(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.