“But do not ask the price I pay,
I must live with my quiet rage,
Tame the ghosts in my head,
That run wild and wish me dead. Should you shake my ash to the wind
Lord, forget all of my sins.”—Mumford Sons
Also called as the bikeshed problem, this law states that, if the problem is less complex, there are bound to be high amount of trivial opinions about it, and vice-versa.
This is always illustrated with the bike shed vs nuclear reactor. People do not know much details about a nuclear reactor, and often times they do not argue much. Because it is complex. However building a bike shed, is not so complex, people have heard about it often. So people think that they know it and come up with different features, and opinions.
Compare this - “Should a nuclear reactor be painted at all” - to - “the color of your bike shed” . According to the law the more trivial the problem is, there are bound to be more opinions about that.
“There are two types of companies: those that work hard to charge customers more, and those that work hard to charge customers less. Both approaches can work. We are firmly in the second camp.”—amazon.com
Asustek started out making circuit boards for Dell. They approached dell to do Motherboards for them, offering 20% less. Dell agreed, cos revenues were unaffected, while profits increased. The deal is a Win-Win.
Asustek, then took over motherboard, the assembly, supply chain, and design, in a similar fashion. Now, Asustek goes to Bestbuy instead of Dell, offering a PC that is 20% less in price.
This according to Steve Denning is because, the focus today is on short term profit increase. The long term value proposition is totally forgotten. This has deeper implications, as over a period of time, America would lose its ability to manufacture. The key innovation and process would be with China.
The Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale divides hurricanes into five categories distinguished by the intensities of their sustained winds. SSHS for the rest of us, as described below
Category 1 - Causes damage to un-anchored mobile homes. Leaves alone your home.
Category 2 - They can lift your home, and damage windows, doors. Near-total power outages. Scattered loss of potable water.
Category 3 - They can cause severe structural damage to wood frame buildings.
Category 4 - Mobile and manufactured homes are leveled. These storms cause extensive beach erosion, while terrain may be flooded far inland. Total and long-lived electrical and water losses are to be expected, possibly for many weeks
Category 5 - Only a few types of structures are capable of surviving intact, and only if located at least 3 to 5 miles (5 to 8 km) inland
Officially, the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale is used only to describe hurricanes forming in the Atlantic Ocean and northern Pacific Ocean east of the International Date Line.
By Acquiring Motorola, Google positions itself to take aim at the mobile market.
To me the most important thing is the price. This is not the price that Google pays for Motorola. It is the price that Google pays for its vision. It gives you a good idea of what is at stake in mobiles.
Below are some of the important factors in play behind this acquisition.
The patent game
My guess is that Moto has been acquired not only for its present patents, but for the potential patents that Moto will produce over the decades. Google has clearly realized that they should be investing on the future patents, else the platform as a whole will be in danger of litigation.
It is a clear FUD when they say that the partners are going to ditch Android. It is because the game is an inclusive game. That is Samsung makes billions, HTC makes billions. The only company to loose cos of Android is Motorola. So if you are a businessman, you would not kill the golden goose because a loss making company is acquired. Even if they don’t like Android, they have to produce the best Android device on the market. Else they risk loosing out.
Samsung is doing business with Apple, supplying parts, while it is getting sued by it. Why? Because no one will want to loose out on business. It is not about emotions, it is about money.
Android is/was never about being the best phone. Android is more of about the variety. Manufacturers know how to compete in this market.
The goal of Google is not to cash in on the device money. But it is trying to put itself in a position so that it can monetize from the platform. Google’s vision is a world full of gadgets powered by Android. That is why the game is so high stake. That is why every one wants to kill off Android.
Google wants Android to be the universal gadget OS. From your TV, to Fridge, to cars, to your security system. They want Android foot print in all of them. That is why the recent hardware push is so important. Moto might be no more producing just phones, but probably open standard for hardware design and implementation.
In the long run, Mobile is going to be a high stakes game, and Google is playing it well.
Though Android has been often abused, and bullied by iPhone fans, they should really thank Android for making their iPhone better.
The intention of the post is not to brag about Android, rather to highlight how an industry benefits from competition. Even the “world’s most advanced OS” benefits from its competitor.
Notifications Drawer - Now when you get the notifications drawer in iOS5, you will definitely be amazed by it. I have not seen a single person who hates that feature. When you pull that down, remember that you owe one to Android.
Free from chord - I have used Android right from 1.6, and I have never connected my Android to a computer. Not even to change the OS. At last iOS gets it in the fifth iteration!
Multitasking - It was not that Apple copied Android. However, Android having this feature, was certainly a catalyst. In fact this feature was introduced as “multi tasking done right”.
These features as such is not a great deal. The point is that Apple which touts itself as an innovating company, is actually having to play catch up. Apple is forced to follow the policy of one up on a feature. That is so unlike Apple.
Pricing - Apple has reduced the price of iPhone from $868 in 2007 to $610 in 2010. A part of this is passed on to customers, since the carriers did not have to subsidize so heavily. (http://bit.ly/mvk9ha)
It is a global truth that Apple iPhone was the pioneer of this nascent mobile market. Almost all smart phone OS have borrowed from iPhone. But it is interesting when it happens the other way around. That is when we know that Apple is no more the front runner, but one among the best.