by allowing Toyota's wallet to get fatter by taking advantage of your ignorance.  Cheerio! 

I Be Proselytizin'

Ms. Curious:
i cant read your freaking zazang comment
did you stop it at "an..." or is it cut off?
cuz theres no expand option

me: it's cut off

Ms. Curious: its annoying me

me: leads to yelp page

Ms. Curious: oh its your yelp review?

me: yeah

Ms. Curious: ohh no wonder

me: what facebook does is it cuts off the first xx characters of your yelp review as a header

Ms. Curious:
oh gocha
cuz i tried to click somewhere and it took me to yelp so i was like meh

me:
haha
even though it was yelp?
surprising

Ms. Curious:
well i didnt want to see the yelp page
i was just wondering wat you said

me:
WHY
BUT MY REVIEW IS IN THERE
READ IT
IT WILL BE THE BEST REVIEW EVER

Ms. Curious:
also why are you liking 50 million pages
my newsfeed is flooded with
"hoon likes yada yada yada bla blah"

me:
i'm sort of doing research
i don't want to bore you
but do you want to get bored with my geek talk?

Ms. Curious: am i not usually?

me:
"like" is going to redefine how we search for information
like google did 10 years ago

Ms. Curious: how so?

me:
so up to this point
the main way google (or any other search engines) indexed and ranked its results was through links
like how many inbound and outbound links a page had regarding the keyword
"like" incorporates the factor of "people's voice"
are you still with me

Ms. Curious: yea

me:
so google did an awesome job
defining what "relevance" was in an objective way
but it wasn't able to anticipate how people felt about certain things in general
"like" does that

so let's say you search for "actors for 'inception'"
usually
oh nevermind
have you seen the movie
i don't want to ruin it for you

Ms. Curious:
no i havent yet
i LIKE LIKE LIKE THAT BOY
from 500 days of summer

me:
hahaha
okay
so you know he's in it

Ms. Curious:
YEA
i do i do

me:
let's say you search for "actors in inception"
it won't necessarily pull the information regarding him because you're not searching for 'joseph gordon-levitt" directly
but let's say enough girls click on "like" on joseph gordon-levitt because of inception
it gives the search engine the chance to consider indexing the information regarding joseph gordon-levitt on your search for "actors in inception"
making the search results more useful and relevant
are you still with me?

Ms. Curious:
yaa
joseph gordon levitt
of course im w you
LIKE

me:
sigh
not the fact that you like him

Ms. Curious: hahaha
i KNOW

me: but how "like" can potentially change the game

Ms. Curious:
but im just liking it again
so you know
that hes relevant!

me:
http://www.facebook.com/hoonster322#!/JosephGordonLevitt?ref=sgm

Ms. Curious: he has a facebook page??

me: "Ms. Curious likes Joseph Gordon-Levitt" about to pop on my feed in any second now...

Ms. Curious:
hahahah
no i refuse!!

me:
why
you're hindering the advancement of technology
don't be late to the party

Ms. Curious: is that a gorup?

me: no

Ms. Curious: or is the only thing you can do to Like it

me: it's his facebook page

Ms. Curious: cant join it?

me:
if you "like" it
you join it

Ms. Curious:
oh
FINEEE

me: and you get a feed of his updates on your main page

Ms. Curious:
where do i email him and ask when hes going to be in SF
can i like it again

me: no

Ms. Curious: there needs to be a REALLY like

me: you liked it once

Ms. Curious: not some half-assed like

me: it's not like the american idol voting process

Ms. Curious: shouldn't be weighted equally as my REALLY like

me:
you're just one voice
it's democratic

Ms. Curious:
sigh
but im chinese :)
communist

me: hahaha

Will You Sue Your Friend for Sharing Your Secret?

Suppose you had a secret to tell.

Nothing too earth-shattering -- it's not like a secret formula that will make you wanted by the FBI or anything.  It's just something about you that you wouldn't want the entire world to know.  For the reason you can't really explain, you are so compelled to share this piece of knowledge with someone.

So you seek out a friend that you think can keep his/her mouth shut.  You preface what you're about to tell him/her by "hey, promise me you won't tell anyone."  You then dump on him/her the load that was weighing on your chest, and voila -- you let out a sigh of relief.

Some days pass.  You're going about your business, then out of nowhere, you get a "dude... really?!?!" from one of your other friends that you haven't shared your secret with.  You dig a little deeper, and you find out the secret that you shared in confidence with a friend you trusted has become the salacious gossip among the circle of people you associate with.

What do you do then?  Do you unleash a can of whoopass on the friend you shared this information with and vow never to share anything personal with this person again?  Or... do you go even further?  Do you hold this accountable for violating you rights to privacy and prepare to sue this person?

I've been wanting to say something about all the hoopla surrounding Facebook's privacy issue for a while, but until today, I had not stumbled upon (geek pun intended) the offline analogy that can put this issue in the proper context to the critics of its privacy policy.

I think pretty much no one is denying that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed.  At the same time, it is too big of a leap to hold Facebook accountable for the instances of privacy breach on its platform.

Unless you're a luddite, you will generally agree that technology has improved our lives.  In respect to mass media and communication, through the advancement in both the infrastructure (i.e. internet, broadband, cable, mobile, etc.) and applications (i.e. email clients, IM, social media platforms), your voice has become tremendously powerful, especially in its reach.  At the same time, for every positive change, there's not so positive byproduct.  As your reach becomes more pervasive, you may find it more difficult to curb it when you need to.

I think people are unfairly targeting such frustrations on relinquishing that control to the applications, and especially to Facebook since it is the biggest dog on the block.  However, Facebook (or any other applications) is just a program that's written to spit out an expected outcome given its input.  I understand that there (ALWAYS) are some unexpected consequences, and some of the responsibility for anticipating for such occurrences falls onto the creator(s) of the application.  At the same time, it's too big of a leap to hold the developer solely responsible for the outcome.  It's an impossible task -- it's like asking the developer to be a reader of the future.

In the end, the feeder of input controls the entire chain reaction from starting in the first place.  And the feeder of input is the user -- i.e. all of us take that advantage of the new media.  If we take ownership of what we share on the web and educating ourselves on the strengths and weaknesses of Facebook, or any other media we use to communicate, the privacy issue will become a non-issue (or at least not as big of a deal as it is now).

Even the iPhone can't save you, AT&T.

Even Without iPhone, Verizon Is Gaining on AT&T

Synopsis: AT&T is losing its mobile market share, even w/ its exclusive contract with Apple/iPhone, Verizon zzz...  I am happy!!!!!


1) Okay, I can't remain impartial because of my personal experience with both AT&T mobile and AT&T U-Verse.  Regardless, I really really, like, really really really can't wait until AT&T goes out of business.  It's a dinosaur that should have been put out a long time ago.  Only factor that saved AT&T from its demise in the recent past was its exclusive contract with mobile hardware manufacturers (RIM/Blackberry, then Apple/iPhone).  Losing its market share even with the iPhone is a bad sign. 


The reception/antenna issue of iPhone4 is completely irrelevant to AT&T's loss of market share (Side note, the antenna issue was much ado about nothing.  I think it was blown out of proportion by the jealous herd attempting to knock Apple/Steve Jobs off their high horse.).  People still lined up out the door to get the iPhone4 despite of the issue being public knowledge, and since it had nothing to do with AT&T, the very few that actually might have returned/decided not to get one, they could've just kept/chosen a different phone out of AT&T's roster of hardware. 


One more tangent, I've been thinking about what makes Apple one of the few companies that can actually create demand for its products.  I think Apple is completely aware of the dichotomy in its products -- Apple: consumer product Vs. Apple: device that performs a set of functions.  It owns in catering toward "Apple: consumer product" (just watch their commercials) so much so that its ability to do that can overcome its shortcomings in "Apple: device that performs a set of functions."  That's why it sold the hell out of previous generations of iPhones despite the fact that its carrier was AT&T, that's why it sold the hell out of iPad despite the fact that no one knew what it was for, and that is why it sold/sells/will sell the hell out of iPhone4 despite the fact that its antenna sucks. 


2) 

• "Analysts estimate that Apple brings in an average of more than $650 for each iPhone sold. Consumers pay upward of $200, and AT&T subsidizes the rest. Verizon, on the other hand, pays far less than $300 for Android, BlackBerry and Palm phones, said Shaw Wu, an analyst at Kaufman Brothers."

You can get an iPhone4 16GB at $200 -- AT&T is willing to pay whopping $450 to Apple a pop.  I think there was a Verizon promotion where you got a Droid for free if you either bought another Droid or an Incredible.  That means they actually lose money on moving hardware. 


They need to make up for the loss and then some from somewhere -- luckily for them, there is us giving them money every month.  I'd be curious to find out what the lifetime value of mobile service user is that mobile phone companies can maintain such a business model.  


3) GSM is the global standard.  CDMA is only used in the US.  I wonder whether Verizon shot itself on the foot in the long term if it has any aspirations of expanding its business overseas.  


Maybe this is a moot point altogether.  US is not the mobile industry leader.  Maybe an Asian or a European company will come to dominate the international mobile market.  Maybe the American companies realize that, and they're trying to turn as much profit as possible before the invasion begins.  Hey, AT&T has long been nickeling-and-diming us already. 

Twitter Power

LeShenanigan from this week led to several realizations regarding Twitter.

1) For the maximum exposure to the LeBron update, I was sitting in front of tv with my laptop, refreshing both the espn.com and the twitter feed.  Not only was Twitter the most abundant with the new information, it was also the most entertaining.  High production value, talking heads, and fancier types of media still could not compete with 140 characters of fresh information delivered to me real-time through a live feed.

Furthermore, for "breaking news" situations, it seems Twitter benefits even more from the improvement of mobile hardware.  Twitter w/ a mobile device allows a reporter to bypass several steps (i.e. acquire information >> report) compared to pre-twitter era (i.e. acquire information >> find a platform to emanate information >> parse/package information to the specs of platform >> report).

2) Its character limit and indiscrimination of users (i.e. anyone, from the expert to Joe-the-plumber, can add his/her 2 cents) have allowed the pundits to disparage twitter from being a viable news source.  That's missing the point.  Regardless of whether you think this way of exchange information is inferior to the existing way or not, "this way" is hear to stay -- I think Twitter is more than just a phenomenon, and the information exchange process Twitter has helped invented/defined will be around even when/if Twitter:the company goes down.

Potential reasons why:

   - Instant Gratification: News is no different; you want it now.  I think the speed at which the information is being delivered increasingly holds more weight now to the point that, not to say the integrity of the information is no longer important, how fast you get the information from t(0) is just as important.

     So, in the function:

          Usefulness of information = f(speed of information, integrity of information)

     It's a lot more acceptable now to compromise the integrity of the information with the speed of delivery.  Yesterday, the most-used phrase among all twitter feeds was a variation of "Source/s says/say/said."  It may be premature to make the announcement before the information/sources have been verified, but taking that chance doesn't have as big of a stigma.

   - Facts Vs. Opinions: You search for all tweets containing the keyword "LeBron James," and the engine spews out a live feed that's a jambalaya of reported facts and Joe Shmoes' editorials.  Pundits think this is a big deal because the result (i.e. live feed) isn't "pure."  I think these pundits are discrediting the herd's (i.e. our) intelligence/common sense.  (Crossing my fingers) as you come to deal with bits and pieces of information throughout your life, I believe that you grow an eye for what are facts and what are opinions.  Once you're effectively able to extract the facts out of the jambalaya of information, is it so bad to formulate your opinion based on what you have extracted?

     We are now crossing the line of no longer having to make sense by providing facts (my high school English teacher is crying somewhere) -- maybe the line itself between the facts and the opinions is being diluted from this, but wouldn't the wisdom of the crowds eventually win out?

   - "Live Feed" Vs. "Dead Text:" As I was getting into Twitter, I realized how different this was from, for example, learning something from reading the New Yorker.  Realizing this also made me think about the current struggles of print media.  I'm not sure whether the print media is adapting/changing quickly enough to align itself with how people emanate/absorb information.  When people are expecting real-time updates on the topic of interest through a live feed but you're still delivering your information/editorial in a manner of "written-in-stone," wouldn't this be inevitable that people are turned off by such a method of delivery?

The print media is betting much of their livelihood on the advent of Kindle and iPad.  I think this is the right direction.  But their salvation may lie in more than just adapting to the hardware improvement.  Maybe Twitter (or something that's built upon its principle) is the software-equivalent of what the industry should adapt to in order to persevere.

3) Kind of a cute thought -- maybe this was how the true democracy in the ancient Greek court worked.

Lebron is a fascinating dude.

i don't think basketball is a priority for Lebron James.  i think that's perfectly okay.

how many of us can honestly say we do our 9 to 5 because we love, not because we can?  for us mere mortals, being able to play basketball so well to be able to make a good living may be a dream job.  but Lebron is a genius -- basketball is just so easy for him that choosing to play basketball is his way of playing it safe whether he really wants to or not.  his doing all this weird sh*t to bring attention to himself, so be it.  we will forget about it once he starts to hang a quasi-triple-double every night again regardless of where he ends up.  just think about Kobe and his wanting to get out of LA a couple years ago.

it's interesting how 2 of the most influential figures in his life are MJ and Jay-Z.  i think Lebron wants to replicate the blueprint of MJ: the global basketball icon, not necessarily MJ: the champion; Jay-Z is the real life example of how one can cross over from being an entertainer to a mogul.

Miami still doesn't make too much sense -- maybe he's going into quasi-retirement.  maybe he's satisfied with how much he's accomplished.  maybe all he wants to do is mentally check himself out, enjoy life, and pop into the office from time to time to show face.

I don't think you're ready for this jelly.

Groupon discounts can overwhelm vendors

Synopsis: Brick-and-mortar retails shops like Philz Coffee market themselves on Groupon to get more customers in the door.  Groupon ends up delivering more leads than shops/Philz Coffee can handle.  People get grumpy and complain.

3 thoughts:

1. Waiting for individually-pulled coffee can get pretty irritating.  I barely have the patience to wait for one person in front of me.  If there are 10 people in front of me from 10x'ed traffic, I'm walking out.

2. Too much of what you've wanted can be a bad thing.  Especially in small-business settings, entrepreneurs tend to confuse expansion with optimization.  Sure, getting more people to use your service is important, but you also need the infrastructure and the operational savvy on the backend to withstand increased volume and achieve balanced growth.

3. There seems to be a shift in the online/offline business dichotomy.  The trend for modeling a successful online business used to be taking the best practices in the offline business and replicating them on the web (internet retail is a good example).  Now, the lessons learned in the online world are creeping offline, as evidenced by Groupon taking the initiatives to educate people in the article.  Maybe this will go even one step further -- maybe offline businesses will start replicating what works well online.

Putting on my former online advertising geek hat -- we've solved the "too much" problem like this quite a while ago by identifying some key metrics and learning to track them to make educated decisions.  Only If "Cost-Per-Action" and "Unique Users" principles, two of the more well-known online marketing metrics, could be applied to Philz Coffee's partnership with Groupon...

One question comes to mind -- is it even possible to track these offline? 

I suck at writing.

This may be because of a bunch of reasons. I'm a fob, and the subtle nuance of English grammar still hasn't become second nature... I hung around with a bunch kids that thought adding random s'es and matching the first-person pronoun w/ the third-person verb earned more street cred while I was still in ESL...

Whatever the reasons are, I've never felt I've ever been able to adequately deliver all the thoughts in my head either verbally or in writing to do them justice. Time to hone my delivery -- it seems like I'm going to get a lot of time on my hands in the next couple months to do just that. Very nice...