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 ;)

No stuff just fluff: Comparing Blackberry and Apple ads

It is amazing how some companies just refuse to listen and learn from others and are hell bent on being obstinate and pig-headed. At least this was the thought that ran in my head when I watched the promo ad for the upcoming Blackberry 6 OS.

It's kind of a given at this point that Apple is the unsung hero for all 'visual' thinkers. Every Apple show or unveiling is accompanied with oohs and aahs from bloggers on visual presentation, and rightly so. Apple (and some say, Steve Jobs) has refined the art of presentation and is constantly crediting for removing presentations from the shackles of bullets.

Much as I disagree with the tactics used by Apple in their iProducts, I can't help but appreciate their inventive ads - the ads embody the general rules that are identified in Heaths' Made to Stick book. In the book, the authors suggest that in order for an idea to stick in the viewer's mind, it should have the following qualities.

1. Simple
2. Unexpected
3. Concrete
4. Credible
5. Emotional
6. Story

Most of Apple's presentations and advertisements follow this format. They are simple, have an unexpected message (mostly related to the new product), have concrete information, comes from a credible source (in this case, authoritative, at least), has a cute little - most times youthful - song  that appeals to the target audience, and has a nice flow from start to finish (sometimes with a story).



This simple (well, simple in thought, but not simplistic) format has made superstars out of most Apple products. You would think that the competitors to Apple will take to heart what worked for the company and try to improve on it. But nooooooo, that's apparently not how the world works.

Case in point is the new promo bit from Research in Motion for their Blackberry 6 OS in their trade show. I like Blackberry. It's a great product - does what it's supposed to do and is fairly open to developers (better than Apple at least) and does not nickel and dime you for everything.

It is no secret that the iPhone, with all its billion apps, still has significant drawbacks as a decent technology product - lack of multitasking, lack of Flash, relatively low quality camera, etc. While the current OS (5.0) shares some of the problems, the new OS apparently does multitasking and a lot more.

The aim of the ad, at least as RIM intends, is to tell the consumers that the new OS will make the Blackberry a lot more seamless, user-friendly, powerful, and most of all, fun to work with. This is great, but look at the ad.



What's up with the dancing people? The background completely overshadows the foreground. During the whole ad, I was distracted by the dancing in the back, making it really difficult for me to focus on what's new with the OS - definitely not what I believe the intention is. How can a company still not learn - both from itself and from others? It boggles my mind.

The ad is not simple (especially not with all the background dancing and old-school music), it is not emotional (at least not the right kind - I believe they wanted to show that the OS is fun to work with via the dancing, but it annoyed me more than engage me), and it did not have a story (well, the screens flowed decently, but it was too difficult to focus on it with the artificial dancing in the background). The ad missed out on 3 of the 6 points mentioned above, effectively making it a failure.

It also goes to show the power of visual presentation - how fluff can in effect make it look like there is a lot more stuff - something that's important not just for people without stuff, but also for those that do. It is more tragic to see someone make the stuff look less important due to bad fluff than one who makes the stuff look better with fluff.