See the full gallery on Posterous

At Mercury Coffee

A bro of mine sent over an email of the above artwork from Google I/O commenting on how scary Google is becoming in this space. Below is my response back.

I keep playing this whole thing out in mind. I’m not sure how long it will take for Android to either have complete mobile dominance or for it to all fall apart. The platform is great for geeks looking to do custom imaging and rooting, flashing to latest builds on the fly, custom apps, etc. — but I just don’t see how consumers are going to become either a) deeply in-love or, b) content-committed to the platform. Both of those traits of course, are true for Apple users.

No one (ok, less than 1% of consumers) go into a store and say: “hey, I want an Android!” I think everyone goes in to buy a media device. If the buyers budget can front an iPhone there isn’t even a dialogue on what to choose; everything else goes to the more accessible Android. But even at the point of sale—as well throughout the entire customer experience—consumers aren’t using an Android; they’re not seeing the OS and deriving any meaningful emotionally attachment to it. All that good stuff goes to the hardware and content. Some may argue that that point is crazy but when someone pulls out an Android device you’ll never hear em say: “Check out Honeycomb OS—Google’s latest release of Android”. Never. However, you will often hear excitement around a dude who just “Got the Nexus S!” or someone else’s brand new shiny HTC Desire.  

Everything being wrapped by the Android OS is moot. People aren’t falling in-love with the OS — the hardware and content are what consumers are buying into. You think that is bullshit? Ask any Android user (ok, ok — 99% of them) what phone their using and you’ll always here product name + manufacturer however, rarely prefaced by ‘Android’. This is all reminiscent of the TV manufacturing landscape where, like most of the Android usual suspects (remember Samsung, Sony, LG all came from this world) compete on price, channel-spiffs, promotional-garbage to fight for customers. Again, rarely do consumers associate content enjoyed on their tube with the actual folks who built it. As my marketing colleagues would say pointedly: they have zero brand attachment. Speaking of marketing, just check out all the marketing-comunications that ships with every big Android device for further validation to the whole hardware  emphasis. So, if these chumps aren’t slangin’ deep love for their OS to drive repeat customers to sale—maybe the content piece will help drive retention? With Google living in the cloud I suspect this is unlikely.

Google’s philosophy around content lives in the cloud, man. That is the reality of business who’s DNA has the Web etched into it. Chromebook is a perfect example of this ethos. However, look no further than the native Gmail app on any Android device (assuming the manufacturer hasn’t stripped it out and replaced it with their own). It is garbage. Hell, HTC’s Sense mail app trumps it! Make no mistake: this is non-issue for users already bought into that ideal. As we’ve all seen, folks who have already offloaded Email, Chat, Voice, Contacts, etc. to Google are more than happy to go Android. But what about everybody else? I mean all of us fine folks reading this are probably on Gmail — but my Mom isn’t and yours probably isn’t either. I digress, sorry. 

My point is: all of Google’s content-commitment from users, will — and probably always will — be accessible from a browser and/or web services. New product offerings like Google new music service is touting the same promise. Thus, without content commitment engrained in the consumer’s experience — they are unlikely to stick with Android for the long haul. Third-party apps will also fail to make the difference here as technologies like HTML5-based mobile frameworks allow developers to target app platforms en masse become increasingly prevalent. If all of this is sounding off-base, just ask yourself why you can’t pull down your iTunes’ content from a browser folks. Apple is supremely competent at driving content-commitment as it often means the difference between you buying one hardware unit versus every release of the iPad. Plus, the fine folks at Apple have got the deeply in-love piece down pat; I mean everyone with an iPhone brings it with them to the can — even girls!

Android’s got big challenges in this space but they also don’t seem to mind that much. Will consumers go back to the carrier and purchase another Android at renewal? Can they effectively differentiate at a content level and drive long haul commitment? I just don’t know. Unlike Apple, I don’t fully understand their objectives. Maybe 400,000 Android activations per day will drive enough impression-base to sustain the business long enough for it not matter that they’ve got low customer retention.  We shall see. 

A note of caution on this one, there is a lot of colour below and I appreciate your patience on my delivery. This post represents my thoughts shared privately with friends and personal mentors on what lessons can be taken away from the Wesabe story. Am excited about this reflection and so wrote my answer with some fucking chutzpah.

###

This shit is about 1)insight and 2)speed.

From a philosophical perspective, #1 would be your value system—the axiom that transcends every level of strategy and execution; the shit that both guides you like a compass, while also grounding you to the tarmac when you’re flight path is just too audacious. Number 2 then, is your virtue. Its the how, what, and when you execute.

The reality is you need #1 to pull some Henry Ford shit and create an offering that is so fucking forward looking that people literally have to have it; your offering has to be profound while also incorporating anything novel you’ve built into a simply perfect package. Remember, if Henry Ford asked those motherfuckers in the 20s what they wanted, they would have answered a Spanish Stallion with some dope ass new wheel cart with the balling ass ball bearings. The guys at Wesabe did just that and that’s the first reason why they failed. The problem wasn’t lacking data—it was just the work that was required to get your personal finances in order. Look back to my friend Rob Fraser’s personal efforts here and you’ll see that it takes books, research, and tools to get this right. Now remember, the best consumer audiences don’t want to do more work—they want to be told how retarded they are!

Wesabe’s answer to the problem wasn’t insightful, it was a hasty analysis with no substantial synthesis. Insight is combing all the pains your audience has and building a comprehensive synthesis that solves every problem, as best possible.

Number 2 is tricky but we’ve all heard it before. Steve Blank talks about pivoting, John Boyd references decision cycles, loads of entrepreneurs talk to the importance of failing and failing fast, etc. Hell, you all even know me to abuse the notion of pivoting; I just can’t find a better term to describe the emphasis of speed. Here’s the deal: in everything you do, it comes down to how fast can you get to where you are and where you need to be. Again, this true in everything—hired the wrong dude: fire him; the development language isn’t fast enough: learn a new one; can’t get enough power to the manufacturing floor fast enough: build a fucking power plant beside your shit. These decisions and actions not need to be immediate however, they must be completed as fast as possible. Note, am also not talking about diluting focus—the emphasis is speed.

Wesabe made some mistakes—which is valid, necessary, inevitable, blah blah blah—but when observing new data and deriving a more solid orientation, they failed to act with speed (if at all).

Insight and speed my friends. Curious to know if anyone thinks any different :)


Sent from my Windows Phone

Cirillo, F. (2007). The Pomodoro Technique. San Francisco, California. pp 38.

I think I am putting this up here more as a reminder to myself, however the value it has offered me is worth sharing.

The above quote is from the generous Francesco Cirillo via his free e-book (hot download link in the title above). The book outlines a productivity toolset that has the power to transform individual and team effort by removing one fundamental axiom from how we all define time: Becoming. That’s a shitty way of saying when using the tool, one is able to stop seeing time as a dimensional abstract, where time is a force behind our own becoming—and therefore, remove the elusive, indefinite, often slipping passage of time. More plainly, if your appetitite for crushing it never fits into 8-10 hour work days—read the book immediatedly.

Am embarrased to admit that I’ve been Pomodoring (lol) for over a year and I am only now grasping the real essence of the tool. What I failed to grasp was how out-of-touch I have been with my internal drive and subsequent fatigue.

I’m learning to observe myself. Both in productive state and also while not. However, the only way this works is through effective measurement and the necessary—often painful—introspection.

Hope you’re crushing it just the same!

Monday Morning Inspiration: Hustlin.Strong.Again via Riotsound.com

• Ken: Whatchu think?
• Jaime: Fuck that Lee guy. It's sad to watch. People's egos and emotions ruining such a cool organization.
• Ken: It's whack that anyone with any integrity would release a project just to fufill a contract knowing it was flawed.
• Jaime: Fundamentally dude. And not actually achieving the objectives?! It's gross and unethical. The bullshit is that these guys have fiduciary responsibilities to the "shareholders" and so they justify cannibalizing innovation because it deviates from profit for shareholders.
• Ken: ...
• Jaime: Every big company fails or transforms into something irrelevant...
• Ken: But i dont think it does the shareholders any justice in the long term--even in 4-12 months...
• Jaime: It doesn't -- they're just focused on very immediate returns...
• Ken: ...Using 2 years of development to release a failed product and buying a company to do so = very poor resource allocations.
• Jaime: That Lee guy should be fired and/or jailed.

A colleague recently linked me McMaster’s press release on the launch of Eight: The Hamilton Institute for Interactive Digital Media. The announcement was plastered all over the Unversity’s website with each partnered org offering up your typical sound bites. Mac’s President Peter George had this to say:

We want to be known as the ‘8th-art’ university, but to achieve that distinction will depend on effective collaboration with great partners. Capitalizing on one another’s strengths will create unlimited opportunities for research commercialization, education and training, and economic development and job creation for our region.

In the press release they make claim that digital media is posed to become the ‘8th-art’. Really what he’s saying then is that Mac wants to be known as the Digital Media University. Naming digital media as their mountain to climb sucks. It devalues the underlying objectives Peter George names explicitly—but more on that in a moment.

McMaster has put their money where their mouth is; they’ve taken a programmatic approach to scholastic R&D and they have a huge opportunity—and the students fortunate enough to take part—to make a dent in key industries while creating new products and services through successful commercialized research projects. This announcement marks the University’s next steps in forming private-public-partnerships where institutions collaborate at every level. With a number of industrial zones planned, the school has also secured substantial government funding and are certainly on the path to crushing it. As as spectator it’s been really exciting watching a master plan practically executed with such a high-degree of integrity.

Like with my alma mater, McMaster has situated itself as a City Building leader in Hamilton. For those of you have visited Hamilton’s west-end in the last 5 years you may have expected such an announcement.  Led by strong relationships with the municipal government, the University secured plots of land previously dedicated to industry and manufacturing. First steps included tearing down existing buildings and converting the various brownfield sites into a viable research research park. Driving into Hamilton on the weekend I saw the development firsthand and it is impressive. What started as an ambitious site plan has turned into a hub for the entire region to rally behind. The planning and execution by Mac has completely revitalized parts of Hamilton that had been considered dead and forgotten.

With Eighthowever, this emphasis on digital media is a total wank. McMaster, like others, has jumped on the digital media bandwagon. To me digital media is like this cutesy—often ambiguous—qualifier that allows an institution to say ‘we’re trying something new’ and claim that ‘failure is an option’. It sucks. If digital media is art then this whole notion of commercialized research goes out the window also. How can you instill necessary skill sets like innovation and entrepreneurship to a group of students for example, if their work is rooted in aesthetics? As much as I want to regard things like product design, economic development and commerce as art I understand that it’s impossible. Practically applying concepts to any problem/opportunity for the purpose of funding research, driving development and creating jobs is not art—it’s entrepreneurship and innovation.

I get that digital media is a broadly sweeping qualifier and can leave the doors open to many opportunities.  I also respect and appreciate the efforts made by Mac but ultimately loathe their branding decisions here. To me the name of any space is the ultimate tell-all. Brand can be a powerful authenticity tool and I think Mac may be setting themselves up for limited success. If it were up to me I would have called the space WEWOGMASOMFUM: The Digital Design and Creation Institute. Silly right? Not when WEWOGMASOMFUM translates to We Want Our Grads to Make So Much Fucking Money.

Personally, I’d much rather climb a mountain called WEWOGMASOMFUM than one called digital media.

spime:

Visual Hearing Aid combines the function of both the visual and hearing aid to display what other people are saying via two projectors to the user. The device uses speech to text translation software on embedded controllers to display the speech as text via two micro-projectors.

Ill. 

My Weekend at Lake Rosseau via OpenMode.ca