Running On Fumes

Despite reporting an operating loss of over 1 billion dollars, Nokia managed to pull off a feat to mollify the investors - 1 million Lumia Windows Phone device sales. That’s actually quite a respectable result considering the device has yet to make a showing in markets such as North America and Australia.

But aside from that, Nokia’s future doesn’t appear to be looking any brighter than it was a year ago, in fact maybe it’s even a little bleaker. What Nokia use to have in the market was exclusivity and scale. The tandem of those two factors ultimately led to Nokia’s commanding success. 

Nokia has neither of these two factors today, aside from the exclusivity of being a 100% committed Windows Phone partner, but really that’s only working for Microsoft. The N9 running Meego Harmattan was certainly an exclusive, but with the promised commitment to run full steam with Windows Phone, Meego Harmattan’s potential may never be realised, or at most, a peripheral pursuit. 

Of course, it’s not like Meego Harmattan had a big chance anyway.

And scale, is something Nokia simply can’t obtain given the R&D required to build any good smartphone, especially if you’re Nokia and really trying to deliver with a bang. Nokia’s now signature polycarbonate shell in the N9 and Lumia 800, 900 models is a feat of engineering that simply couldn’t have been achieved if the company had floored it and delivered a tsunami of Windows Phones in generic form factors and hardware variations. 

The only segment where any economy of scale is possible, is in feature phones, once Nokia’s money-reeling gem but now declining precipitously in developed markets. Of course, there’s still money to be made there, and with most cellphone vendors relaying their focus to encompass smartphones 100%, Nokia is really in a position to take full control of the feature phone market. But there’s a reason why the world and the industry is stepping with both feet into the smartphone pool, it’s because not doing so would be committing to a world that will cease to exist in a very short time.

For Nokia, it’s even more crucial than this. As a company undergoing a brand image overhaul, investing excessively into feature phones would do nothing but hamper Nokia’s planned course to become viewed as a forward thinking company. Consumers can’t think of Nokia and see number keypads anymore.

Aside from the fact that Nokia no longer has significant leverage in the development chain to pump their business anymore, there’s also the issue of getting consumers to sign a contract to their phones which run on a platform that hasn’t gained the amount of traction that the company probably thought it would. Aside from getting the nod from reviewers, consumers are yet to see the great value proposition in Windows Phone.

Sure, 1 million sales exhibits promise, but it’s early days. The company has most likely skimmed the piece of market that gravitated towards Nokia in the first place, but from now on, it’s war and Nokia needs to pose some real fight - not only to lure consumers away from the eminent iOS and Android, but also to funnel them away from the other Windows Phone vendors in HTC, LG and Samsung among others.

The latter, an easy task that the company should win, but the former being a spectacularly tall order.

It stands to beg the question of why Nokia didn’t pursue the Android paved path in the first place. I can imagine it being an appealing option, Nokia’s acclaimed hardware quality and design paired with an OS that has solidified its position in the marketplace. It’s always nice to be on a winning team. But Nokia took a risk with Windows Phone, as a consumer I applaud the path they’ve taken, and from Nokia’s vantage, I would’ve done the exact same thing. 

Success in Windows Phone will yield a significantly greater reward that would be irksome to supplant, whereas success with Android would simply be providing another option, as opposed to a different option. 

It’s an uphill climb from here, and by sucking dry their loyal customer base in the first million sales, Nokia is essentially running on fumes. But since when is business not an uphill battle?  Build beautiful things, make sure people know about it and you can’t really go wrong. 

Also on A Pony For President

Apple and Foxconn's Working Conditions

This is not an issue for Apple, it’s Foxconn’s problem and no consumer electronics company that sources their production to Foxconn can do a thing about it. 

It’s not Apple’s job to make sure that worker conditions in production facilities is acceptable, the fact that the company audits these factories at all is already generous. And, if from the goodness of their own heart (heh, doubt it) Apple really does give the slightest care about worker conditions in China, they’re not in a position to dictate terms. Apple can beg and beseech, but poke the bear and you’re treading on super thin ice.

Apple relies solely on Foxconn to make their nut. The majority of Apple’s supply and manufacturing, as with many other consumer electronics companies, is sourced to Foxconn. No other company in the world exists that can manufacture to quite the scale, speed and efficiency that Foxconn does. 

Foxconn relies on almost the entire industry to make their nut, so really, Apple, though of course a cash cow of a customer, doesn’t mean nearly as much to Foxconn as Foxconn does to Apple. The Chinese monster knows this, and permits themselves to cut corners and cross moral lines knowing that Apple really isn’t going to do anything about it, aside from throw a few unsubstantial ‘demands’ for better working conditions. It’s all PR.

As long as the company doesn’t significantly attract government attention or that of rights activists, Foxconn really does have the freedom to hire as many under-age workers as they want, have as many 12 hour workers as they want, and ignore as many safety regulations as they want. Chi-ching. Money, money, more money.

Even then Foxconn has the Chinese government in a strangle hold too, why would the Chinese government dare hamper the growth of such a lucrative corporate gem? They’re probably sitting there in their spin around chairs going, ‘Dayum our economy good’. And who’s to blame them, their economyis good.

To point fingers at Apple, or Sony or Dell or Microsoft as acting immorally and permitting torturous slave like conditions in Foxconn is akin to blaming your professor for poor grades, not their problem.

They’ve done their job, Apple has done their job in R&D, their job is to dream the ideas and create beautiful products for an end user. Foxconn’s job is to make it, and all the unfair blood, pain and suffering that goes into the birth of an Apple product is weighted on the manufacturing side of things.

Don’t blame Apple, blame Foxconn, it’s their job and they’re the ones doing it wrong. They’re the ones acting immorally on so many different fronts, not only by providing abysmal worker conditions but by abusing their monopoly position to permit themselves to do it even more.

Foxconn has a history of issues, a mainstay in which was the fourteen suicides in late 2010. The company resolved the problem by installing suicide prevention netting, like that was totally attacking the source of the problem. Not only does it show that Foxconn doesn’t get the staggering effect of their actions, but that they simply don’t care. 

But that’s business, and that’s capitalism. When someone makes some killer cash, somebody has to be on the other end of the trigger. When we look for something that is both awesome and affordable, and seek the best of everything, somebody has to end up with nothing.

The world is full of compromises, all we’re doing is shifting them, playing with the economics of life. I’ll just drop by my carrier store and get an iPhone that doesn’t quite burn the bank, while you, get no iPhone and pay for my cash savings through your weary eyes, swollen leg and back pains. 

The worst thing is, we’re all just like each other, I’m just like everyone else. While I do care about the workers, when its buying time I’ll do everything to nail that Mac at the best price possible.  

It doesn’t have to be this way though, Foxconn just needs to show a little heart. But shit, who am I kidding, it’s all money and vested interest.


Also on A Pony For President

HP's webOS riddles

Less than two years ago when HP acquired the fledgling Palm company, I was a half-hearted with the notion. HP, being a relatively professional and straight-edged company didn't quite seem to fit the Palm profile of curved and cute devices with a...well curved and cute OS. I expected, and in retrospect would have preferred the likes of Nokia or Sony to have acquired the innovative Palm. However my dreams were left unrealised and Nokia is now committed fully to Windows Phone and Sony are heading towards a deep investment in the Android ecosystem, its amazing how times change. Join me as I recount HP's problem leading up to the discontinuation of first party webOS devices.

The outcome of webOS under HP's tenure has been disappointing, even looking on the bright side it has drastically fallen below the excitement and hype that the initial announcement of the Touchpad and Pre 3 had warranted. When HP unveiled the Touchpad at their Think Beyond event in February, the prospects and the possibilities were incredible and seemingly prosperous. The Touchpad wasn't perfect though, page turning when reading eBooks was choppy and the user experience as a whole wasn't up to scratch. It didn't feel like a finished product. But we were all excited because we figured heck, the problems should all be ironed out prior to the launch in 7 months time, and perhaps the hardware upgraded to keep in close quarters with the fast progression of consumer technology. But it wasn't. Looking back at the bug-riddled launch of the Touchpad I simply can't help but wonder what the hell went on in that lengthy 7 months. 7 months is plenty of time to perfect bugs and polish a product that was definitely already in the later phases of semi-completion. Believe it or not, I even expected HP to launch the device early and surprise us.

It's odd, because this whole time I believed that the acquisition of Palm by HP was what would be instrumental in preventing a late and sorry launch. Palm, prior to HP simply didn't have the resources to go about it on their own, they didn't have the manufacturing scale that HP possessed, nor the cash to effectively market their products. More importantly they didn't have the human resources they needed to quicken general operations. HP had this, but taking 7 months to launch an imperfect product disappointingly shows that it did not translate for webOS. 

Looking from the outside, HP's webOS failure could be attributed partially to a lack of focus, a fatally distracted vision for webOS. By no means does a distracted vision necessarily have to be a poor vision, and this was exactly the case with HP webOS. HP were hoping to expand the platform across all their devices, including printers to share a common ecosystem amongst the products we use most. I'm not going to lie, it's a brilliant idea, but fantasising over unrealised dreams while delivering an incomplete foundation in the company's smartphones and tablets only spells trouble. Dreams are like anything, you have to keep feeding them to stay alive, and feeding them lackluster products with insufficient marketing doesn't assist in building a large enough consumer base to springboard other projects. We all know what happens if you start building the top of a skyscraper before the foundation is complete - it collapses. 

Which brings us to this morning's bombshell of an announcement, HP is stopping production of its webOS hardware altogether. You read right, it's just the hardware, which is not surprising given how out of touch the Touchpad's hardware is in comparison to the competition and the times. Despite only cancelling the hardware and almost certainly going ahead with the idea of licensing the OS, the whole ideal has just been one huge PR tragedy. Announcing the cancellation of hardware production for an operating system that only has one hardware vendor is the right way to give everybody a wrong impression. HP now run the risk of not being able to find a licensing partner within the timeline that they have set to officially cancel webOS device production. If this does end up being the case which lets face it, is entirely plausible, then it would be correct by definition to officially call webOS dead, after all, nobody's making any webOS devices. 

Let's get real, is there anyone who really wants to invest in webOS? Samsung and HTC are the two most likely vendors, doing anything and everything to expand their portfolios. Both are already heavily invested and clear leaders in the Android ecosystem, however with offerings in Windows Phone which will most likely be undermined by the looming release of the Nokia Windows Phones. So, webOS wouldn't be a terrible idea but then we must ask the question, why? Why would they bother supporting a dying ecosystem when they're already high and mighty in a thriving one? Sony Ericsson, LG and several others are also possible candidates, but I doubt that any of these companies have the resources to risk in investing in an ecosystem that has failed...twice - once under Palm and now under HP. 

Its sad, but ultimately true that HP have dug their own grave. Palm had built an image of freshness and innovation behind the Palm name, being one of the most advanced touch-screen smartphones of its time, whilst maintaining a highly approachable and friendly industrial design. I know friends who wanted a Palm prior to the HP days simply because of the curved design, and the invitingly simple look and feel of the OS. By ridding and replacing the Palm name with HP subsequent to the acquisition, HP threw away the oh so precious image and value of the Palm brand. Strategically, this move made sense in order to bring webOS both physically and symbolically closer to the HP family. However HP didn't have the confidence nor the skill to turn webOS into a game-changing product, and are now trying to license the operating system in a much less valuable incarnation than what they initially purchased it for. 

So can webOS be resurrected? I used to think so but in a connected world where growth grows upon growth, webOS is really struggling to just make the inaugural step. On the other end of the spectrum, Android and iOS are making exponential strides. In spite of this, there's a little bit inside all of us that knows webOS can still make it, and then there's a big part in all of us that really wants webOS to make it. The world doesn't need anymore Android slabs, but we could sure as hell do with a sweet OS like webOS. I think its clear that webOS's square peg doesn't belong in the circle of HP. So here's hoping that HP sells it off to a company that can treat it with the respect it deserves. Any takers?

Willy-nilly Walkman

A fortnight ago, Sony unveiled a selection of new Walkman MP3 players namely a new 'A series' touch screen Walkman, 'S series' compact Walkman, and 'E series' basic video Walkman. Walkman unveilings are always interesting particularly in analysing how Sony responds to not only the grave challenge of Apple's iPod and cheaper MP3 players, but also their attempt to maintain consumer relevance in the gradually dying market of dedicated music players. Sony's recent Walkmans have been ultimately a let down, hence the most recent one that evoked any hype was the X series in 2009 which is currently either dead or dormant. My loyal readers will know that I'm a Walkman fanboy at heart, forking out the same sum of money of an iPod Touch on an infinitely less capable Walkman X. Yet I stand by my Walkman devotion, because nothing beats out of the box noise cancellation and the raw beauty of Walkman sound quality.

From where I stand, there are many things that hamper the potential success of these current Walkmans. But ironically it has nothing to do with strong competition coming from Apple's ubiquitous iPod, Sony is shooting themselves in the foot. Purely from Sony's vantage, the Walkman works because the brand has been able to carve a niche for itself throughout its last decade in the digital MP3 market. Where the iPod has struggled to gain respect, the Walkman has been embraced with open arms. I'm referring to the audiophile community, the people who still carry around a dedicated music player because it provides marginally better audio fidelity than their phones, and the folks who will fork out more on headphones than on the actual player. This is the consumer demographic that appreciates Walkman for what it is, and this is what Sony's target market should be. 

Somehow, I don't get the feeling that Sony are fully catering to this market, and half wasting their time on the long lost game of the average consumer market. The new Walkmans, save for the E and W series all come equipped with Bluetooth technology. I understand that Bluetooth has many practicalities beyond unwired headphones, but unwired headphones, judging by marketing is Sony's primary offering with Bluetooth technology. Despite the general subjectivity on the scale in which Bluetooth degrades sound quality, it's simply not debatable that Bluetooth does pale in comparison to a direct 3.5mm stereo jack connection. Long story cut short, the Bluetooth transfer requires compression which by its very nature reduces sound quality. So why would an audiophile want this, when what an audiophile really wants is the best their money can buy? Sure, average consumers would enjoy the convenience, but average consumers would enjoy an iPod too. 

And then there's the larger problem at hand, and that's by and large the Walkman's inability to enjoy any consistency in its brand and lineup and its inability to integrate with similar Sony products and services. Like I said, the Walkman's relationship with audiophiles won't be going anywhere even in the face of major strategic blunders, because let's face it, the Walkman will always sound great. What concerns me is the inconsistency and dilution of Sony's use cases for the Walkman name. Currently, the Walkman monicker is present on Sony Ericsson Walkman phones and obviously Walkman MP3s. Yeah, it's only a couple I know but both these devices are acutely different, they are in two completely different universes, heck they're not even made by the same company. Sound quality on Sony Ericsson Walkmans fall tremendously short in comparison to the dedicated players. That doesn't help the brand in any way, a brand that sells itself on its sound quality. 

The Walkman will never shine with its old luster, but the least Sony could do is to try and leverage what they do have with the Walkman to boost other aspects of their business, or just as usefully, use current aspects of their business to boost the Walkman. What naturally pops into my mind first is Qriocity, the media streaming service by Sony that has gotten quite a bit of stick from journos regarding the hacking matter from months ago. Nevertheless, Qriocity is satanically not available on any Walkman. The matter is a loop-hole free no-brainer - a music streaming service for a music player. 3G is the issue here, but Sony need to find a way to get Qriocity onto Walkman devices because if there's one thing for certain it's that it's sure going to open more doors than it closes. Not only would this work to create a really solid offering that matches up against the times, but Qriocity users would then find it practical to use Qriocity on other supported devices to gain value for money thus indirectly forcing consumers to buy further into Sony's ecosystem. The Walkman as it stands is a lonely product.

My sentiments regarding the Walkman are iffy, I'll always be a Walkman consumer but not everyone will be and the path they're taking isn't going to take them to a handy destination. The Walkman brand could be likened to a headless chicken, alive simply for the continuity of an iconic brand, but with ultimately no foreseeable vision or trajectory ahead.

webOS vs Blackberry - The Pony opinion

The tablet war has largely been seen thus far as a battle between two giants, iOS and Android. Respectively the number 1 and 2 tablet OS's currently. However a new battle is brooding, between the two newcomers HP and RIM who have come out and introduced the world to two very exciting tablet operating systems. It's an intriguing battle of the underdogs, and who are you rooting for? With this article, I'll be giving you a in-depth view of my insights on who I believe will emerge the most successful of the two, and whether any of these have a chance at toppling the big two: Apple and Google.

The early days of these two operating systems have been mired by a number of issues which they share, incomplete software at launch and a measly app selection. HP's Touchpad has copped a bit of a beating for inferior hardware. Nevertheless, we all have to start somewhere and from where I stand, both of these platforms have enormous potential for both consumers and enterprise. Everybody loves an underdog and both these operating systems are symbolic of what people admire so much with underdogs. They're creative, new and aren't afraid of stepping out of the traditional framework set out by the big two. RIM borrowed a lot from webOS for the design of their QNX basked Blackberry Tablet OS and I'm certainly not complaining, the UI on both these operating systems is stellar and a huge step up for tablets. The multi-tasking 'cards' if you like are handy, it's the kind of thing that you don't even know you want until you use it and have it. iOS's multi-tasking is primitive in comparison, and Android's doesn't feel as intuitive and dynamic.

Both webOS and BB Tablet OS both adopt a very gesture driven interface and from my experience with the Playbook it's a joy to use. I haven't used the HP Touchpad yet so it's hard for me to comment. However, on the Playbook the gesture interface isn't implemented in such a way that it feels like its there purely for differentiation but it actually brings very intuitive navigation of the tablet which is a pleasure to use. Swipe down from the top to reveal settings or options in an application, swipe from the top up to reveal the home screen, swipe from either side of the display to switch easily between running applications. It just works. With that, I say RIM and HP have a genuine shot at stealing significant market share.

Now, RIM have one big advantage that can't be underrated, and that is a well-established user base. There's no hiding a rapidly, and we mean, rapidly declining market share but at third place, RIM still have a considerable market share they can leverage to kick-start their voyage into the tablet world. HP doesn't have this, webOS has a drastically small market share and HP are hoping to kick-start their mobile endeavours with a tablet, which is an odd reverse of the conventional. Without a large existing user base behind their smartphone effort HP doesn't have the advantage of locking in existing consumers. Additionally competitors who do have a large user base for their smartphones, which is true for RIM, can attempt to woo consumers into buying their tablets by providing synergy between the devices.

When HP CEO Mark Hurd stated 'we didn't buy Palm to be in the smartphone business' I naturally found the very notion absurd. However, what he meant was HP's intentions with webOS go far beyond the smartphone business. HP have something that RIM could only ever dream of having, and that is an extensive lineup of hardware. RIM are focused on handsets and tablets, but HP builds phones, tablets, PC's, printers and all sorts of hardware. When we think of the ecosystem, we think of interconnected applications and services on our phones, tablets and PCs but we too often leave out more detached hardware like printers, set-top boxes and Blu-ray players. With a much more extensive hardware offering, HP have the ability to expand webOS to all of these devices, and create a uniform interface that connects all of these devices together, and thus connects us in even more places in our lives.

HP's biggest problem though is to get started. Without any credible smartphone market share to use as a trampoline, a measly app selection for the Touchpad and below par hardware for the Touchpad, well it's going to have to wait for Touchpad 2. Perhaps the Pre 3 will give HP a start, which to be frank looks awesome. However it's hard to imagine anyone aside from an existing webOS diehard purchasing it. A lot of people buy what their friends have, and webOS's market share is only about 2% in the US currently. Additionally, a relatively weak app store offers little succour for an already dire situation. For HP, it's a race against time. HP risk taking too long to gain enough market share before the competition catch up on HP's vision of 'a web-connected environment where now you can get a common look and feel and a common set of services laid against that (HP) environment' (quote from HP CEO, Mark Hurd). 

The Verdict
So who is it? Who do I think is going to be the winner between these two 'start-ups'? HP is extremely vulnerable right now, you get the feeling that there's no second chances, if they screw up big time, then, yeah, they screw up big time. Having said that, webOS like I said at the beginning is innovative and joyful but it needs time. RIM still has a strong market share, and the QNX-based Blackberry Tablet OS is an absolute winner. And with the promise of QNX arriving to Blackberry smartphones in the near future, I just can't place my bets on webOS. So Blackberry it is. 

Breaking down LG's smartphone troubles

A few days LG announced that it would be cutting their 2011 smartphone sales targets by 6 million and reducing their overall handset shipments from 150 million to 114 million. The news isn't quite as serious as RIM's struggles in a similar market but its worth commenting on. LG has certainly been struggling in the new smartphone market. With budget phones and super phones spilling endlessly into the smartphone pit, LG is struggling to find its own.

There are hundreds of Android phones on the market right now, and no reasonable person would question why. After all, who wouldn't take a smartphone platform connected with services by the most important internet company in the world, surrounded by an immense ecosystem of apps if it was handed to them for free? LG's one of these 'people' who have chosen to adopt Android to launch themselves into the smartphone world. However the adoption of Android has seen LG fall victim to what I like to call: Androiditis. The issue of Androiditis is a simple one, you have a really good platform on your phone, with great services, plenty of apps, but everyone else is just as good as you. It's like being prime minister in a room full of presidents. All of LG's competitors who have joined the Android party have access to the same apps and to the same services. Essentially, if you have exactly the same software as your competitors then you're not really competing in that respect anymore are you?

Which brings LG down to its biggest issue, LG's inability to produce decent hardware. I'm yet to see an LG smartphone that has legitimately impressed me. When I walk into a phone shop and have a play around with an LG, nothing strikes me as being awesome or worth noting. Their phones have been receiving lackluster reviews not because they're bad phones per se, but because they're simply not better than their competitors and have nothing of value to distinguish themselves in an Android crowd chock-a-block with 'me toos' and 'pick me's'. There's also something to say about LG's apparently low standards in regards to hardware design. There was a billboard at a bus stop in Melbourne I saw that showed an attractive model holding an LG Optimus 2X in typical ad-like fashion with a tag line boasting the device's svelte hardware design. But, in contrast we see the Samsung Galaxy S II with its absolutely astonishingly, timeless and in my opinion, better hardware design which isn't even being advertised as a fashionable phone as such.

Design is a topic that's subjective, many people will say that LG's current smartphones are relatively pleasing to the eye. I'm not going to counter that, but I think it's right to say that LG has certainly lost some of its design flares from back in the days of the Chocolate and the Prada. To say the least, LG phones had a design that was not only attractive, but unique. Heck, the Chocolate BL40 (main image) still remains in my opinion the most attractive cellphone ever made. Full stop. It was beautiful, and unique. And I think that word is the key representation of where LG has lost touch.

LG needs something unique to separate themselves from the shadow of generic Android manufacturers. Samsung and HTC are undoubtedly the two most successful Android manufacturers because that's exactly what they have, something unique. It feels weird to be saying this since due to my own personal idiosyncrasies I hate Samsung, but Samsung have amongst the best smartphone hardware around. It's not just the design of their devices, but the succulent quality of their displays, particularly the Super AMOLED ones. HTC likewise have set themselves apart with their distinctive Sense UI, which is a hybrid of beauty and brains. Many manufacturers skin their Android handsets with the hope of giving them a distinctive look and feel, but none are more effective than Sense UI. When you use Sense, you just know that you're holding an HTC. Sometimes it's just that simple...you just know.

The Sony Ericsson Xperia buttons. Courtesy Jon Choo

Despite having a design that it quite uniform across LG's smartphones, it's not unmistakeably LG in the same way that slim, blocky, rectangular designs are unmistakeably Samsung, and the distinctly shaped silver navigation buttons below Sony Ericsson phones just scream Sony Ericsson.

LG simply needs to find out where they belong, and create products that cater for their vision. Right now, bland hardware design and non-unique software aren't giving LG any legs to run away from the congested Android crowd. For a well-established brand like LG they need to do better than simply being another option for consumers. How about being the option? Everything aside, LG isn't in big trouble, no matter how far their sales fall they're still essentially on the same playing field as their Android competitors, they're sharing an ecosystem that others are assisting to maintain. They don't have an ecosystem to defend. That's the advantage of Android, LG need to capitalise by creating beautiful and unique hardware that I know they're capable of. It's time to make Life Good again. 

An inside look at RIM's bumbling business

Well, RIM has been in all the news for the past month for all the wrong reasons: lackluster sales, sales estimate cuts and a plummeting share price, you name it. It's always sad to see a once great brand that builds great products diminish in such a way and in such proportions. I obviously wasn't old enough, or perhaps not even born but many will remember when Apple in the late 80s to the mid 90s began to lose its feet and if it wasn't for Steve Job's return to the company he created we mightn't be seeing the iPhone and Mac as they are that have influenced and helped to greatly shape consumer electronics. Sony, currently are elbow deep in a similar sort of decline, in which once ubiquitous and world changing products they created are struggling to even be noticed in a tidal wave of competition. For many, the advent of the Apple iPhone and rise of Google Android marked a beginning of a rapid decline for the maker of the Blackberry.

WHERE RIM STUMBLED:

Perhaps it is only suitable to begin this here editorial with a discussion of how Research In Motion have found themselves in this precarious conundrum. Let's face it, RIM were breezing before the iPhone came around. They had a clear vision for their products and their devices were selling well to both their two distinct consumer groups at the time: the social savvy and the enterprise consumer. I believe that much of the reason that made their vision so straightforward was the fact that the concept of the smartphone itself was so uniform back then. Smartphone was deemed as a device with exclusive features for people who needed them, not wanted them for mindless time consumption or...fun, for want of a better word. Having said that, there was ultimately nothing truly fun about a smartphone when the 'Berry was king, at least not to the extent to which it could be considered more entertaining than the average dumb-phone.

There were several things that made Blackberry unique, and thus, far superior to their competitors: the keyboard, BES services, BBM and of course just the unmistakeable look and feel of a Blackberry. BES services and BBM are the two key points here and they really serve to highlight what went so right with RIM, and subsequently with the arrival of Apple and Google, what went so wrong. Essentially, RIM knew who their products were for and therefore delivered appropriately. A potent combination of a high-quality keyboard and the acclaimed Blackberry Messenger sealed the deal for a solid product for the social consumers. Additionally, BES (Blackberry Enterprise Server) provided a secure and powerful experience for the business consumers, completing once again, a flawless offering.

So what went wrong? The introduction of the Apple iPhone, initially laughed off by Steve Ballmer (don't get me wrong, I love Steve Ballmer) augured a significant shift in the smartphone landscape. The iPhone didn't just bring the smartphone concept to the mass market, but it shifted the entire form factor of the traditional smartphone entirely. Suddenly, the things that had made the Blackberry unique, were undermined significantly. The novelty of the capacitive touchscreen iPhone diminished the appeal of RIM's small display and keyboard combination. Not only this, but the introduction of the now enormous App Store raised the iPhone's after-market appeal enormously and more importantly widened the devices' potential use cases. Blackberry users began to question 'hey, why can't my phone do that?'

Fast-forward three years later, and we see RIM as it is now. Stumbling badly and thus far unable to create a product that truly sticks. What's most saddening isn't that Apple, subsequently Google and potentially Microsoft beat RIM at the smartphone game, but how little RIM did to stop it. The technology industry is a bit like quicksand, the further down you go the progressively harder it gets to climb back up. And I don't mean this in an 8 steps down 8 steps up kind of respect, but more an exponential relationship. Had RIM capitalised on the loyalty of their consumers rather than purely relying on them, the Blackberry's market share probably wouldn't be sliding to quite the extent it is now. Perhaps not sliding at all.

RIM separated themselves somewhat from the emerging smartphone pack and focused on continuing to deliver brilliant messaging and enterprise services whilst the 'fun' factor and user experience so prevalent in competitors slipped by the wayside. This short-sighted decision making was driven by one thing, and one thing only: overconfidence. With the prior success of their products, RIM were simply too confident in their own ways and their own purpose to consider rethinking their products. Consequently, with too much focus to their traditional ways, BBM became the only thing keeping the social savvy consumers attached to their Blackberry's, but the sacrifices that had to be made to obtain this service continued to build to a certain breaking point where the scales tipped out of RIM's favour. Because of this, the Blackberry's market share continues to slip. It reminds me a lot of my situation with my Walkman. The same can be said for the enterprise customers, though certainly to a lesser extent. To many of these business consumers, Blackberry isn't just a phone, it's a way of life. It's so rare and special to be able to boast such exceptional brand loyalty. But if RIM can't deliver products that can simply do more things...well they're going to lose them too.


WHY RIM STILL MATTERS:
This is not just another RIM bashing article, because I strongly believe that RIM still definitely has the assets to get themselves back on track. RIM has not sunk completely into a deep realm of despair and irrelevance. Actually, quite the opposite, to the average Joe's consumer the Blackberry still represents professional and quality handsets and devices.

As much as you can try to convince yourself that it's not, the simple fact is: brand matters. Brand matters a lot. And despite all of RIM's problems, their greatest asset, the intangible 'Blackberry' name is still almost entirely intact. It is arguably the only thing keeping RIM's head above the water. Ask around, and you'll find that most Blackberry users with the exception of the business consumers don't have much in defence of their purchase aside from the fact that 'Bro, it's a Blackberry'. And rightly so, if it's a Blackberry then it must have something going for it. Such a ubiquitous and powerful brand is so rare to see in any industry. In the mobile market the Blackberry name is only rivalled by the iPhone, and from my perspective, is still unmatched. Just the pure delight of telling people that you have a 'Blackberry' goes a very long way. The contributing factors that build this brand though are equally as important to RIM, and these are the things that they can effectively leverage to get themselves back on track. So far, they've made all the right steps towards this redemption.

One thing I've noticed is that there is still something unmistakeably RIM about their products. I had a chance to play with the Blackberry Playbook over the weekend and it was everything that I dreamt it would be: solid, fast and it exhibited a kind of professional polish unparalleled by any Android tablet that I have ever tried. With mobile devices like tablets, even the slightest of lags or missed touches can detract from the user experience significantly because these imperfections are very obvious in touchy-feely devices like this. Having said this, the Playbook ran unbelievably smoothly. Multitasking on the Playbook was brilliant, better than any tablet currently on the market. Most importantly, in just holding, grabbing and using the device I could immediately tell that 'This is a Blackberry'. Such significant brand awareness is enormously hard to achieve, and to have such a powerful asset at their disposal is healthy proof that RIM still matters.

One of the hardest things to achieve in this viciously crammed tablet market is finding ways to differentiate your products from the competition. I outlined this quandary in an older article where I discussed that the accessibility and availability of Android has definitely given consumers choices, but vendors are finding themselves providing virtually identical products to their competitors. RIM has an advantage here, despite their vastly smaller ecosystem, with the acquisition of QNX, RIM decided that it would take the challenging but rewarding path to exclusivity as opposed to the easy path to mediocrity via the Android wave. RIM's announcement that the QNX platform would be used in the company future smartphones is promising in two very important respects: not only are they laying down the foundations for their own platform with their own ecosystem of apps and services but also, given how well QNX works on the Playbook, well, I can only imagine good things.

The Playbook can arguably be considered as RIM's first step to a new beginning. A new platform, a new form factor and a brilliant web experience take a great diversion from the traditional RIM that we have known in the past, the same one that has failed to adapt and is struggling currently. It has been a wobbly first step, no doubt and the continual flooding of Android tablets has offered little succour for a Playbook struggling in a price battle. But I can't help but contemplate whether the Playbook I used over the weekend  was the same Playbook receiving lackluster reviews on many tech sites across the net. It certainly didn't feel like it. It's such a shame then that RIM brought the Playbook to market half-baked and essentially killed off the hype that could have surrounded a potentially exceptional product at launch. Having said this, the Playbook is still a work in progress, but once the omissions are filled (as promised) and the Playbook is able to reach its full potential, I have not an inkling of doubt that the Playbook with its exceptional design, stellar performance and Blackberry name prowess can conquer the shallow 7 inch tablet market.

HOW WOULD I FIX RIM:
So where do we take it from here? The key now, as it always is, is to build an ecosystem around the Blackberry platform and the products and integrate them. Direct integration between the Playbook and Blackberry smartphones is rather lacking currently. Blackberry Bridge perhaps is mildly useful for enterprise consumers but I can't imagine it being very useful for consumers and it would be useless for those without a Blackberry smartphone. RIM need to know that they can't simply lock their consumers in anymore, particularly since their prison is no longer the pleasant stay it used to be. RIM has to realise that ecosystems aren't a selling point of a product but merely a way of providing more integrated services for consumers and furthermore enticing them to buy further into the ecosystem. Thus, a poor product line-up and great ecosystem is of no help since there is no stand out product to effectively lure consumers in in the first place. Engadget 'Switched On' writer Ross Rubin stated 'if you're going to lock in consumers, it's best to build a prison that people want to move into anyway'. I couldn't possibly put it better myself.

RIM in the past thrived on created services and products exclusively for their own devices. But I believe RIM now has to warm up to the idea of working with others and integrating their products with other services out there. For example the Playbook video calling app only works with other Playbooks. Wouldn't it be nice if it talk to other devices too? You could argue that Apple's Facetime is also proprietary, however for Apple it's excusable because they've reached a certain level of ubiquity with their products that it's an unnoticeable hindrance. An owner of a Playbook on the other hand would be hard pressed to find a mate with one too. Even the popular BBM is beginning to lose its popularity as consumers are beginning to find that they can find comparable services that have the ability to converse with other platforms too. With a declining market share, sticking by their proprietary ways would simply convert into a deathly spiral for RIM. They simply no longer have a large enough customer base to make proprietary services useful. It's time for RIM to play nice with others, it's no longer everyone living in RIM's world, it's RIM living in everyone else's world.

That's probably the most important thing I would change at RIM, because proprietary is only really useful if they can leverage a large market share, which is something that RIM has undeniably lost. It's also important that RIM doesn't stop chasing the consumer business. I've read many articles saying that RIM should stick to investing more in enterprise services and providing for enterprise consumers which is traditionally what they've been known for. But the fact is, the Blackberry does mean something to average consumers and it would be wasteful to not take advantage of such a powerful brand. Furthermore, a pursuit of the consumer business is definitely a safer option because, hey, business people like to browse app stores and use 'fun' apps too. If RIM invest solely in the enterprise market and the consumer competitors are able to match or even come close to them in this market, then the competitors' advantage in more 'consumerised' products and services would guarantee a death to RIM's one-trick pony.

Amidst all the negativity, I feel like I'm the only one that has any confidence in RIM. But I think RIM still has plenty of potential. If RIM utilise QNX appropriately and efficiently, I personally do think they have a gem in their possession.

How would you fix RIM?

Playstation Vita sentiments and a forecast for the gaming handheld

Evolution is a biological term that aims to explain the development and change of living organisms throughout a long progression of time. It is universally known that humans as a species used to be apes. Though I still know some people who have not quite left this state. For gamers, the passion and love for their devices pathologically turns them into living organisms, and thus it can be said that they evolve over time, through the biological process. This can be certainly said for gaming which has gone through its fair share of 'natural' evolution. Its consumer demographics, manufacturers and content have all evolved dramatically throughout time. Along with this, gaming turned from a cult, into a passion and now into a pastime. Now, with the spread of gaming's accessibility, is it now turning casual?

Core gamers grimace at the very thought that their absolute passions can turn out to be someone else's method of time wasting. However the past 5 years to the present has seen gaming go through yet another one of these evolutions; this time, it is the inexorable rise of smartphone gaming. Gaming back in the day was a form of media split by two extremes, you were either a gamer or you weren't. Handheld gaming only existed in forms applicable to people who actually wanted to game. You wouldn't buy a DS or a PSP because you wanted to web browse or take photos. However, for smartphones, gaming is a second thought. Smartphones and similar devices have certainly widened the consumer demographic for gaming but in a much more diluted kind of fashion.

The once dichotomous relationship between gamers and non-gamers has now turned into an almost sibling like relationship, in that core gamers and casual gamers are both gamers alike, but fiercely rivalled kin in one big happy family. Having said this, all of this mobile gaming talk is irrelevant unless I put it into context. What does it mean for the core gaming scene? What does it mean for the Playstation Vita?

I've been very frustrated with Sony recently, I didn't believe Sony made the entirely correct decision to opt for Android on their mobile devices, and their blatant apathy to what was once their strongest brand - the Walkman - has been nothing short of unresourceful. Sony was criticised by many sceptics with the initial announcement of the NGP for cooking a tried and failed recipe. Hardware superiority since the earliest days has always been one of Sony's key strengths, however the critics argued that Sony once again betting on pure hardware superiority would prove to be a game loser. These claims though, were short-sighted. From where I stand, the Playstation Vita's (NGP's) unfaltering approach is the best decision Sony has made in a very long time.

Now I have a bit of a confession to make: I'm not a game fanatic, in actual fact it will surprise you that I'm not a gamer at all and my gaming accolade can be summed up with the occasional session of 'Pipe Riders' on Miniclip and a 2 kill streak playing Call of Duty: Black Ops on a PS3 at my mate's place. While camping.

Speculation that mobile and casual gaming will bring detriment to core portable gaming devices and other dedicated consoles is...well nothing more than speculation. The slow sales of the Nintendo 3DS and PSP, particularly the PSP Go has fuelled this short-sighted theory, and the success of Apple's mobile contraptions have continued to feed this fat rumour monster.

Looking down on casual gamers. Those n00bs!

It must be considered though, that dedicated handheld gaming has never quite appealed hugely to the masses, and in many ways has simply been considered as an extension to the primary gaming machine, which is the console hooked up to your television. It's a niche, and will most likely remain that way. I would say that the slow sales of these handheld gaming devices has been attributed to a lack of innovation from the manufacturers but also just a natural lack of potential consumers. The PSP 3000 and Nintendo DS both successfully skimmed the portable gamers from the top of the gaming pack, and their successors haven't provided anything worthy to warrant a necessary upgrade.

Frankly, I think Apple's dominance in the mobile devices market has had almost aught effects in core gaming. In actual fact, relating them in the first place is simply an impertinent comparison. When Steve Job's boasted that the iPod Touch had outsold Sony and Nintendo we all found the very notion quite astounding, that a newcomer could create such a splash. However the statistics were a grossly unfair comparison summed up perfectly with the most overused pun in consumer electronics: comparing apples to oranges. This superficial look at the handheld gaming segment didn't address on key factor, and that is that gaming is not the primary and only selling point with the iPod Touch and iPhone. Like I mentioned before, for smartphones, gaming is a second thought. This gives these devices one enormous advantage when its come to their selling power: and that is multiple selling points, and thus a larger potential consumer demographic.

So, it's not surprising that the iPod Touch outsold Nintendo and Sony combined, because in essence it is more than one device. A more just comparison would have been to place side by side Nintendo and Sony's sales against the consumers who bought an iPod Touch specifically for gaming. I'll be damned if Apple still emerged the winner. The point I'm trying to make is that the dedicated handheld gaming market is here to stay. Casual gaming devices like the iPod Touch don't quite have the firepower, and probably never will to penetrate the desires of core gamers.

The Playstation Vita exemplifies Sony's sentiments regarding core gaming, and that is that core gaming will never turn casual. In the mobile gaming market, casual will always be king purely in terms of the magnitude of its customer base, and that's an unavoidable fact. But, conversely there will always be a small market for the consumers who want to take the experience of their home console wherever they go, and that's where Playstation Vita comes in. By sticking steadfastly by their niche market, Sony have maintained the value of their Playstation brand, and the loyalty of their consumers who, like the company they idolise, will never go casual. Betting on hardware superiority was not only the right way to go because it leveraged Sony's strength in hardware, but it's a product that their current consumer base can connect with. And with a price like US$250 for the base Wi-Fi model, it's an invitation for outsiders to join the family.

It can be argued that the likes of smartphones and other forms of casual gaming will eventually reach the level of core gaming through technological progression, after all, there's no end to improvement. However it is a fact, that it's impossible to ever reach the potential of a dedicated device on a less focused one. Smartphones have managed to reach a similar level of gaming that the PSP 3000 or PSP Go currently offer. By raising the benchmark almost impossibly high with Playstation Vita, Sony has brought very deep sentimental pleasure to core gamers. Now, handheld gamers don't have to feel like the casual invasion is catching up on them. Additionally, this is finally a worthy upgrade for current PSP users.

Having said that, what does 'Vita' mean? Kaz had a lot to say about the term Vita at E3:

"Vita means life, and we're confident that Playstation Vita will be the first product that truly blurs those lines between Playstation entertainment and your real life." - Kaz Hirai.

Why I love you, Sir Windows Phone

I'm going to keep this intro short, sharp and shiny. An untimely and most unbidden event occurred to me a couple of weeks ago, my Walkman lost its ability to charge. Often, it's quite difficult to forget instinctive life procedures, however I've got to hand it to my Walkman X1060, she just forgot. And what's more, she's also blatantly refusing to talk to my computer. I've just ordered a new cable off eBay just in case it's a cable problem and I'm still waiting for that to arrive, just hopefully that will fix my Walkman's most unfortunate disorder. Despite this, I know my Walkman won't last forever so I've been searching for alternatives to replace my mobile device shortage, I've decided to settle on the fact that Sony won't ever release a decent Walkman ever again.

The sheer immensity of available devices on the market was simply astounding, I went in with the expectation of landing on my dream device within a day or two, however only a fortnight later have I come to a really solid conclusion. This might surprise you, but I have fallen head over heels for Windows Phone 7. It's disappointing that this operating system is often frowned upon in the tech world for its lack of...well tech geeky features. The lack of customization is probably the OS's biggest claim to shame. Windows Phone 7 has taken a different approach than some of its competitors, and even Microsoft themselves in the past has taken, an entirely different approach. Making an operating system easily accessible and customisable places the nerd in heaven, but often too much freedom and too many options leads to inconsistent and unreliable experiences. Windows, and the previous Windows Mobile have a reputation for being highly technical, at least more so than its competitors. However this time round, I support Microsoft's new approach and strict hardware guidelines for Windows Phone devices, because boy does it pay off.

Microsoft's UI design philosophy

User interface is one of the prime factors of a great mobile experience, and this is the area where Windows Phone 7 truly delivers. It doesn't just deliver because of its visual appeal, nor is it because of its mind-blowing animations, but it is extraordinarily fun to use. The UI experience of Windows Phone really succeeds in taking a big jump away from traditional UI designs epitomised by the likes of iOS and Android. The multiple home screen and widget design of Android simply looks outdated when laid side by side with a Windows Phone. It allows us to beg the question of why we honestly need so many home screens, Windows Phone makes do with one beautifully scrolling collection of 'live tiles'. To be brutally honest, I've never met anyone who actually uses more widgets than the music player, clock, calendar, weather and news feeds; let alone use up all of their home screens. It also shows us why Apple haven't bothered with a widget implementation on their iOS platform yet, though competitive pressure somewhat obliges Apple to do so with their iOS 5.

Live tiles: Another winner for Windows Phone. To be honest I haven't had much experience with the live tiles, as you really have to own the phone for a period of time to evaluate its real world practicality and usefulness. But the concept is brilliant and far as my 10 minute trial of it went, my god its amazing! It really does add to create a really pleasurable mobile experience. The idea of Live Tiles is you can pin the things that matter to you most onto the start screen, and it will show you any updates that occur live. For example, I'm an avid Facebook user, so the Facebook Live Tile will show me any notifications that I receive without the need to access the application. And also without any irritating notification pop-ups. Same goes for Twitter and many many other applications. Heck, I can even pin people to my Live Tile display. Stalking just got a whole lot easier.

Music + Video Hub and the general WP7 sliding interface

Another thing I noticed when using Windows Phone is the feeling that things just really flow. Mind you, I'm not referring to a 'no lag' or 'high-speed' experience here but the design of the 'Metro UI'. Take the Music and Video hub or Zune as an example. When you first open the application it presents you with a list of essentially what you can do: music, video, podcast etc. But if you simply swipe to the right it will present you with your media history of all the tracks you last listened to, swipe to the right again and it will show you new additions to your library of media. This exceptional interface design is really successful in challenging and taking a jab at the concept of navigational buttons (non-tactile obviously). If you're in the music menu, there is no need to tap at anything to switch between the metadata you're viewing, rather swipe to the left or right to switch between artist or album or genre. Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 UI feels natural and intuitive - a theme I discussed in my previous article about the fate of the PC and evolving technologies.

It can be said that the umbrella reason why Windows Phone provides such a pleasurable experience - for me at least - is that it feels like a phone designed for you and adapted to your needs. Most consumers don't like having to adapt and learn their technologies, but rather in essence have technology learn the way they want to do things. This is an area where Windows Phone has hit a home run, perhaps even two home runs with one ball.

UI design is severely underrated, tech analysts have made a big deal about how many apps are available on a platform, how highly featured it is and what not. At the end of the day though, the user interface is what you feel, touch and experience and this should be the thing that makes or breaks a purchase. It's not to say the UI of competing platforms is poor, but this is an element where Windows Phone absolutely delivers. The application range of Windows Phone measures poorly against some competing platforms, but it is sufficient and will continue to grow. I'm going to throw my eggs into the Microsoft basket, and I'll be damned if the platform never gains traction.

Who has a Windows Phone and what are your thoughts on it?

*Next week, I will be doing an in-depth discussion behind the potential of Windows 8 and what it means for consumers and the tech industry.*

Capturing the 'indecipherable' ladies market

Beyond stereotypical image of two women frolicking in their natural habitat

What is it that females look for in their consumer electronics? This is a puzzle that has baffled manufacturers for many years, and still no one has perfected the 'ladies' device. A brief look at the behaviours of your typical female and it's not difficult to see several traits that most of the species share: a love for fashion, shopping and social networking. And of course texting. Naturally, they are very social creatures.

Given this brief analysis of female interests, dedicated ladies electronics have generally been extremely stereotypical.  Most if not all dedicated ladies phones are jam packed with shopping applications, certain texting features, QWERTY keypads, crocodile skin aesthetics and often laden with that ghastly colour of hot pink. Perhaps throw in a free handbag in there too. None of these approaches have ever successfully completed the puzzle of consumer technology for females. I don't want to be stereotypical and say that all women are make-up obsessed, window shopping addicts, as thank god I have met many girls who are not like this. However, the general consensus is that there are many females that fit this description and a lot of consumer electronics vendors are trying to target just this. I'm going to explain why targeting females in such unimaginative ways will never work, and why targeting females at all is just an inefficient waste of time.

You might have noticed that the word indecipherable in the article title, is placed between apostrophes. This is because people assume that the ladies market is so confusing and unbreakable. We wonder if women want pink phones, or petite handbag sized netbooks. However in the end there is nothing to decipher at all. It's not as difficult as it is made out to be, there's no need to go into the deep complexities of female psychology. But rather, we just need to know one simple fact: women are just looking for a great experience. 

The fact that most women aren't as knowledgeable or interested in the tech field has forced manufacturers to blindly assume that women are to be targeted separately via alternative means. Instead of having normal products for normal people, there's suddenly a need to have modified phones for women. It's like they're not normal humans! However, piecing apart the overall market and providing tailored products for individual segments not only dilutes the value and unity of products in the lineup, but is essentially more costly. Piecing apart and spreading the target market also means spreading promotional expenditure and support expenditure. It's an inefficient way to do business. I'm not necessarily a supporter of small one product line-ups, since one product is often not enough to be able to encapsulate the entirety of the target market. However the ratio of products to consumers should always remain as small as possible. Apple has done well in this respect, though they represent an extreme in this philosophy. The iPhone is one product for all, it suits females, it suits males, it suits students and it suits business professionals.

I know there are many people and manufacturers that would aggressively counter this philosophy, Samsung is probably the most prominent of such offenders. In my opinion Samsung's smartphone line-up is excessive. Excessive to the power of 4. Daily, there is a new review of a Samsung handset: Infuse 4G, Galaxy S II, Droid Charge and plenty more. To be brutally honest, only one or two of these have a legitimate reason for existence. The Galaxy S II is a great phone, and most of the others are just cheap copies of the same device. Evidently, Samsung is trying to break the smartphone market through pure scale. Not much effort has gone into branding or exclusivity, however the 'shove in your face' factor forms the core of Samsung's smartphone effort. They want that obnoxious Samsung logo to be so ubiquitous that when picking a smartphone, the odds are that you'll end up with a Samsung. I can't say that this plan isn't effective, because I would be lying and the ubiquity of Samsung's smartphone effort is from what I've heard proving to be effective. And Samsung's strong hardware calibre has definitely earned the respect of technology enthusiasts. However speaking as a consumer and analyser of such technologies, this strategy offers little in terms of gaining brand value and consumer respect. Only time will tell Samsung's prospects.

Back on topic (consumer electronics for females), another factor that must be considered is a product's general ease of use and tech appeal. And by tech appeal, I'm referring to a lesser focus on tech appeal. A recent article that I wrote talked much about most vendors focus on hardware superiority in the tablet space, instead of aiming to excel in user experience. If technology nerds are the target market, this strategy is gold, however for everyone else and particularly ladies this strategy is far from effective. In this regard, I could say I'm much like a female, I couldn't care less about that 'ghz' and 'dual-core' junk. If it works well and smoothly then it works for me. This is why expert studies have shown that females have a strong preference for iOS over the geeky Android. iOS's omnipresence and 'I don't need a manual' interface has ensured that a lot of consumers are aware of iOS's great user experience. Android's geeky name, general geek appeal, and tailored user experience across difference devices has added confusion and complexity into Android purchases. For example, just because the Galaxy S II is a brilliant phone, I can't be guaranteed that Xperia Arc which runs on Android too will likewise be a great phone. On the flip side, I can be certain that the white iPhone 4 will be just as good as the black iPhone 4, and iPad 2 will definitely be an improvement over iPad 1. 

All up, I have shown two effective to captivate the minds of females. Being stereotyped as pink-loving window shoppers is not one of them. In actual fact, I believe that females dislike being patronised in such a way, the need to have devices specially tailored for them is somewhat degrading and evokes the feeling of deficiency. The most efficient way to capture females is to pull them into the company's overall target market, not aim for them individually by taking them out of the target market. Once again, females are just like males, looking for a great user experience, however, minus the hardware complexities.

What do you think about selling consumer electronics to women? Is it easier or harder than it looks?