Will Apple Repeat The Most Dangerous Strategic Mistake Leaders of Fast Growing Corporation Can Make? - Forbes

It amazes me how many companies, even Forbes, use Apple to grab headlines.  This article is about nothing.  The two arguments being used are litigation and switching maps?  Let me elaborate for a minute on each:​

The litigation against Samsung are a necessary evil.  Nowhere does the article mention that Apple was asking Samsung for license agreements pretrial.  ​Apple should defend their innovation, else we will get the refrigerator market, where every piece looks exactly the same and does the same thing.  This is good for consumers because manufacturers only compete on price, however in the long run it is terrible for consumers because innovation is non-existent.

The maps debate is getting old.  Apple had to make a move away from Google because of turn-by-turn navigation.  It was an easy talking point for Apple competitors.  Apple will now be allowed to innovate in the maps arena which should allow for greater maps from Apple and Google in the future.  This will be so much better for the consumer.  ​

In both these cases Apple is not making the mistake of these other companies.  Apple is looking out for the customer by allowing innovation and making it expensive to copy instead of innovate.  Both will lead to better customer experiences as time passes.​

Apple Maps: Damned If You Do, Googled If You Don’t | Monday Note

I agree with Gassée.  Apple maps are really not that bad, I am sure they will get better and I am sure they are worse in other areas.  I think Apple should have used a "beta" monicker similar to Siri, or something along those lines, that would have allowed the learning process to be documented.  ​

This is a good lesson for most businesses.  Be upfront and honest with your customers.  No business is perfect and as long as customers get more benefits from your greatness, they will look past your flaws.​

Big Data's Human Component - Jim Stikeleather - Harvard Business Review

Machines don't make the essential and important connections among data and they don't create information. Humans do. Tools have the power to make work easier and solve problems. A tool is an enabler, facilitator, accelerator and magnifier of human capability, not its replacement or surrogate ... That's what the software architect Grady Booch had in mind when he uttered that famous phrase: "A fool with a tool is still a fool."

From my last post, I talked about humans being able to make the data actionable.  The understanding of the data that is used for the model is more important than understanding the ​math behind the algorithms.  Algorithms can find the patterns humans can't, however the algorithms can't determine if the answers are relevant. 

We forget that it is not about the data; it is about our customers having a deep, engaging, insightful, meaningful conversation with us

Exactly.​

Understand that expertise is more important than the tool.  Otherwise the tool will be used incorrectly and generate nonsense (logical, properly processed nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless).

The answers will be fancy, but will not help make decisions for frontline or CRM more effective.​

When we over-automate big-data tools, we get Target's faux pas of sending baby coupons to a teenager who hadn't yet told her parents she was pregnant, or the Flash Crash on Thursday May 6, 2010, in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged about 1000 points — or about nine percent.

Humans should always be paying attention to the outcomes and put parameters around the use of automated answers.  Answers should be used in conjunction with other factors for the best decision.​

Although data does give rise to information and insight, they are not the same. Data's value to business relies on human intelligence, on how well managers and leaders formulate questions and interpret results. More data doesn't mean you will get "proportionately" more information. In fact, the more data you have, the less information you gain as a proportion of the data (concepts of marginal utility, signal to noise and diminishing returns). Understanding how to use the data we already have is what's going to matter most.

​

What Executives Don't Understand About Big Data - Michael Schrage - Harvard Business Review

too many organizations don't quite grasp that being "big data-driven" requires more qualified human judgment than cloud-enabled machine learning.

Human judgement also comes with a caveat, the human's have to be knowledgable about the business at hand.  So many times consultants come in and use terms like "big data" and "data modeling" with promises of transforming the business.  Much more goes into transforming the business with data and that is the knowledge to take the findings and apply those findings into the CRM efforts to make an impact.

What works best is not a C-suite commitment to "bigger data," ambitious algorithms or sophisticated analytics. A commitment to a desired business outcome is the critical success factor.

The desired outcome is so important.  Otherwise the result is usually not actionable, just informational.  ​

Executives need to understand that big data is not about subordinating managerial decisions to automated algorithms but deciding what kinds of data should enhance or transform user experiences. Big Data should be neither servant nor master; properly managed, it becomes a new medium for shaping how people and their technologies interact.

Without taking the findings and enhancing decisions made by frontline staff or database marketing experts, the data is not actionable. ​

Can Big Data Smoke Out the Silent Majority? →

Of course sophisticated analytics are being used to find pockets of money, just as they have long been used by financial service companies.

The private sector has been using these tactics for years now.  It doesn't surprise me that sophisticated political campaigns are also using it.  Data mining is very powerful, everyone should be using it.​

Will Apple’s Patent Victory Create A Usability Hell? →

Pinching to zoom on touch-screen devices is such a common gesture today that it’s hard to believe Steve Jobs wowed audience members (who actually cheered and applauded for close to 20 seconds) when he first stretched his fingers against the iPhone’s glass face.

"With regard to gestures, I think it will be hard to change the status quo because they’ve already gained such widespread acceptance," says one top interaction designer at HP.

It has such widespread acceptance because everyone copied it.  So the argument is because we've all copied "pinch-to-zoom" and our customers are now used to ​it, Apple shouldn't be able to force you to do something else?  

Hmmm...strange argument.  So if you own something and I steal it and later on you want it back, I can just say, "Well I've gotten used to using this, so you are out of luck."  Interesting.

With The Apple V. Samsung Verdict, Innovation Wins →

...the more important point is that both parties are now incentivized to behave differently. One can even argue that they're now predisposed to innovate like they've never done before.

​I agree completely.  It would be a shame if the smartphone race turned into the refrigerator, or dare I say television industry, when you go into a store and every television and refrigerator look exactly the same.  Smartphones should all be distinct, at least in the operating system.  This way we don't end up with 2 choices where 1 dominates, like Windows vs Mac.   

Apple--which isn't evil no matter how some may think--may press on with its smartphone and tablet UI innovation in an effort to truly distinguish the look and feel of its products in an ever-busier market, conscious that Samsung is nipping at its heels. iOS is getting a little long in the tooth, and now may be the perfect time to spend company time transforming it into the next generation of smartphone OS's.

I sure hope this happens.  If the verdict changes the copying behavior of its competitors, Apple is in a great position to reinvent the greatest invention of our time.  Here's to innovation.

​

CES Thoughts

In reading all the articles and great new products at the Consumer Electronics Show this week in Las Vegas, something struck me as interesting.  These companies have very extensive organizations and huge resources in R&D, yet nothing seems to be truly innovative.  Why is that?

I used to work in a technology company for the gaming industry, technology was even in their name.  Seems a majority of these companies are engineering and sales focused, this particular company sure was.  Now I am not saying that as a slight to engineers, it is just that engineers tend to be, well, engineers.

Engineers build cool stuff.  They believe most people think like them, but the truth is most people don't think like an engineer.  Consumers want technology that is intuitive and they want to be guided through user interfaces and hardware.  Engineers want complex and open.  

The products that I saw at CES were all in response to competition.  It seems like a "we need that too" mentality that puts these companies in a catch-up position.  Why is everyone after Apple?  Why is Apple so successful?

Apple is so successful because they put themselves into the shoes of the consumer.  Steve Jobs is obsessed with UI and customer interactivity.  How ill a consumer use this device, what buttons will they hit, how would a normal everyday Joe think when presented with a particular screen.  Engineers don't do that.  Engineers are obsessed with creating something technologically amazing.  The problem is most of the time it makes it very hard for the consumer to use it.  Apple takes that great thought and says, how can we make this easy for 98% of the people and use cases.  Sure, the 2% think it is terrible, but the 2% doesn't pay the bills.