Slashdot Mirror
Nokia's N-Gage - Savaged By Online Opinion
Thanks to CNN for their column discussing how the Internet has changed the way 'bad' products are viewed, with reference to Nokia's N-Gage 'mobile game deck'. The columnist argues: "Ten years ago you might have quietly withdrawn [an 'awkward' product] from store shelves", but times have changed: "The Internet provides an instant, widespread referendum on products... And the Net crowd, for obvious reasons, tends to eye high-tech products. But the things that do get interest, usually negative, watch out." He then gives the immensely popular, N-Gage-related Side Talkin' site as an example of this backlash, quoting a Nokia spokesman as saying of the site: "It's better to have some reaction than no reaction at all."
Would VHS have lost to Betamax?
Would Windows be more popular than Linux?
Personally I always got most of my information by talking to people who knew more shit than me.
Now wash your hands.
Before seeing the pictures of "Side Talking" on one of the sites in the article, I thought the N-gage concept was OK. I didn't realize how stupid the phone portion of the device was! I stand thoroughly corrected... it's hard to describe how shocked I am that a product like that could come to market - someone please tell me there is a standard hands free headset at least!
In fact, we're witnessing a defining moment in history that is indeed changing, and will continue to change, corporate markets forever.
Never before has this been possible. An individual, at virtually zero cost, can now express their opinion about the acts of a corporation or their products. Prior to the explosion of the internet, the only "people" with a voice loud enough to be heard by the buying public were those that had enough financial backing to fund such a publication. That included a very short list of a) corporations, such as the one that is selling the product in question, and b) large media organizations, which are also corporations. The problem is that "a" is clearly and understandably biased -- as their only responsibility is to profit off of their own product. Unfortunately, so is "b", as the very economic viability of traditional media is co-dependent on the health of a commercial marketplace, and the advertizing dollars that support it, thus implying an inherent and unavoidable conflict of interest. While there remained the possibility that a subscriber-based review publication could remain bias-free, that only acts in the interest of those that are able and willing to pay for the unbiased report -- i.e., a small enough minority that it does not protect the general population.
But here we have an environment in which a very minimially funded voice (i.e., a private individual) can easily make themselves heard to those who want to listen. Thus the tens of millions of advertising dollars invested by the product manufacturer can be trumped by pennies invested by the masses.
In the end, what does this mean? It means that the corporation will be forced to adjust to a new market. Period. Sure, there will be court battles regarding free speach vs. trademarks and ip claims, etc., etc. But ultimately, the corporations that adjust fastest, rather than those fighting the customer, will sell more products and thus grow healthier and stronger than those that do not adjust. And those healthier corporations will be marketing products that are driven directly by consumer desires. This is a good thing for the consumer, is it not? Can you think of a counterexample, where the ultimate needs of the masses were better known by the corporation than the masses themselves?
Note that I am not saying that there are not situations in which small, informed bodies can actually make better decisions for the majority than the majority itself. However, should those decisions not be relegated to a democratically elected body -- i.e., government?
Of course, the trend of free, instantanious information dissemination across a broad spectrum of the internet tends to democracize corporations over time, thus further blurring the lines between the corporation and the government itself. A parallel, of course, being drawn with the advent of inexpensive publishing via the printing presses that drove the governments themselves toward democracy.
And, like the risk of the democracy, the needs of the few can be lost in the desires of the many. So as corporations function more like a democratic government in the age of self-publishing, we can learn from the problems inherent in such governance when looking to the future problems we will face with corporations.