I agree... shitty software (see desktop bloatware) is a horrible way to differentiate. Apple has no qualms about ripping things apart at any point in the technology stack so that they can provide a real improvement or unique experience to the customer. See Visual Voicemail as an example. No-one had anything like that until Apple forced it ahead because they could wedge the issue.
Yes, companies like Dell that now have to sell out, or IBM who sold their consumer business, or companies like Gateway and Compaq that both had to sell out, or companies like HP that are floundering in the consumer market.
If you do exactly the same thing as your competition, don't be surprised when you drop in relevance as competitors do the exact same thing cheaper.
If you want to make sales and stay in business as an Android manufacturer, yes you do need a way to differentiate yourself from other Android manufacturers. Otherwise the only thing to compete on is price, and that's a race to the bottom with shrinking profit margins to see who can put out the cheapest possible product. See desktop Windows computers as a prime example for this market phenomenon.
It's a PHONE. Making a call is it's PRIMARY PURPOSE.
Good for you. Making a phone call is one of the many uses for the device in my pocket. However, phone calls are definitely not the leading use either by time or frequency. Web surfing, ebook reading, or email all happen more on my "smartphone" than voice calling.
Umm... no. You put words in my mouth. Since Apple controls both hardware and software on their platform, they can present substantial feature variation, that is noticeably different from their competitors (the differentiators in marketing-speak). As such, they can overcome the hurdle of consumer price-sensitivity and charge substantially more, resulting in more profit. There is no substantial difference to the consumer between a Dell and HP laptop. As such, they compete on price alone; the race to the bottom that has destroyed many major system builders. However, there is substantial consumer-visible difference between an Apple laptop and a Dell, which is why Apple can survive as a market-leader even with a smaller piece of the overall marketshare.
Or are you trying to argue that Apple's unibody aluminum laptops running OSX are only differentiated from the typical black plastic Dell laptop in minor ways that the consumer wouldn't notice?
And even if you want to stick strictly with smartphones, iOS is a dramatically different experience from Android, even if you can accomplish the same tasks on both platforms.
Pick any app you want. I chose Angry Birds because it's so damn ubiquitous that it is expected to run on any smartphone available.
If your app/software doesn't behave any differently (aka your user experience is identical) on different Android devices, then what's the value in better machine specs?
My point is that approach was tried in the desktop/laptop market. And in the end, customers care more about price than minor feature differences. As a result, all mass-market desktop/laptop Windows manufacturers started losing money when the boom tapered off, and now are indistinguishable, and forced to sell off business units.
The only laptop manufacturer that has continued to experience massive growth is Apple, and that's because their product is noticeably and identifiable different by the consumer. So much so that consumers are willing to pay a premium for that difference.
2 vs 3 USB ports is not a noticeable difference. And adding a CB or weather radio appeals to very niche consumer groups. When it comes to making your product stand out, that is to differentiate from your competition, your differences must be noticeable and desirable. Specs is not noticeable (even if it is desireable).
That's exactly my point. Apple isn't running Android, just like Apple isn't running Windows. Because the control the software they have a much bigger impact on the overall user experience, as the software is arguably a larger factor in good user experience than the underlying hardware specs or bezel design.
If Android manufacturers want to be differentiated from other Android manufacturers, and survive the race to the bottom on pricing, then they must find ways to innovate and improve the overall customer experience. Desktop/laptop manufacturers tried to unsuccessfully bridge this problem by adding tons of vendor-specific bloatware apps on top of otherwise vanilla Windows installations. That marketplace doesn't work.
Samsung has been pushing the hardware side of the equation as much as they can, and they are standing out a bit, but not enough. Making software changes like this is where they can shine if they do it effectively and actually deliver improved experiences.
What's the point of hardware quality if it doesn't contribute to the overall user experience.
Reliability and performance are only small parts of the equation. And if you don't have software differences, then you can't highlight reliability and performance differences anyways. Who cares if my processor is 500 times faster than my competitor's if Angry Birds plays equally well on both?
You do that mainly with hardware and with customer service.
Look how well that worked for Dell, HP, Compaq, eMachines, IBM (desktop/laptop services), Sony (laptops), etc.
Focusing on hardware results in a race to the bottom. And in the mobile market, customer service is a function of the carrier, not the device manufacturer. Apple has proven that the way to profits in saturated markets is to focus on the entire user experience. This gives them a major differentiator that lets them stand out and have a noticeable difference from other similar products.
If you settle on being an Android device manufacturer, how are you different from other Android device manufacturers? Screen size and color of your case isn't enough.
And I wasn't suggesting the presentation format itself is good or an example of what to do. The content and message is good and describes complexity (bad) vs. depth (good) which is important for any software meant for interaction with humans. Depth empowers the user, whereas complexity overwhelms.
A longer list of options != a better list of options.
Getting rid of cascading drop menus forces you to rethink how setup your menu system and options to begin with. You can have the same level of depth (variation of tasks and user goals) without overwhelming the user with complexity (large flat list of options).
There are other ways to structure information besides a simple tree-based list.
Because things scale better now, you have larger work units (8-10) because the manager can focus on managing. In work units of 4-5, the manager is often participating in the work of the unit in a senior/leading role, but essentially performing many of the same tasks. As technology improves the productivity of managers, they can take on larger teams and do less of the day-to-day work. Think along the lines of the factory foreman or line manager. You don't have 1 person riveting also managing the 4-5 people around him. You have one person who doesn't touch the tools managing an entire assembly line. The manager role is becoming more specialized, resulting in fewer managers as they give up other tasks.
I assume by cost efficiency, you mean lower costs per unit or more profitability? If so, your argument makes no sense.
(Productivity + hard costs)/units = cost efficiency
Your time as an employee = cost. Sure there's lots of other factors for cost besides your labor, but your labor is likely the largest portion. The more you can get done in 1 unit of time (higher productivity), the lower the cost per unit (aka cost efficiency)
Eliminating jobs is a result of productivity improvements. If the average person can do more, but your customers can't purchase more of your product, then you have to cut back on what is now surplus production capacity. In other words, you have to get rid of jobs.
UX designers and experts have been clamouring for simplification for years, but clients refused to change until everyone started asking "why doesn't this work on my phone/tablet".
Perfect example: Cascading drop menus that require click+hold, or click+hover to keep open. These are almost impossible to keep open multiple levels deep with anything other than a keyboard or mouse. Touchpads, thinkpad nipples, trackballs, all require precise movements, and even a mouse is less than ideal. But we tolerate it because that's what we're used to. Since click+hold, or click+hover doesn't make sense on a touch device, people are finally beginning to accept UX recommendations that it's not a good menu behavior to use.
Depth of functionality != Complexity. Watch this video for more understanding. It describes video game design, but the same idea applies to any user interface.
If your Dad is 90, and has the money for whatever gadgets he might want (as evidenced that he goes out and buys them on his own) then what he'd probably most want is to spend some quality time with you.
I know it sounds cheesy, but I run into the same problem trying to buy gifts for my grandmothers. They have everything they need or want, but what they can't buy is time with family.
One guy with a sniper rifle can't take away someone else's land because everyone recognizes the rights of the homesteader, while very few recognize the rights of the thief.
Tell that to Palestine/Israel, or any one on a number of disputed regions where people have been arguing ownership rights for thousands of years.
If this graph was accurate, it would look like a bunch of individual unconnected clusters, with one particularly large cluster. But clearly the creator was too interested in forcing it to look like on of those color-blindness tests.
It implies a root signer, which isn't really there. By clumping all the various networks identified within a circle, they make it look like there are connections between the networks that don't really exist.
Look carefully around the edge between the inner and outer circles, there's nothing that bridges them.
Now look carefully around the outer circle, you'll see it isn't one continuous network, it's a bunch of small networks just sitting next to each other.
The whole reason for putting data in a graphic is so that you can draw new meaning from visual clues because the human brain is so good at interpreting visual information. However, if you force stuff into shapes like this, you imply meaning that isn't really there.
Ummm I read the article, and other than the author being pretty obtuse, I don't see any substantial connection with infographics.
The author operates a blog, and was contacted by someone trying to operate a suspicious link-trading scheme. He engaged them to find out info the SEO scheme was directing traffic to a lead-generation system for online degrees.
End of story.
Anyone who operates a website has gotten spam about link trading schemes like this one. Nothing in here is specifically targeted to infographics.
So I need to wear glasses just to implement the newest fad tech (cars) to be pushed down our throats in order to make Detroit rich? I'd end up using the earpieces to poke those responsible...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree... shitty software (see desktop bloatware) is a horrible way to differentiate. Apple has no qualms about ripping things apart at any point in the technology stack so that they can provide a real improvement or unique experience to the customer. See Visual Voicemail as an example. No-one had anything like that until Apple forced it ahead because they could wedge the issue.
Yes, companies like Dell that now have to sell out, or IBM who sold their consumer business, or companies like Gateway and Compaq that both had to sell out, or companies like HP that are floundering in the consumer market.
If you do exactly the same thing as your competition, don't be surprised when you drop in relevance as competitors do the exact same thing cheaper.
If you want to make sales and stay in business as an Android manufacturer, yes you do need a way to differentiate yourself from other Android manufacturers. Otherwise the only thing to compete on is price, and that's a race to the bottom with shrinking profit margins to see who can put out the cheapest possible product. See desktop Windows computers as a prime example for this market phenomenon.
Good for you. Making a phone call is one of the many uses for the device in my pocket. However, phone calls are definitely not the leading use either by time or frequency. Web surfing, ebook reading, or email all happen more on my "smartphone" than voice calling.
Umm... no. You put words in my mouth. Since Apple controls both hardware and software on their platform, they can present substantial feature variation, that is noticeably different from their competitors (the differentiators in marketing-speak). As such, they can overcome the hurdle of consumer price-sensitivity and charge substantially more, resulting in more profit. There is no substantial difference to the consumer between a Dell and HP laptop. As such, they compete on price alone; the race to the bottom that has destroyed many major system builders. However, there is substantial consumer-visible difference between an Apple laptop and a Dell, which is why Apple can survive as a market-leader even with a smaller piece of the overall marketshare.
Or are you trying to argue that Apple's unibody aluminum laptops running OSX are only differentiated from the typical black plastic Dell laptop in minor ways that the consumer wouldn't notice?
And even if you want to stick strictly with smartphones, iOS is a dramatically different experience from Android, even if you can accomplish the same tasks on both platforms.
Pick any app you want. I chose Angry Birds because it's so damn ubiquitous that it is expected to run on any smartphone available.
If your app/software doesn't behave any differently (aka your user experience is identical) on different Android devices, then what's the value in better machine specs?
My point is that approach was tried in the desktop/laptop market. And in the end, customers care more about price than minor feature differences. As a result, all mass-market desktop/laptop Windows manufacturers started losing money when the boom tapered off, and now are indistinguishable, and forced to sell off business units.
The only laptop manufacturer that has continued to experience massive growth is Apple, and that's because their product is noticeably and identifiable different by the consumer. So much so that consumers are willing to pay a premium for that difference.
2 vs 3 USB ports is not a noticeable difference. And adding a CB or weather radio appeals to very niche consumer groups. When it comes to making your product stand out, that is to differentiate from your competition, your differences must be noticeable and desirable. Specs is not noticeable (even if it is desireable).
That's exactly my point. Apple isn't running Android, just like Apple isn't running Windows. Because the control the software they have a much bigger impact on the overall user experience, as the software is arguably a larger factor in good user experience than the underlying hardware specs or bezel design.
If Android manufacturers want to be differentiated from other Android manufacturers, and survive the race to the bottom on pricing, then they must find ways to innovate and improve the overall customer experience. Desktop/laptop manufacturers tried to unsuccessfully bridge this problem by adding tons of vendor-specific bloatware apps on top of otherwise vanilla Windows installations. That marketplace doesn't work.
Samsung has been pushing the hardware side of the equation as much as they can, and they are standing out a bit, but not enough. Making software changes like this is where they can shine if they do it effectively and actually deliver improved experiences.
What's the point of hardware quality if it doesn't contribute to the overall user experience.
Reliability and performance are only small parts of the equation. And if you don't have software differences, then you can't highlight reliability and performance differences anyways. Who cares if my processor is 500 times faster than my competitor's if Angry Birds plays equally well on both?
Look how well that worked for Dell, HP, Compaq, eMachines, IBM (desktop/laptop services), Sony (laptops), etc.
Focusing on hardware results in a race to the bottom. And in the mobile market, customer service is a function of the carrier, not the device manufacturer. Apple has proven that the way to profits in saturated markets is to focus on the entire user experience. This gives them a major differentiator that lets them stand out and have a noticeable difference from other similar products.
If you settle on being an Android device manufacturer, how are you different from other Android device manufacturers? Screen size and color of your case isn't enough.
And I wasn't suggesting the presentation format itself is good or an example of what to do. The content and message is good and describes complexity (bad) vs. depth (good) which is important for any software meant for interaction with humans. Depth empowers the user, whereas complexity overwhelms.
A longer list of options != a better list of options.
Getting rid of cascading drop menus forces you to rethink how setup your menu system and options to begin with. You can have the same level of depth (variation of tasks and user goals) without overwhelming the user with complexity (large flat list of options).
There are other ways to structure information besides a simple tree-based list.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here.
Because things scale better now, you have larger work units (8-10) because the manager can focus on managing. In work units of 4-5, the manager is often participating in the work of the unit in a senior/leading role, but essentially performing many of the same tasks. As technology improves the productivity of managers, they can take on larger teams and do less of the day-to-day work. Think along the lines of the factory foreman or line manager. You don't have 1 person riveting also managing the 4-5 people around him. You have one person who doesn't touch the tools managing an entire assembly line. The manager role is becoming more specialized, resulting in fewer managers as they give up other tasks.
I assume by cost efficiency, you mean lower costs per unit or more profitability? If so, your argument makes no sense.
(Productivity + hard costs)/units = cost efficiency
Your time as an employee = cost. Sure there's lots of other factors for cost besides your labor, but your labor is likely the largest portion. The more you can get done in 1 unit of time (higher productivity), the lower the cost per unit (aka cost efficiency)
Eliminating jobs is a result of productivity improvements. If the average person can do more, but your customers can't purchase more of your product, then you have to cut back on what is now surplus production capacity. In other words, you have to get rid of jobs.
UX designers and experts have been clamouring for simplification for years, but clients refused to change until everyone started asking "why doesn't this work on my phone/tablet".
Perfect example:
Cascading drop menus that require click+hold, or click+hover to keep open. These are almost impossible to keep open multiple levels deep with anything other than a keyboard or mouse. Touchpads, thinkpad nipples, trackballs, all require precise movements, and even a mouse is less than ideal. But we tolerate it because that's what we're used to. Since click+hold, or click+hover doesn't make sense on a touch device, people are finally beginning to accept UX recommendations that it's not a good menu behavior to use.
Depth of functionality != Complexity. Watch this video for more understanding. It describes video game design, but the same idea applies to any user interface.
Hate to break it to you, but veal is beef.
And most homemade burger or meatloaf recipes call for a mixture of meat for optimum flavor and texture.
It's not a pun. That's the Latin origin of the word.
If your Dad is 90, and has the money for whatever gadgets he might want (as evidenced that he goes out and buys them on his own) then what he'd probably most want is to spend some quality time with you.
I know it sounds cheesy, but I run into the same problem trying to buy gifts for my grandmothers. They have everything they need or want, but what they can't buy is time with family.
Don't you mean, as a Linux user you now have access to digital game distributions that were previously only available for the two bigger OSes?
Tell that to Palestine/Israel, or any one on a number of disputed regions where people have been arguing ownership rights for thousands of years.
I meant the network of CA authorities.
If this graph was accurate, it would look like a bunch of individual unconnected clusters, with one particularly large cluster. But clearly the creator was too interested in forcing it to look like on of those color-blindness tests.
The graph, while cool, sucks!
It implies a root signer, which isn't really there. By clumping all the various networks identified within a circle, they make it look like there are connections between the networks that don't really exist.
Look carefully around the edge between the inner and outer circles, there's nothing that bridges them.
Now look carefully around the outer circle, you'll see it isn't one continuous network, it's a bunch of small networks just sitting next to each other.
The whole reason for putting data in a graphic is so that you can draw new meaning from visual clues because the human brain is so good at interpreting visual information. However, if you force stuff into shapes like this, you imply meaning that isn't really there.
Ummm I read the article, and other than the author being pretty obtuse, I don't see any substantial connection with infographics.
The author operates a blog, and was contacted by someone trying to operate a suspicious link-trading scheme. He engaged them to find out info the SEO scheme was directing traffic to a lead-generation system for online degrees.
End of story.
Anyone who operates a website has gotten spam about link trading schemes like this one. Nothing in here is specifically targeted to infographics.
So I need to wear glasses just to implement the newest fad tech (cars) to be pushed down our throats in order to make Detroit rich? I'd end up using the earpieces to poke those responsible...
Simultaneously? That's either a really big screen or some impressive contortionist skills.