Detached Confusion

Earlier this week I was approached by a co-worker who comes to me often asking about the latest Apple rumor or whenever she has questions about whether or not it is a good time to by X or Y Apple product. In this instance, she asked me if the "new iPhone" was still coming out in September, just as I had told her it would when I heard the news in late May and early June saying as much. I informed her about the recent WSJ piece purporting the release data to now be set for sometime in October. She was disappointed at this news, as she has been holding out for the new iPhone since earlier this year. She had came to me in February, and I had told her to hold off until June. When the Apple enthusiast community learned it would be September, I told her to hold off again. After now telling her that it would be October, she was further disappointed. Her exact wording is what I wanted to share with you though. She specifically asked me of when the new "four" was coming out, and if she should just go "get the three". Confused, I corrected her by saying, "You mean the iPhone 4, right?". It turns out that she did not misspeak. After quizzing her further, I finally cleared up what she thought was correct. She thought the existing iPhone was the "3G" one, not really understanding the difference between the 3G and 3GS. She has seen so many Android commercials from various mobile carriers as of late, advertising 4G Android Phones, that she thought the iPhone 4 was 4G. After explaining to her the current iPhone was in fact called the iPhone 4 but that it did not carry the 4G, she immediately asked whether the iPhone coming out in the fall would have 4G. I told her I was pretty sure it would not, but that she shouldn't worry about that feature as its still very new, is in limited areas, and doesn't work very well (battery drain, etc). From the time this exchange happened a few days ago, it has kept popping up in my mind. I keep asking myself, how many other consumers are similarly confused? How many consumers, who've never owned an Android or iPhone, are now going into mobile phone stores and buying the phone the high-school grad carrier salesperson sells them because "this one has 4G so therefore it's better, and, it's just like an iPhone anyway". On top of that, you can usually go into any mobile store these days and find at least one or two Android phones available for less than $100 (the next time you hear about Android market share, step back and think of what percentage of those sales are tech illiterate people who don't actually use their new "smartphone" for anything other than a phone). I think that's why Androids are selling so well. More often than not, when I talk to co-workers who do not follow Apple-related tech news as closely as I do, I hear this type of incorrect assumption. Unfortunately, there is no way to measure which percentage of smartphone users are tech literate, and who are not. Well, there is, but that would require you to have access to all of the carrier analytics of mobile phone type vs bandwidth usage, and even then, how many of them are on Wi-Fi? I just don't think it can be measured. Be prepared to hear a lot more of "Android is winning because it has the most market share!" type arguments. Also the market is so confusing to non-tech literate consumers with tons of acronyms or model numbers they don't understand, that a poorly sophisticated marketing technique along the lines of "Hey look, your shoe is untied" is just sophisticated enough to confuse these same consumers into thinking your phone is better than a competitor. What I mean by that is carriers are advertising their networks are 4G or claiming to sell 4G phones when the 4G coverage is almost non-existent yet or they fail to mention it will reduce your battery to less than 5 hours (and result in Android blogs having to write articles like this). Other consumers are extrapolating these same assumptions to think that the model number of an iPhone also means which type of network it can connect to (iPhone 4 = 4G network). I think Apple is partially to blame by this when they decided on the name for the iPhone 3G. Apple was very un-Apple-like when they flip flopped from the iPhone, to iPhone 3G, to iPhone 3GS to iPhone 4 naming convention. For better or worse, in the interests of eliminating user confusion, I think they should call the next iPhone just "iPhone", just like they do with the iPad. Apple geeks might not like it, but I think if they take that route, and let that new naming convention sink in for the next few years, it will do a world of good in simplifying Apple's message to consumers. That message would be, "We sell one phone. That is the iPhone. If you go into any store that sells the iPhone and ask for the iPhone, you know you're getting the latest and greatest. If you want the cheaper, 'last year's model' iPhone, call it that.". That message would be much easier for the average Joe/Jane consumer to grok.

How Bad Is News Corp?

Michael Wolff:

Well-sourced information coming out of the Department of Justice and the FBI suggests a debate is going on that could result in the recently launched investigations of News Corp. falling under the RICO statutes. RICO, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, establishes a way to prosecute the leaders of organizations—and strike at the organizations themselves—for crimes company leaders may not have directly committed, but which were otherwise countenanced by the organization. Any two of a series of crimes that can be proven to have occurred within a 10-year period by members of the organization can establish a pattern of racketeering and result in draconian remedies. In 1990, following the indictment of Michael Milken for insider trading, Drexel Burnham Lambert, the firm that employed him, collapsed in the face of a RICO investigation. Among the areas that the FBI is said to be looking at in its investigation of News Corp. are charges that one of its subsidiaries, News America Marketing, illegally hacked the computer system of a competitor, Floorgraphics, and then, using the information it had gleaned, tried to extort it into selling out to News Corp.; allegations that relationships the New York Post has maintained with New York City police officers may have involved exchanges of favors and possibly money for information; and accusations that Fox chief Roger Ailes sought to have an executive in the company, the book publisher Judith Regan, lie to investigators about details of her relationship with New York police commissioner Bernie Kerik in order to protect the political interests of Rudy Giuliani, then a presidential prospect. Well worth the read.

Which Is Mobile?

Jen Simmons asks, "Which is Mobile?" This is the link that Jen points to in that last tweet. This has been something that has frustrated me more and more recently. I keep clicking on links in Twitter from someone I follow, while on my iPhone or iPad, only to have the destination site try to reload the webpage as their mobile version of the site, which breaks the link and just sends me to their homepage. So let me get this straight: You've decided to implement a special, mobile version of your Web site that is going to supposedly make it easier for me to use on my iPhone or iPad (which can browse "full" versions of sites just fine, thank you very much), and your supposed "mobile friendly" version of your site actually makes it harder to use because it prevents me from arriving that the linked designation because that same link fidelity doesn't have parity with your non-mobile site. Lovely. Suffice it to say, I hate mobile sites. Just give me the full webpage, by default. Don't make me scroll to the bottom to hunt for your "Switch to full site" link, that is, if you even have one. I think Jen Simmons is spot on here.

Jonathan's Starbucks Card

Jonathan Stark:

Hi! I'm Jonathan Stark. You can download this picture of my Starbucks card to your phone and buy coffee at Starbucks with it. Seriously. My card gets charged, you don't. Details are here. If you're feeling generous, you can also add money to my Starbucks card by doing this and enjoy some serious good karma. Jonathan's Card is an experiment in social sharing of physical goods using digital currency on mobile phones. I stumbled on the idea while doing research for a blog post about Broadcasting Mobile Currency. Based on the similarity to the "take a penny, leave a penny" trays at convenience stores in the US, I've adopted a similar "get a coffee, give a coffee" terminology for Jonathan's Card. As it turns out, this is actually a new take on a wonderful old italian custom called Caffe Pagato, which translates to English as "Coffee Paid". Thanks to Francesco Pierfederici for alerting me to this article: Italian Lifestyle: the "caffe' pagato" (paid coffee) Custom. For the record, Jonathan's Card, Jonathan Stark (me), this site, or anything else I've ever said or done is totally not affiliated with Starbucks. Regardless of the fact that I should be paying rent in this particular location. You can follow the progress of the card's balance yourself on Twitter. As Andy Baio noted though, once this story hit Techcrunch, the balance has mostly stayed at zero.

Android Phones: Before and After the iPhone

I must have missed this when it was linked to a month or so ago on the tech blogs but the images were so compelling I felt the need to post. Andrew Warner posted a before and after shot of Android phones prior to 2007, before the first iPhone, and after 2007, once Apple's design was public. The difference is night and day.

What Happened To Obama?

A fantastic Op Ed in Sunday's New York Times by Drew Westen:

A final explanation is that he ran for president on two contradictory platforms: as a reformer who would clean up the system, and as a unity candidate who would transcend the lines of red and blue. He has pursued the one with which he is most comfortable given the constraints of his character, consistently choosing the message of bipartisanship over the message of confrontation. But the arc of history does not bend toward justice through capitulation cast as compromise. It does not bend when 400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans. It does not bend when the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically. It does not bend when we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates. It does not bend when only one side in negotiations between workers and their bosses is allowed representation. And it does not bend when, as political scientists have shown, it is not public opinion but the opinions of the wealthy that predict the votes of the Senate. The arc of history can bend only so far before it breaks.