The iPhone Keynote 7 Years Ago

I have been reading all of the annual anniversary articles about the iPhone keynote 7 years ago.  Every once in awhile I like to go back and watch the keynote over because I believe it was the best technology keynote ever delivered, Steve Jobs at his absolute best.  

One thing has always struck me when Steve goes into the three revolutionary products part of the presentation.  There was a widescreen iPod, a phone and a revolutionary internet communicator.  What strikes me is the audience reaction to all three.  The first two get very loud applause, while the third, the internet communicator, gets no applause, well a cursory clap I would say.  

Why this is interesting is that 7 years later, it is the internet communicator that has been the most important one of the three.  Very few people in the audience appreciated what was being introduced.  In 7 years the constant communication with the internet has been the killer app.  

It took the creation of the app store and third-party apps to really take full advantage of the internet communicator, but it has revolutionized our lives.  I cannot remember how bad phones were before the iPhone.  I had Palm Treo's, Windows Mobile and Blackberry's before I bought the first iPhone and they were all very limiting.  They all fetched email (the Blackberry pushed), made calls and were decent for SMS.  

There was something different when going to the internet with the iPhone.  It was night and day.  Also, the maps were incredible, they still are.  But behind all of the data on the maps were communication to the internet.  That app showed just what was possible when you could have a revolutionary internet communicator going along with a rich client application on a mobile device.  Most apps that have come since have used this same model to create amazing mobile applications that the web alone cannot replicate.  The brilliance of Steve Jobs was seeing the future and by announcing this functionality as he did, instead of something like an enhanced web experience, shows that he knew what the iPhone was all about.  Hats off Mr. Jobs.

The Chief Data Officer: An executive whose time has come

I often ask people whether they know what Netflix, Harrah’s, Amazon and Wal-Mart have in common? The answer is pretty simple. They use data analytics to leave their competitors in the dust. Many other businesses are trying to do the same, spending millions of dollars on data software.

It takes more than a steep investment, however, to squeeze business value out of data. Companies have to establish an entire system to use data to drive competitive advantage.

Data as a competitive advantage needs a department that is responsible for the analytics and getting all the needed data.  The data owners and the data users should reside in the same division to ensure the right data is always available and up to date.  Also, the decisions on resources should be within that department, not within IT.

When IT is in charge of the data, they tend to not understand the business as well as needed to facilitate data.  The operations does not understand databases and technology, however the analysts understand the business and the technology, so they should own the data and the facilitation of the data.  

Why Netflix walked away from personalization | ThoughtGadgets

n 2006 Netflix offered a $1 million prize for anyone who could improve its movie preference recommendations by 10%. Netflix, at the time, made most of its money sending DVDs in the mail to users’ homes

Mathematicians went wild. The competition was lauded by business pundits as an example of crowdsourcing genius. Because this was damned hard math, the project took years. And then in 2009, a team of mathematicians called “BellKor’s Pragmatic Chaos” actually cracked the code, achieved a 10% lift, and Netflix gave them the $1 million.

And then … Netflix never implemented the winning algorithm. Because personalization at that point no longer mattered.

Personalization has been such a buzzword for so many years.  Netflix was one of the poster children for this.  It's interesting to look at articles like this and understand they really don't utilize it like say an Amazon does.

In fact, this article is very critical of Amazon and I'd have to agree.  Amazon has decent recommendations, but it seems to be a fairly basic market basket model that shows what others who bought similar items.  That may be the best way to offer items to customers.  Amazon has all the money in the world for R&D, in fact they flaunt how much money they put back into their business and if they are using this model, it must mean the personalization models of predicting other types of product must not bring in as much as the market basket.

Apple iPad: bashed by bloggers around the web

A very interesting look back about what everyone had to say about the iPad when it was revealed in early 2010.  Most were very negative, however it played out well for Apple.

I remember this reveal.  I was not going to buy one, I didn't really see the need.  But I took a risk on day 1 and I bought an iPad.  I will never forget the first time I held the device in my hand and played with it.  What an amazing device.  Was it a big iPod Touch?  Sure.  But what made it amazing is it was a big iPod Touch.  I used my iPad much more than I use my computer.  It is the device i have with me when I sit down at the end of the day.  It is the device I read at the beginning of the day.  It is the device that I take to meetings to take notes.  It is the best device I own.

Big Data Demands Big Context

When we entered the age of big data, many of us assumed we had left the age of big risk. We didn’t have to guess anymore. We didn’t have to go out on a limb. We’d follow the numbers, the “truths.”

But time and time again we’re finding that it’s not that simple. No matter how good the research is, big data is nothing without big context.

The promise of big data is a complicated one.  When I hear most non-statistical people talk about big data, they believe it will answer all the questions they have about their business.  Big data is just making sense out of larger data sets that may not be historically the data everyone has focused on in the past.  

Once you break down what big data is and what it isn't, the question then becomes how to use it.  Context is extremely important.  Not just in the form of survey or research, but in the form of humans that have been working in the business.  The human intuition and psychology of consumers is just as important as ever.  Just as before there was big data, organizations combined data with business acumen to make the best decisions.  Nothing has changed with big data.  There has to be business acumen to combine with the big data finding to build the best product and have the best marketing strategies.

This article looks at Microsoft and Windows 8 to put this into context.  

Microsoft’s engineers discovered that people were doing less of the time-consuming writing and creating that had once been the norm. Increasingly, users were socializing for short bursts.

The research also showed that people loved having “touch” functionality and were avidly consuming small pieces of live information.

Consequently, Microsoft decided that Windows 8 should feature navigation that enabled multitasking and quick interactions, and that it should also have touch and live tiles.

People love touch.  I love to touch on my iPad and iPhone all the time.  However, those devices are more intimate than a computer.  They don't have the bulk of a computer and they can sit on my lap or I can hold them up.  

It turns out touching a screen on a computer is very hard over time.  While little touches here and there will work, overall it is literally a pain to touch on a computer.  After time your arm will become tired and a trackpad can solve many of the problems.  While I believe at some point there will be a touch interface that makes sense in a computer, to have the whole interface built around touch does not make too much sense.  

But what people say and what they do are two very different animals.

This is so important to understand when doing any research.  It goes back to the famous Henry Ford quote of "If I would have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have asked for a faster horse."  

Context is important, but so is psychology.  Customers don't think beyond using the devises or tools they have when answering questions.  They want a computer to solve a problem that another device should solve, but thats just because they don't know about the other device.

Also, doing research on what a customer would do if they were given a choice of the following is very deceptive.  I never believe what a customer says they will do, I always rely on what they do in combination of what they say.  When you combine the two, you get the truth which is always somewhere in the middle.  Remember to never change an entire strategy based on customer surveys of "what they will do if" questions.

The Revolutionary Way Marketers Read Your Financial Footprints

Laube, 43, Cardlytics’ president and COO, and Grimes, 51, its CEO, have since helped pioneer a data-driven advertising niche called merchant-funded rewards. It targets people based on what they buy, not who they are. “If you know where and how someone is spending money, you know lots of things about them without having to know their personally identifying information,” Laube says.

I have found that the transactions of customers is the most important predictor of future behavior in all data I have studied.  While the demo, geo and psychographics of customers is very interesting data, to maximize the revenue from known customers is to really get to know their transactions.

While I don't know how good these algorithms are, the theory is solid.  I happen to be a Bank Of America customer and the deals I receive don't seem to be any better than say my Rapid Rewards dining offers which don't seem to know my eating habits whatsoever.  If these can be perfected, I think it's something that would get me to use my card more often instead of using my AMEX.  I'll be watching because this is very intriguing.  

The Fate of Apple in the Post-Jobsian Era

Apple has been an innovative company, but was Jobs the only man behind the magic?

Steve Jobs was an amazing innovator, but to say he was the only man behind the innovation is a crazy question.  Where I believe they will miss Steve the most is how dedicated he was to innovation.  Because he was in charge, innovation was the most important thing.  Does Tim Cook believe in innovation above all else?  Time will tell.

Apple has yet to release its latest new, breakthrough product. A careful observer would notice that about every three years Apple Inc. releases an entirely new product. In 1998 it released the iMac, in 2001, the iPod, in 2004 the Mac Mini, the iPhone in 2007, and the iPad in 2010. So 2013 should have been the year the world was to see Apple’s latest gadget.

What???  In 2004 the Mac Mini?  Now this is a stretch.  That's like saying the iPad mini was a breakthrough product.  What was so breakthrough about the Mac Mini?  I think the breakthrough was it was 3 years after the iPod, which made the math work.

I don't know if Apple will have another big breakthrough in a new market, but it wasn't a every 3 year magic as everyone likes to say.  The iPod wasn't the killer breakthrough as much as iTunes was the killer software that made buying music and syncing music very easy.  

Apple CEO Tim Cook might have been great as CFO, but he’s not the one who should lead Apple.

What??? CFO?  What is happening to CNN?  How does a major news outlet get something like this wrong?

Apple launched a “cheaper” iPhone, the iPhone 5c, made of plastic and cheaper quality than the premium iPhone 5s. Apple’s advertising places the iPhone 5c above the 5s, a move which suggests that it cares about the cheaper 5c more than the innovative 5s.

Another giant leap for techkind.  Because Apple is pushing for a higher margin phone to sell to the masses over the more expensive "S" series of phone, this means they are caring more about cheap products?  Not the innovative one?  Who edits this?  If Apple really cared about "cheap" over "innovation" they would have made the iPhone 5c much cheaper than they did and have the "true" low cost iPhone the analysts are all clamoring for.  The fact they built a mid-range phone shows they are interesting in protecting margins and staying away from the costly low-end.

Despite Jobs’ legacy as a great innovator, credit often falls short of the people who truly deserve it. Jony Ive, Apple’s legendary industrial designer, has played a key role throughout the years in designing iMacs, iPods, iPhones, and iPads. Apple Senior Vice President of Marketing Phil Schiller has also played an influential role at the company. Apple still retains many of the individuals who served under Jobs and helped to design some of Apple’s greatest hits. 

One cannot even count the legions of software developers and hardware engineers who have made these products possible. Apple today retains many of those same people who once served under Jobs, a good indication that the company has a strong future.

So Apple is not in trouble?  What is the point of this article?  

Apple also has over $110 Billion -- a number that’s not going anywhere in the next few years (if not increasing). With that much cash, it can easily stay afloat in the market.

Great reporting.  Any simple search would have let CNN know Apple has $147 Billion in cash.  The link baiting from the headline is the only reason this article made the web.  

Apple will be fine in the short run.  Tim Cook is making sure the next product is fully vetted, and why not?  If Apple would have put out a watch or TV this year and it would have turned out like Samsung's great watch debacle Apple would have been panned.  Can you imagine the articles about Tim Cook if that happened?  Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

Ideas Are Easy

Companies trying to innovate tend to spend a lot of time generating ideas: Brainstorming sessions. Contests. Jams. This can be a huge waste of resources. In fact, most companies have no trouble generating great ideas. But very few are adept at the other steps in the innovation process: picking the right idea, expressing enthusiasm, and executing. So these post-idea stages are what companies should focus on. If they do, their success rates should improve as a result.

Apple and Samsung’s smartwatches are going to be way too cheap

In the $60 billion-a-year watch sector, most of the money flows to those who sell the most expensive devices: 0.6% of the watches shipped in 2012, with an average price of $4,285, were responsible for half the revenue of the entire industry.

That’s a big potential problem for aspiring smartwatch companies like Samsung, and eventually Apple. If they don’t tap into the ultra-luxury market, they’re going to miss out on most of the revenue and the healthiest profit margins of the industry that they’re invading.

There's one big fatal flaw with these comments.  Apple is more than likely isn't going to enter the watch market.  Back when they entered the phone market, they changed what a phone was.  The phone became a personal computer that could also make calls.  

Everyone is trying to determine if Apple can succeed in the watch sector.  It really doesn't matter what the watch industry looks like today, because they aren't entering that market. Now I don't pretend to know what Apple is planning to do in the sector, if anything, but I know their history of entering new markets.  They don't compete with current incumbents of the space, they create a whole new space which has similar functionality as the market they are entering.

“People buy watches for a variety of very complicated emotional reasons, of which telling time is often just a precept or an alibi,” says Bill Geiser, a former executive at Fossil and currently the CEO of smartwatch startup Metawatch. It’s a common refrain: watches are essentially fashion, a personal expression, and therefore useful as a mark of status or a gift.

To believe Apple is not going to make a watch that is a status symbol or a personal expression is shortsighted.  Of course Jony Ive is going to design something desirable.  

It’s hard to imagine Apple or Samsung selling a smartwatch for more than their “hero” smartphones—much less for $4,285. And if only 15% of the revenue generated from the global watch market comes from devices under $500, it’s a far smaller market than some analysts have argued.

One device has nothing to do with the other.  A smartphone and a "watch" are two different things and I don't think Apple is trying to price items based on the phone prices.  Also, going back to my argument before, the size of the current watch market does not necessarily translate to what Apple will do with their smart watch.

“The wrist is beachfront property,” says Geiser. “The watch market has been around for hundreds of years, and it’s going to be around for another 1,000. All we’re doing is taking this existing market and dragging it into the modern era… By and large a smart watch is still a watch.”

Of course this is what everyone said about the phone market when Apple entered into it.  The phone market had nowhere near the history of the watch industry, however the incumbents learned very quickly that Apple was out to change the market, not compete in the current one.  

Whatever Apple does I believe they will be trying to change what people think a watch is.  They will surely not be trying to compete with the current watches of today.

“It’s Just A Big iPod Touch”

I emailed my mother a series of questions about her usage of the iPad. Her response was illuminating:

So yes, I like the iPad, but I miss a keyboard. I don’t like this touchpad. But I use it now in place of my old computer. I go on Pinterest. But I am having a few issues (as usual). It just shuts down and the Apple appears on the black screen. Must be that I’m using it too much? I use it for email, Facebook, and checking things out. Love you. Xoxox

Sent from my iPad

I’m not 100 percent sure this is the perfect response from an “average” iPad user of a certain age, but I’d bet it’s pretty close. “Miss a keyboard.” “I go on Pinterest.” “Email.” “Facebook.” “Checking things out.”

11 Ways Big Companies Undermine Innovation

In centuries past, explorers searched for the legendary city of El Dorado, where everything was made of gold. Today, at large organizations, innovation is the new El Dorado.

This is exactly why Microsoft is struggling with innovating Windows.   

Why Does Windows Have Terrible Battery Life?

My main complaint with the Surface Pro is the incredibly lackluster battery life.

This is what happens when a company is more concerned with holding onto what they have instead of innovating forward.  Sure you will make people mad, but they will come with you if you lead the way.  Microsoft at this point is not innovating on their most important product, they are trying to maintain their market share.  There is 1 competitor.  They should have learned they got to where they were because Apple stood still and Microsoft passed them up. We are in the middle of seeing Microsoft standing still while Apple passes them back up.  Very interesting how organizations can't innovate when they have a big lead.

How long can Tim Cook avoid taking any risks at Apple?

Under his leadership, Apple hasn't entered any new markets. It's only done one radical overhaul of a product, the ultra-high-end Mac Pro, which represents only 4% of all Apple sales. The most aggressive new product features it has introduced—Siri, Apple Maps, and Touch ID—have had very mixed results.

Wow.  Just because they have not entered into markets that either are controlled by content creators (TV) or where the technology is not quite ready (smart watch).

To say Tim Cook hasn't taken any big swings, Jason Hiner hasn't been paying attention.  Apple just overhauled their mobile OS, called iOS 7, has he not heard?  iOS runs the hardware that is responsible for most of Apples profits.  It was very decisive.  If that wasn't aggressive, I don't know what is.  To aggressively move to 64-bit on hardware and software a year before anyone thought possible is very ballsy.  

The boldest thing Cook has done during his two-year tenure as CEO was to fire Scott Forstall, one of Apple's most talented executives. That's not a great sign. While Forstall was legendarily difficult to work with, he was also one of Apple's most creative and innovative leaders and had a lot to do with the success of the iPhone and iPad. He was rumored to be one of Apple's future CEO candidates, so his departure clearly smells like a battle for control and influence in the post-Jobs era.

These are not moves by someone that is holding innovation back at Apple.  Firing Scott Forstall, while seemingly a political move, is something that needed to be done.  Steve Jobs is a different type of leader.  He was the alpha dog and people like Forstall understood that.  Tim Cook has a more easy demeanor, he will never be Steve Jobs.  Under Tim the organization has to make up for what Steve brought to Apple, innovation.  To do that, there needs to be a cohesive team.  Sometimes in organizations there are leaders that drive an organization to do amazing things, but can't take it farther into greatness because to get to the place they are they had to ruin many relationships on the way.  That was Scott Forstall.  It was probably the best move for Apple.  Scott Forstall is great, but Craig Federighi will take them a lot farther now.  

How Apple iBeacon Will Transform Local Commerce

Overall, one thing is clear: mobile platforms are set to change the way we buy, transact and consume in our local environment.  Local commerce is a massive carrot for growth, a $1 trillion opportunity in the US alone. And somewhat ironically, it may end up being Apple’s “closed platform” which helps unify how online to offline commerce evolves, while fragmentation within Android actually slows adoption of these technologies down.

I am fascinated by this technology.  I never liked NFC.  I used it in the gaming industry to track bets on table games.  The chips were imbedded in the table chip and the antennas were placed under the layout.  It was so fickle.  Granted, it was new technology, but there were so many little nuances.  For instance, you couldn't have any metal anywhere around, or it could ruin the results.  The antenna had to be placed "just right" under the felt.

That's what I felt when NFC was touted as the payment mechanism of the future.  Anything you have to be so close to and there are many ways to interfere, that is not the future.  I can send a picture to my friend across the table, why do I need to touch my phone to theirs?  Same with payments.  If I have to take something out of my pocket or purse, how is that better than what we have today?  

Pricing and Apple

A lot has been made about pricing after this weeks event.  I saw three different groups of controversies this week, two involving Apple and one involving Tweetbot.  I think all three are interesting case studies in pricing in the hardware and software section.   

The iPad pricing was the most controversial thing coming out of the event.  Again it stems from every industry pundit wanting Apple to price their products to maximize market share.  Apple isn't in the business of maximizing market share, they are in the business of creating the best products and having quality over quantity.  As John Gruber stated this week:

As for pricing overall, I think concerns that iPads are “too expensive” are overblown. The same was said last year, and the year before that. The tech and business press frequently compare iPads’ prices and specs to those of high-end Android-based competitors — from Samsung, Google, and Amazon — and find the iPads lacking. How many pieces were written last year arguing that the iPad Mini, with its non-retina display and $329 starting price, was incongruously overpriced compared to Nexus and Kindle Fire devices with retina-caliber pixel densities and prices under (sometimes well under) $300?

But where these comparisons go awry is when they are conflated with tablet market share numbers showing Android devices, as a whole, making significant gains. As Benedict Evans argued this week, the rise in Android tablet sales has not been driven by the high-end would-be-iPad-competitors from Amazon, Google, and Samsung, but by profoundly cheap “$75-$150 black generic Chinese Android tablets” that are seemingly used primarily for video consumption. Evans calls them “the featurephones of tablets”, and argues they compete with televisions just as much, if not more, as they do with iPads.

The iPad does not have competition in the way that the iPhone does. Tens of millions of people use high-end Android phones — largely Samsung’s — in much the same way iPhone users use theirs. There just aren’t that many people — yet? — using Kindle Fires, Galaxy Tabs, Nexuses, or Surfaces as alternatives to the iPad. Thus the massive discrepancies between the iPad’smarket share and usage share numbers.

As John argues, even the market share argument is not a fair one compared to phones or PC's.  The Android tablets eating the market share of the iPad are not customers that Apple is interested in serving.  Apple is interested in customers that interact with their devices in meaningful ways; browsing the internet, purchasing legal content, listening to music, playing games.  Apple is not interested in customers that only browse YouTube or watch bootlegged movies.  These are not customers who will continually buy high-end Apple products, purchase apps to stay in the ecosystem.  These customers will also cost much more to service.  The hidden secret behind Apple's success is their service through the Apple stores.  Imagine even more customers coming through that channel.  Apple is building a high-end experience from purchase to consumption to service.   

The iPad also hasn't shown that it needs to come down in price.  Would I like an iPad mini retina for $329?  Yes I would, more than $399.  Is that $70 going to change my buying decision?  Nope.  What I am debating is the same thing John Gruber is debating in his article, which one to buy?  Or maybe both with T-Mobiles new pricing plan for cellular versions of these iPads.  

The second big pricing move from Apple is software pricing.  Where as the hardware pricing is being criticized, the software pricing is being applauded.  Everyone is saying it's an attack on Microsoft.  Look out Google.  

I look at it as a couple of different strategies at play.  First and foremost I believe it is a retention play on the part of Apple.  So much is made of their ecosystem in iOS and now I believe it just adds to that arsenal onto the Mac as well.  If all the software is free in the Mac ecosystem, then it makes the purchase price of a Mac more palatable.  It also prevents customers from jumping ship onto the PC.  The iPad also becomes a creation device on par with a PC.  And for free!  

The second part of this strategy is innovation.  When the customer base is moving ahead with Apple, the newest innovations in software are propagated throughout the ecosystem and everyone is using and showing it off.  This also makes for a compelling reason to choose Apple first for developers.  If the Mac can have the upgrade cycle that is seen in iOS, developers will be able to move their software forward without worrying about backward compatibility.  

The last big pricing controversy is Tweetbot.  They released their popular twitter client for the iPhone this week and they created a whole new app and charged for it.  Of course the world is a worse place because of this.  Someone had to forego their coffee at that price.  

Why has the world forgot the software model just a few short years ago.  You bought a piece of software, the next year a new version would come out, you would go to the store and buy a whole new version of the software.  Oh ya, this cost $50 every year.  If you didn't perceive the version was worth the new price, you forego the years version and kept using the old version.  This is what the market should be. 

So much is made of free software these days.  The problem is this ruins the business for many independent developers because they are playing a different game than the people offering free software.  The free software providers are either trying to be purchased by Google or Facebook, or they are the Apples and Googles of the world and these companies are using the software as a "loss leader" or a strategy to sell more hardware or advertising.  

I believe more developers should take the Tweetbot approach in the App stores.  Charge for new software every year, it's only a few dollars now.  This approach is much better than the freemium model pervasive now.  It also makes developers make the product they have a passion for much better.  If Tweetbot and others continue to give out free upgrades, these products become worse over time.  Why?  There are a set number of hours in a day.  Those hours have to be spent on something that will return on the time investment.  If Tweetbot never brings in more revenue, it doesn't make sense to spend time working on it, so it becomes stagnant.  Under the Tweetbot model, it makes sense to work on Tweetbot because that innovation can produce revenue in the future, which is why they are in business.  Hopefully more software developers start charging more often for their software and we see even more innovation in return.

Apple Under Siege

I recently experienced a small epiphany: I think the never-ending worry about Apple’s future is a good thing for the company. Look at what happened to those who were on top and became comfortable with their place under the sun: Palm, Blackberry, Nokia…

In ancient Rome, victorious generals marched in triumph to the Capitol. Lest the occasion go to the army commander’s head, a slave would march behind the victor, murmuring in his ear, memento mori, “remember you’re mortal”.

With that in mind, one can almost appreciate the doomsayers — well, some of them. They might very well save Apple from becoming inebriated with their prestige and, instead, force the company to remember, two years later and counting, how they won it.

As usual, great piece by Jean Louis.  I really like the last part of the article in which he states the constant naysaying about innovation will drive Apple to be that much greater.  It is true when you are on top and everyone tells you how wonderful you are, you can get complacent.  When everyone tells you how much you are going to fail, it causes you to dig down deeper.   

Apple should buy big companies, says former boss

Apple should use its enormous cash reserves to make some big-name acquisitions, the company's former boss John Sculley has said.

Rarely do large acquisitions of companies outside the core business turn out successful.  The only successful large acquisitions come when say a telecom company buys another telecom company.  This is just becoming larger much quicker through acquisition and not entering unknown businesses.  

I don't think Apple should buy large companies and move the company in a different direction.  This is why Sculley was unsuccessful as CEO of Apple.  He tried to grow the company getting into many areas outside of its core competency and it lead to a confusing direction for Apple.  

It scary to think he is out there giving companies this kind of advice.  He should have learned from his mistakes, but clearly he hasn't.  If Tim Cook takes his advice in this case, Apple surely would be doomed, for real this time.

Long Term Strategies vs. Short Term Market Share

Android users are not as active and engaged with online activities as iOS users are. And when companies from start-ups to established players decide which platforms to target with their apps, their web services, and their marketing campaigns, they’re going to go where the eyeballs are. If you follow where the money should be going, it should be focused on Apple.

Which creates a virtuous circle of engagement. People develop their tools for iOS because iOS users are more engaged and easier to monetise.

There is definitely a difference between Android and iOS users.  This brings up interesting points when talking about different business strategies.  When having products, engagement and return loyalty are things that create a sustainable business.  Samsung is selling a plethora of products and in volume, however if the customers are not engaging in the platform and are purchasing items through the Google Play store, Samsung has nothing to hold onto customers when their contracts come up.

This is similar to what we saw with the PC industry.  Because the platform was owned by Microsoft and all the programs and files could easily be switched from machine to machine, the manufacturers had nothing to compete with.  So when there is no differentiation, businesses compete on price and volume.  When that happens everyone loses except the consumer.  However, the consumers gain is only short lived because the products they are buying are becoming cheaper and cheaper and over time they last a lot shorter than the products they purchased before.  

I believe this is what we will see pan out in the cell phone space outside of the US.  Also, you have already seen this in the tablet space.  Because no one can compete with the iPad on a product and experience level, the market has already taken a nose-dive in pricing to gain market share.  The problem with this is the experience delivered to the customer.  These companies are taking a short term gain and will be losing these customers when they are ready to buy again because their experience is subpar.  

This will be fun to watch.  Hopefully we will see much more innovation in the years to come, instead of just relying on Android as a competing platform and everyone racing to the bottom on price. 

iPhone 5S Review: Patagonia — Austin Mann

I love the new camera on the iPhone 5s.  The slow-mo video is absolutely a blast with kids.  When I took the camera to California and was with my girlfriends daughters, they had so much fun running and jumping, then watching themselves back in slow motion, they could have done it all day. 

The burst mode was great capturing moving images.  To select the best one was so easy, then delete the rest with a click.  These are the useful features Apple puts into their products, unlike a Samsung that goes for gimmicks.   

This article shows the power of the 5s much better than I could ever explain.  

Capturing the Innovation Mindset at Bally Technologies

As a former customer of Bally Technologies I have to say I didn't see any of this.  They remind me of Samsung.  Samsung is a first to copy, instead of a first to market.  They are quicker than their competition to copy what is innovative and do it good.  Where Samsung innovates tend to be on features and technology they just don't know what to do with.  For instance, video that pauses when your eyes stop looking at the screen.  Great piece of engineering, terrible implementation of such a technology.  Works in very few use cases.  

Bally's is Samsung, which isn't bad, just not innovative.