Tipping point for Apple?

Back in June I predicted that this back-to-school season would be a phenomenal one for the iMac, signaling a change from small niche player to the beginning of something much bigger. This week my prediction proved true, as iMac sales grew at a rate (30%) twice as fast as the industry. Half of those sales were to first time iMac owners.

Tim Cook, Apple's Chief Operating Officer stated to the press that:

Students helped account for the surge in Mac shipments, during a quarter that Cook called "the most successful back-to-school season we've ever had."

As of Friday, Apple's new operating system (Leopard) was released. I think that as of this week, Apple's little iMac has reached a "Tipping Point" in the PC industry.

In the business world, the term "Tipping Point" is used to refer to point at which a product reaches a certain level of popularity, and conditions are just right, that what were previously gradual sales begin to take off.

And the conditions are right for Apple, Consider the following:

• Windows Vista owners have played with their new computers, and are either underwhelmed or wildly dissatisfied with the upgrade. They are telling their friends.
• Mac OS Leopard just came out, users will love it (I just played with it for an hour at the Mac store). They will tell their friends.
• With the advent of browser based applications (Web 2.0), the web browser is becoming more relevant that Windows, making switching easier.
• You can run your Windows applications on a Mac.
• Brand awareness is at an all time high, thanks to the iPod.
• As of this week, we are no longer waiting for Apple to release products (the iPhone and Leopard have arrived).
• Microsoft is distracted with the Google threat instead of focusing on it's core business, software.
  
• In the hit show 24, the bad guys use PCs, the good guys use iMacs.
  

If I were a betting man, I would venture to say that by this time next year, the iMac will realize a growth rate 5x higher than that of the computer industry.

There are only two things left that are holding them back:

1. Price - Still really high compared to a PC
   
2. Distribution - It's hard to find an Apple store (In Canada), and the big box stores hide iMacs in the back, keeping the PCs prominently on display

Rogers is trying too hard to be cool

I just received the following text message on my Rogers cell phone:

Rogers msg: What's ur opinion? Tell us w/ Txt Ur 2Cents & dwnld content 4chance 2win a laptop & more! Reply WIN b4 Nov28 4info. 2opt out of mktg msgs reply STOP

Wow, what a load of drivel. Rogers is trying to "be cool" by using SMS shorthand, which is used generally by teenagers as a way to quickly send out messages on a cell phone that doesn't have a full keyboard. It is very cumbersome and time consuming to send out a full message on a cell phone.

The Rogers marketing department on the other hand, has all the time in the world to write out a proper message. It probably not even sent from a cell phone.

I can see in my mind, a bunch of Rogers' "suits" sitting around a table saying "hey, if we use SMS shorthand, maybe the kids will think we're cool, and then they'll pay us more money!"

Rogers, you are over-compensating for something (could be your high prices, terrible customer service, locked phones, etc...), and it definitely makes you more "uncool".

WORLD TO TELCOS: The way to be a "cool" company in today's age isn't through cheesy marketing hype... it's by listening and responding to your customers needs (a la Apple & Google)

Online newspapers missing the point

Have you ever noticed that newspapers that publish their newsprint content online don't publish links in their articles? Take a look at any article in the Globe and Mail and you will see that they refer to reports and facts, but NEVER provide a link to the source (except in their special web-only blog section).

Huh? Haven't we had 15 years to figure out that links are the backbone of the web?

Compare this to a news site that doesn't have a print version such as News.com or even most parts of MSN which will always have an external link to another web page when referring to other reports or statistics. Blogs are usually the best at referring to source material. To the reader, these are the sites that have the most value, because being able to check up on an author helps keep them honest, and the reader can expand their knowledge if they so desire.

Some websites such as CNN or IGN take a different approach, they include links but only to other articles within their site. They never refer to external sites. This removes value from the site, which acts as though it is the ultimate authority and knows all.

No one site on the web will EVER be the ultimate resource for everything, news sites should embrace that and start linking.

Don't believe the beavers

Frank and Gordon, those mildly amusing yet irritating Bell Canada mascots would have you believe they are a fun and consumer oriented company. I recently tried to sign up for Bell home phone and internet, and wow, do they ever have poor customer service.

I spent over a MONTH trying to get subscribe to internet with them, and ran into the following problems:

• I had scheduled SIX appointments with their service reps before they showed up.
  
• Their service reps were scheduled to come "sometime between 9am - 5pm", and couldn't be any more accurate. I waited all day for them at home on a few occasions.
  
• You can't call them after 7:00pm on weekdays, or at all on weekends.
• Their customer service lines are in India, and they are not allowed to do anything helpful. I had a problem with my phone not ringing. When they tried to fix it, they asked me to call my line to test it. But I was on my second phone line with them already. When I asked them why they didn't call me, they told me they (a TELECOM company!) weren't allowed to make outgoing calls.
• After spending 5 "business" days to set up a phone line, then it takes another 5 "business" days to set up internet (for a total of 2 weeks). That's if nothing goes wrong. If something does go wrong, you're looking at a month for internet.
  
• They are more expensive than everybody else.
• I couldn't pick up a DSL modem at a Bell store, I had to get it mailed to me
• My DSL Modem didn't arrive on the day it was scheduled to arrive
  

Eventually I switched everything over to Rogers, because it was such a hassle. Interestingly enough, my DSL modem arrived AFTER I switched to Rogers. Go figure.

So, I've come to the conclusion that Bell Canada is pretty much the worst run company in this country, and I have no intention of EVER purchasing ANY service from them again. I throw popcorn at the screen whenever those stupid beavers show up on the commercials.

Somebody, please make them stop defaming our national animal.


UPDATE (Oct 15 2007): We were supposed to finally get internet set up with Rogers today. It didn't work though, because Bell STOLE the phone account without our authorization and switched us back to them. They actually did this a day after they called us trying to get us to switch back to Bell. Someone please... make the incompetence stop!

UPDATE (Nov 6 2007): I finally am set up with Rogers as my internet provider, but Bell slapped me with $120 bill for service they never provided properly since September... and I was SUPPOSED to have over $300 in credits. I told them I'm not paying, now I'm being "investigated".

How to make millions with the perfect movie

I've been thinking about the business of making movies, and I've come up with the perfect movie... well... at least a movie that will make lots of $$$. I'll take all the things that are really popular right now, and put them together in one movie! It will be called:

Captain Prehistoric Penguin Man - Part Second

• Captain: Because every kid will be dressed like captain Jack Sparrow on Halloween
  
• Prehistoric: Dinosaurs are always cool
• Penguin: The ladies dig penguins these days. This will give the pirate loving boyfriends an excuse to bring their "I love small cute animals" girlfriends to the cinema.
• Man: Every super hero under the sun is getting a movie right now. Even if the movie is really bad (I'm looking at you Electra and Ghost Rider), all super hero movies still manage to make a decent amount of money due to what industry calls the "fan-boy built-in audience".
  
• Part Second: Sequels are cash cows, so I'm just going to skip the first movie and go right to the sequel. Furthermore, its called "Part Second" instead of "2" because that helps differentiate it from all the other sequels (in the spirit of "Hotshots part deux", "Shrek the 3rd" and "X2").
  

It will star Matt Daemon who will have a secret identity, memory loss, and he will beat the tar out of Tom Cruise. The love interest will be Julia Roberts, playing a woman who is strong-willed but eventually shows vulnerability by breaking down into silent, gross-looking tears.

It will also have either a Will Ferrel or Christopher Walken Cameo.

I'll think about the script later, it's not really important. The black suits at Fox Searchlight pictures are going to be eating out of my hand when I pitch this to them. How could I possibly go wrong with such a perfect formula?

Viacom vs. YouTube , bold business move, I like it.

Media companies have long hated the way that YouTube profits from their copyrighted material. However, for the past year all they have done is yelp and complain, and occasionally take down clips. This was self defeating of course, because these clips actually promoted and popularized a lot of shows.

Viacom is the first company to finally fight back with a real solution: Their are making their own youTube.

Viacom moves on without YouTube | CNET News.com: "The company recently began offering so-called embed code that allows fans of popular programs such as the The Daily Show and The Colbert Report to post clips to their MySpace.com pages or blogs. That embed code duplicates one of the more popular features of YouTube: the ability to easily post videos on other Web sites and blogs."

While the site cannot possible be as popular as YouTube, it is very forward thinking of Viacom. In the absence of a deal with YouTube, this is the best business decision you could make. Kudos to you.

YouTube is missing out on this opportunity. They have the chance to form strong partnerships with big media companies, by hosting copyrighted content and sharing ad revenues.

Unfortunately, both sides lose out on this scenario. Content would certainly be more valuable on YouTube than on the Comedy Central site, and YouTube doesn't get to share any revenue.

Music industry fires back at Apple

Steve Jobs has asked the big media companies to remove the requirement for DRM (Digital Rights Management) licencing from music downloaded from iTunes and other online music stores. This is basically the technology that makes music purchased from iTunes only playable on iPods, limits the number of copies, limits the number of computers it can be played on, etc...

Jobs said eliminating such restrictions would open up the online music marketplace.

This is probably true. The interesting thing about downloading music legally online is that it is actually less valuable than pirated MP3s, because you can play MP3s anywhere, anytime. As such, it can reasonably be inferred that there are people who would be willing to purchase music from iTunes (myself included), but have no interest in owneingcrippled music. If there were no protection, more people may actually be willing to pay for the convenience that iTunes provides.

The Music industry struck back, declaring Apple's hypocrisy in that Apple is not willing to licence out it's technology to other media players or music devices. Fair enough. Steve Jobs would argue differently however:

globeandmail.com: Music industry fires back at Apple: "In his essay, Jobs said Apple is against licensing 'FairPlay' as an alternative method for making iTunes accessible to all portable players, because making the technology widely available would make it easier for hackers to figure out how to bypass it."

Come on Steve, you're a good guy and all, but this is not a valid argument. The argument breaks down in that hackers have already broken Fairplay, rendering your point moot. In fact, you don't even need to be a hacker to break it, all you have to do is burn iTunes music onto a CD and then rip it back onto your computer as an MP3. You lose a little bit of quality in the process, but few people really care.

Please Steve, don't treat your customers like idiots, all we ask is a little bit of intellectual integrity. The labels are right, play fair and licence out your DRM to others.

And to the music industry, Steve also has a good point about opening up the market. It is a fallicy (ad hominum) to say his argument is wrong simply because of Apple's hypocrisy. Get with it and get rid of DRM.

You're both right, and you're both wrong. Little children, shake hands, say your sorry and get on with it, or I'll send you to your rooms.

Finally, a good wiki summary

For a week or two now, I have been trying to explore and understand "enterprise-wikis". It is quite easy to find high-level philisophical discussions about the importance of wiki adoption at the enterprise level, but it is HARD to find honest reviews about various wikis.

The reason this is frustrating is because I am trying to choose an enterprise wiki for deployment at my place of work. Heck, it's even challenging to find a list of different wikis and what they are good for.

Finally, I found a good article here. It is written from a non-geek perspective, and he gives an accurate summary of the key criteria is a good enterprise wiki:

• is beautiful
• is easy to use
• integrates with our corporate authentication system
• allows users to "email to a page"
• has rock solid WYSIWYG editing (including tables!!)
• can absorb Microsoft Word's messy HTML without barfing
• has great management tools for pruning and gardening the wiki
• allows for attachments of files
• includes great threaded conversations on a page
• is hosted but can also be used in an appliance inside the firewall
• has granular user & group security privileges (ideally tied into Active Directory)

My list of criteria is pretty much exactly the same, and I thought that this criteria was pretty obvious and self explanatory. Lo and behold, when I started exploring different wikis (socialtext, confluence, PBWiki, stikipad, zoho), and found that that all fell short on many of these criteria. The biggest offence was usually against the "rock solid WYSIWYG" (not all WYSIWYG editors are created equal) and "great management tools for pruning and gardeing the wiki".

He argues that confluence is the best, and based on what I have observed I would tend to agree. However, even confluence still fails in the two key criteria I listed in the table above. Yes, it's got WYSIWYG, but it's table layout functionality is very inflexible, and until you've figured things out it's not intuitive where you are saving pages.

"Incent" is not a word

While doing my MBA, there were many occasions on which I would be writing a report that included an element about how important it was to incent your employees properly. I was always confused when MS Word's spellchecker flagged the word, and was convinced that the dictionary was wrong because we used the word so often in class.

Today I learn that according to Paul Brians' book, "Common Errors in English Usage", the term "incent" is not a verb, or even a word for that matter.

Business folks sometimes use “incent” to mean “create an incentive,” but it’s not standard English. “Incentivize” is even more widely used, but strikes many people as an ugly substitute for “encourage.”

I suppose I should have known this. However, this brings up a philosophical question; if the word is "commonly" used and understood, then is it really an error at all?

iPhone lawsuit, don't believe a word

Make no mistake about it, the iPhone from Apple is the quintessential in cool technology. This much is undisputed.

However, Apple has an interesting situation on their hands with a lawsuit coming from Cisco, who actually owns the trademark to the name "iPhone". Interestingly enough, Steve Jobs of Apple came right out and decided to call his phone the iPhone as well, despite not owning the trademark.

Gutsy Steve, gutsy.

However, I don't buy it. You can bet your bottom dollar that this is a marketing stunt.

Lets look at the facts:

• Apple has been in "negotiations" with Cisco for a few years over the iPhone trademark.
• Cisco released an "iPhone" only two months before the launch of Apple's iPhone, even though they have owned the trademark for many years.
• Apparently, The companies left the negotiating table at 8 p.m. the night before the iPhone announcement, with only a few points left to negotiate.

Lets analyze this situation for a moment, what does each party have a stake here?

• The iPhone trademark is not really worth much to Cisco as their iPhone is only a marginal side business. There are plenty of other "i____" products that are knock-offs of the iPod line, and Cisco's product will fall in that category of products in consumers' minds. Over the long term, the iPhone name means nothing to Cisco.
  
• The iPhone would be nice to have for Apple, but Apple could call it the iPumpkinHead and still not lose any sales.

My skepticism arises from the fact that the current situation is not in favor of anybody, despite the parties having ample time to negotiate. Furthermore, Cisco's "explanation" of why negotiations broke down doesn't hold water:

Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen—it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. That’s it. Openness and clarity. (Cisco Blog)

Apple is NOTORIOUS for being NOT open. They build their entire platform around a core philosophy of non-interoperability with their hardware/software mode operandi.

In other words, to ask Apple for interoperability in exchange for a silly name is just
absurd. It's not negotiating in good faith, and Cisco knows it.

Here's what I think actually happened. Cisco is trying to extort an absurd amount of money out of Apple for the iPhone name. Apple, knowing that the name is worth nothing to anybody but Apple, called Cisco's bluff. Then, Cisco realized that there is more to gain by riding on the Marketing coattails of Apple, and agreed to go into a drawn out, public war with Apple over the name.

This costs Apple nothing, and Cisco get the kind of advertising that money can't even buy.

I think they have already come to a deal. They will just publicly "pretend" to reach a settlement the day before the Apple iPhone release.

Am I cynical? Maybe... but this is the only scenario that makes any business sense, and at the end of the day it's still all business.