Mobile companies and their analogous countries

Sometimes when a problem is too big or too abstract to grasp, we tend to equate it to something we can grasp better. We call it an analogy. Dictionary.com gives this definition:

A similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

There is also a different application to an analogy. You can use it to compare a new concept to a mature concept to get a sense of how the new idea might mature in future. While this of course is not perfect, it is a reasonable approximation.

Recently, I came across an article in Engadget called Is Android fragmented or is this the new rate of innovation?

The article led me to think beyond just Android and more about the mobile market in general, and even the companies that are responsible for the primary mobile platforms. I saw some interesting similarities between these platforms and how they are modeled and some of the leading countries in the world and how they operate. I felt it was a reasonable assumption as, after all, we are seeing the mobile platform spawn the world effortlessly. So, here's my analogy of the mobile platforms (and the companies) to some of the countries of the world.

iPhone / Apple : China
The first one of course, is the most popular mobile platform at the moment, the iPhone. 

The success of iPhone as come about due to the following factors.

• Hundreds of applications at a relatively cheap price point
• One single platform and phone model (with minor variations)
• Tight grip over the user and developer base
• Tight control / censorship over how information is disseminated over its platform

While you might argue that its design innovation is what made it the leader in the space, I would argue that the factors above are what has made it sustainable beyond the initial shock and awe. As you can see, the tenets are not too dissimilar from how China operates as well.

While China is the envy of the world and is fast gaining economic power, there is also resentment about the practices it has used to get there. The point of this blog is not to argue whether such practices are ethical or not - it is up to the larger population to figure out. Rather, to me, what is striking is the similarity in itself.

Interestingly, like China, while people grudgingly complain about the non-openness of the platform and authoritarian practices, they nevertheless go ahead and buy iPhones. 

Android / Google : USA
Google is fast becoming a major competitor in the mobile space. Already a world leader in the search space, the Android OS has positioned Google well to compete in the mobile area, which to Google, is another feed for its search domination.

Android (and hence, Google) has the following features.

• It is based on a 'relatively' open platform 
• Everyone is welcome to develop in the modified Java system, but the platform retains control over its future
• It has an 'open' market although with a slant towards it's own powers (search)
• It attempts to corral the rest of the industry towards standardization
• The company promises to do 'no evil' (but may not be acting on it or perceived to be acting on it)

A lot of the fundamental principles to me seem to resonate with how the US Government operates. While in general, it tries to do more good than harm, there is general skepticism that it maybe doing it the other way around. People are cautiously optimistic about the new platform.

RIM / Blackberry : Canada
Research In Motion's Blackberry OS has become the de facto standard in business mobile usage. In that aspect, maybe it is not that similar to Canada, however there do seem to be some similarities.

• The platform is loosely based on a more standardized platform (J2ME)
• Even though the platform is quite open, it is still not as popular as it was expected to be
• It is happy to be in its own space, without trying to influence others

I am always surprised at how the platform has really not tried to expand to other markets, even after other players such as iPhone have come in and at the same time also maintain its hold on what it does best. May be they follow the words of  Jim Collins in his book Good to Great to the dot, which is not to say that it's a bad thing.

Microsoft / Windows Mobile : European Union
The article I had mentioned earlier differentiates Windows and Android in the way they see the device and software partners. Since the beginning, Microsoft has always thrived on a license-and-partner relationship, which has worked to its advantage over the years.

Windows Platform has the following characteristics.

• It works on a partnership model. Everyone pays a license to develop on the platform
• The platform heeds to the needs of the partners and waits till everyone is on board
• The overall fee structure is more expensive compared to other similar platforms
• Change is hard to make and it takes a while to happen as well

It's also ironic that Windows platform is similar to EU, given its recent problems with EU! However, the partner model (and problems thereof) does seem to resonate well.

Oracle / J2ME : India
Finally, we have the Operating System that most platforms other than those mentioned above, are based on - the Java Micro Edition. I would potentially put Symbian in the same category as well.

Let us look at the defining characteristics and the similarities.

• It's the most open platform compared to all others
• It tries to please everyone and sometimes ends up pleasing no one
• By trying to find a common minimum that will satisfy all devices, it tends to fall short of user expectations, leading users to create their own variant platforms
• Being a 'democratic' system, it has little control over the devices where it is used, leading to significant fragmentation, which in turn, compounds the problem of trying to find a common minimum.
• Even though it is a credible and viable platform, it is outdated and is fast losing its market relevance

To me, the J2ME platform's similarity to India is probably as striking as Apple's similarity to China. Interestingly enough, while both are hailed as leaders in their own way (largest democracy vs economic super power), they have their own differences.

While it may take a while for the countries to play out their roles, may be it will be interesting to see how the market reaction is to these mobile platforms, which in turn, may give a good indication of how the world will shape up - and I am not sure if the results we may see in future is something we may like to see ;)

"I am suing my company over Blackberry!"

If you own any of the smart phones that can receive emails such as a Blackberry or an iPhone, you are probably addicted to it by now. Jokes have been written about the wife divorcing the husband (or vice versa) due to excessive Blackberry usage. Personally, I can recall more than a few occasions where my wife has chided, scolded, yelled, and screamed at me for looking at my Blackberry on inappropriate moments - say, when she's talking excitedly about her new earrings or when I am at a red light in traffic.

While many talk about this phenomenon as yet another necessary evil, right after the Internet, is it really that unavoidable after all? As many of you would swear by it, Blackberry increases your productivity by making you more mobile and allowing you to work on your terms. One of my colleagues used to go on world-wide trips quite frequently. When I asked him how he got so much time to make those trips, he said it was because of his Blackberry. As a management consultant, his work was flexible and did not require him to be on a specific location 9 to 5. So, he used to get most of his work done at various times of the day, thereby giving him more flexibility in planning his vacation. Not everyone is as lucky.

As a downside, I end up working well beyond my normal working hours due to the emails that pop up in the evening or sometimes even at night - apparently there are a number of others like me who send the emails in the first place - and I don't get to go on vacations either! While you can argue that it is all about time management, the reality is probably close to mine than my friend's.

The other downside of the addiction is our diminishing value of etiquette. More often than not, you can see your colleague busily checking the new email that just arrived and potentially responding to it hurriedly in the middle of a conversation or more commonly, while at a meeting. To me, it is kind of equivalent to someone sitting and reading a newspaper or talking to someone else when you are talking to them. Our sense of priority has shifted. The email, even if it is spam, tends to get a higher priority over an active conversation just because the device beeped. Surprisingly, doing the same thing with a laptop is considered more offensive than with a Blackberry. Somehow, the diminutive nature of the device makes it more forgiving. I am guessing that when we get smart systems that are embedded near our ears and just read out our emails, it will become even less annoying, while being even more inappropriate.

The dangers of being addicted are not necessarily concerning only to the individuals who use such devices. I came across an interesting article in ACM Communications that implied that such addiction may actually prove legal grounds for an employee to sue his or her employer. Intrigued?

Nowadays, most smart phones are sponsored by the company (like mine) with the intention of creating the ideal scenario - giving more flexibility and making the employee more productive. However, if the organization also promotes either implicitly or explicitly, working beyond normal working hours, the employee can potentially argue that the company made him addicted to the phone. While there are a number of arguments that can be made for and against (flexibility vs. addiction), a plausible case may still exist, especially if the employee can go further and prove that such addiction caused physical or psychological problems (divorce, for example).

So, if the addiction is so disruptive is there anything we can do about it? How can we have a healthy obsession over our Blackberry while still not succumbing to its temptations at inappropriate moments? To answer this, we need to look at the reason why we are so addicted.

The concept behind Blackberry addiction is not new. The fundamental principle was proven by Pavlov a few decades back, in what is now famously known as the Pavlovian Effect.

Pavlov is most famous for "Pavlov's dogs." At the same time each day, Ivan Pavlov, would ring a bell to summon his dogs to eat. Pavlov noticed that the dogs would salivate at the ring of the bell, before they had begun to eat. This is called "Classic Conditioning". When provided a consistent stimulus, our brain reconditions itself to the stimulus so that it is tuned to that stimulus all the time. In the case of smart phones, from the original stimulus where the 'chime' meant an important email or message, the situation changes to an uncontrollable response for the 'chime' regardless of whether the message that follows is important or not.

Our smart phones are no different than the bell that the dogs responded to. We respond to them as soon as they vibrate, chime, or ring. We are conditioned to the tone. Much as the phones are "smart" and we are smarter, in the end, our primitive instincts have kicked in and have relegated us to the past centuries. However, maybe we can take a few steps to curb the instincts. This can be done by just two simple steps.

1. Create a new profile in your phone, say "Home", where it will ring when it is a phone call and will be silent for all other reasons - meetings (hopefully not), emails, SMS, etc. Essentially, convert your "smart" phone to just a phone outside work.
2. Once you reach home, keep your phone face down and away from the couch such that you have to get up in order to check it.

These two steps rob us of the three senses that are activated when a new email comes in (hear, see, and feel) - I am assuming that your phone does not taste yummy or smell great (or nasty)! As with any addiction, de-addiction does not happen in one fell swoop - you might find yourself checking the Blackberry whenever you cross it, and that's ok. At least it'll not be as instantaneous as you do now. Eventually you'll realize that the new frequency has not disrupted your routine as much as you were afraid of and it will become the new norm.

That's it. See if that makes a difference. Let me know by posting a comment.

Finally, remember one thing: years from now, you will not remember the countless times you responded promptly to an email during dinner or the times when your boss was mad at you because you did not respond late at night. However, you will remember the time when your wife didn't speak to you for three days because you responded to an email while having dinner and more importantly, your wife will remember the time when you complemented her new earrings ignoring the Blackberry chimes!

Parking Spots and Obama Healthcare Plan

Recently, I moved to a new apartment. The house is bigger and better, but with one flaw - there are no reserved parking spots. There are plenty of parking spots and they are all on a first-come-first-serve basis.

In my old apartment complex, there is one reserved parking spot per apartment and a bunch of 'floating' spots that can be used by visitors or even extra cars. This arrangement was quite good for me, as I have only one car and so I could park it quite close to my apartment.

The new apartment complex also seems to be relatively more affluent than my old one, and as a result, it looks like many of the residents have two cars on an average. These two factors - relative affluence and lack of reserved spaces - have combined together and typically result in lack of spots close to my apartment especially late in the night, such as when I get back from shopping. While there are still plenty of spots available in general, they are no more close to my apartment.

While I can look at it as a mandatory exercise that's probably good for my body, it gets a little frustrating to not have it close to home (maybe I am becoming too American - I can visualize my Dad giving a story about how he walked for a mile to school in the old days!). Overall, I felt that my previous apartment had a much better arrangement.

This led me to thinking about some of the 'socialistic' plans of the Obama administration.

A market-driven economy seems to be equivalent to my new apartment complex. It's purely democratic and whoever can meet the demand (empty parking space), get to supply (park the car). In general, this is great - it's purely meritocratic. However, as in the case of my new apartment, the trouble comes when there is an imbalance in the economy, such as when some people have more cars than average, and some less (rich vs middle-class vs poor). In this scenario, the ones who have more and are at the right place at the right time (reasonably affluent and gainfully employed) get to park all their cars at the prime spots (good healthcare at good hospitals). At the outset, this looks great - purely meritocratic, right? But what about the average Joe who has one single car and works late? He cannot park his car because someone with two cars took his place! Now would that be considered fair? Shouldn't Joe be assured at least one spot so he can park comfortably?

To me, this seems very similar to the ideal goal of partial Government intervention, a la Obama healthcare plan (other nuances and politics aside). The government should be responsible for providing at least certain minimal level of care (one parking spot per apartment), while letting the market rule anything above (additional 'floating' parking spots for extra cars). This seems to be a much better proposition than a pure 'floating' model. Needless to say, it also better than letting the apartment management make 'all' spots reserved without any 'floating' spaces, as that provides very little flexibility and adds more bureaucracy (such as when getting a new car, you have to go to the management to get a new spot assigned).

So, in all, it looks like the ideal option is to have a 'minimum' Government intervention (aka Public Option) that provides some basic guarantees while providing some flexibility for anything beyond the minimum.We can extend the same logic to other 'social' programs such as Education as well.

What do you think? Do post a comment.