[9 November 2011: Brian: Cheers for Brian, no? I wrote this barely 2 weeks ago. Now Adobe has killed development on Flash for smartphones. I told you *from the beginning* that having Flash on your device was *absolutely not* a selling point. A few Android fanboys argued otherwise. What say they now? Listen to Brian, all.]

It's the iPad! Only better! Cause it has flash!

Probably the nicest honest thing you can say about the Samsung Galaxy Tab tablet is that sales have been underwhelming. Despite creating a device that *borrows* extremely heavily from Apple's iPad.

And runs on the (more popular) Android platform.

Which is open!

And has Flash!

I've detailed the reasons why (pre Kindle Fire) no one will buy a tablet that is not iPad and why no one should buy a tablet that is not iPad. No point in going over this yet again, particularly after having been proven so completely right. 

Rather, I will talk about flash. Or, more specifically, about those who talked up flash as a selling point. Which was dumb. And because Apple so publicly dissed Flash, the Apple haters became all the more fervent in their demand that flash be included in non Apple tablets.

And the weak, possibly dumb people running marketing for Playbook and Xoom and Galaxy Tab and others, charged with determining market requirements, fell trap once more to the grand fallacy that the Apple haters proffer:

that they are a market that matters

Steve Jobs and Apple have famously said they don't do market research. This isn't entirely true. Steve Jobs and Apple have famously said that they build products that they want to use, and not products based on what a bunch of people tell them. This is mostly true. The late Steve Jobs and the present Apple Inc. rarely talk about what they are doing. This is both true and good.

Because, I suspect that if they started talking up what they were doing, planning, working on, thinking about, then there would be no end of loud-angry demands to include or not include feature X and service Y and techology Zed. Which would probably do nothing more than throw Apple far off their game, just as it has thrown the also-rans off theirs. 

My mother has used an iPad. She has zero knowledge what Flash is or does. I have let children, who have never heard of 'Flash' use my iPad.

It works. Great. Easily. Powerfully. Just as Apple said, any benefits of Flash would be far outweighed by its harm to the overall user experience. And Apple continues to sell iPads by the millions. Meanwhile, Tabs can't be found, Xoom appears to be offering a buy anything get one free special, and Playbook, like the TouchPad, is soon to appear in the bins along with the $5 DVDs at the WalMart, I suspect.

Because these companies listened; only, not to the market, but to a very small group of haters and fanboys. HOW DARE APPLE NOT INCLUDE FLASH! CLOSED! BAD! MARKETING! ANd rather than building the best product for the market -- or for a market that did not quite yet exist -- they built a product to satiate the rapatious demands of a tiny tiny group of buyers who, let's face it, weren't going to buy the tablet anyway.

Apple haters my be loud. They may take to social media and find an echo chamber, but they are a blip on a niche market. Listen to them at your peril.

Bet against Apple, sure. But I wouldn't bet on the haters. They won't make you any money.

[17 May 2012: Brian: This post was written exactly a year ago, today. Steve Jobs did not live forever. Probably, none of us will. Hopefully, we don't go too soon, the way Jobs did.]

Those were the days my friend, we thought they'd never end...

In fact, I can still vividly recall the glorious days of my youth. The 80s. Morning in America. Reagan as President. AIDS was only an issue for gays and none of us knew anyone that was gay. We thought.

And popular culture reflected this time; a time of unabashed potential; when Steve Jobs was young and brilliant and insanely great and the kind of mad rad prick that would make even autistic-like engineers aspire to envision a world far different, far beyond themselves.

I remember the great movies of the day. With Jean-Claude van Damme. Bolo Yeung. Don the Dragon. Videotapes from Hong Kong. And always with one recurring theme:

mad vain evil billionaire was going to spend his money to take over the world! and live forever!

by holding a fight to the death karate tournament inside some secret bunker, or an island to be found on no map.

How come today's billionaires, now worth far more, now with 21st century technology, don't have such aspirations?

Seriously. With all their billions and all today's technology and medical advances and genetic knowledge and hidden stem cell research and deliberate mutations of hormones and DNA and they are not *actively* pursuing immortality?

What is with these people?

Why have our best and brightest given up? 

Steve Jobs is, we are told often, on death's door. Steve Ballmer is worth $20 billion dollars and punches the clock every single day. Have they no imagination? No vision?

Bill Gates still has $50 billion in the bank that he has yet to give away. The man conquered the global economy in the late 20th century. He helped put a billion PCs -- a billion -- on desks in every country. Now, he wants to end the un-endable problems plaguing Africa.

But no money for eternal life?

Frankly, I'm ashamed of these guys. Isn't it Gates, himself, that is trying to get the world's richest to give away all their money? For what? What's more important than living forever? 

The Forbes 400 list of the richest people reveals all 400 are worth *more* than $1 billion each. Some, like Gates, far more. Jobs has $5 billion. Ballmer $13 billion. The Google twins have $15 billion -- each. Combined, the 400 possess over $1 trillion.

Are they just going to die?

People talk about the digital gap. The wealth gap. The gap between rich and por. Between the first world and the third world. Trust me, there will be no bigger gap, ever, then between those that can live forever and those that cannot.

And I'm fine with that. Because, I know that once the secret to eternal life is discovered, no amount of money, no member of the Forbes 400, nor all of them in concert, can stop the rest of us from getting access to that magic fountain of youth. 

What are these people doing? Google is working on a car that drives itself. Who the fuck cares? These guys are supposed to be brilliant. A car that drives itself? That's it? Ballmer is cutting deals to buy Skype? That's bullshit. Jobs has more money than everyone of my readers, except him, will ever have, in total, combined. And he can't even eat enough food to have an ounce of fat on his body lest, what? An errant fat cell cause some chain reaction and something really really bad happens to him?

You have $5 billion! Hire every single crazed Russian and South African and Brazilian mad scientist doctor you can god damn locate!

Why is nobody dreaming big!

Which is probably a good point to tell you what my dream for this site is. Big or not. Which is, to have enough of you read it, watch it, share it -- and yes, support it with your dollars -- so that I can use this site as a multimedia archive and platform as I travel the world and explore and meet and interact with people and places and how today's most advanced mobile gadgets, namely smartphones, are liberating their lives, their work, their families, their communities.

Sort of like one of those foodie shows on the Travel Channel that goes all over the world and tries the local cuisine and meets the people who produce it, make it, consume it. And then films it for our viewing pleasure. Only with smartphones.

Which maybe isn't a big dream, but it's my dream.

How much would that cost? $100,000? $5 million? Certainly not Steve Jobs money. Although, if I had that, or better still, Steve Ballmer money, I can assure you that at least half of it would be actively engaged in the pursuit of immortality. Those guys have no excuses.

Give Brian some sugar. A day after I wrote about the primacy of apps, the big tech blogs and major media promote the 'rise of the app'. From my earlier post:

The desktop metaphor ruled the PC. The app metaphor rules -- and will continue to rule for years at least -- the smartphone.

As the world is going mobile, rapidly, the mobile has already gone app. Apps replace search. Apps replace services. Apps simply work better. The app can be optimized for the device, for the screen, for the hardware, for the functions.

The web, as we know it, can never match the app. Instead of a "Google search" app there should be, say, ten Google search apps -- spanning various important search needs.

The smartphone is the new personal computer and the app powers the smartphone. It will be thus for at least the next five years. Apple will likely *extend* its lead over its rivals during this time.

Today, a study reveals the growing importance of apps! 

Via TechCrunch:

With smartphone penetration now at 50 percent in the U.S., the world of apps is seeing a knock-on effect in their popularity: according to a new report from Nielsen, mobile consumers are downloading more apps than ever before, with the average number of apps owned by a smartphone user now at 41 — a rise of 28 percent on the 32 apps owned on average last year.

But at the same time, there are hints of people possibly approaching a limit to how much they might use them: despite the rise in app numbers, the amount of time that people are spending in apps has remained essentially flat: collectively, they are being used for 39 minutes per day today, compared to 37 minutes in 2011.

Nielsen also notes that apps seem to be taking a bit of time away from mobile web usage (perhaps this is where the extra two minutes comes from…): it says that users are using apps 10 percent more than the mobile web, compared to last year.

As I wrote before this study came out:

iPhone quickly went from revolutionary computing device to app phone. This is the equivalent of the PC embracing the desktop metaphor. It is the primary consensual hallucination that we all accept and embrace for personal computing.

The app is the means with which we access the data, services, hardware and functions of our smartphone. The smartphone is our personal computer. You must build for this reality. You must accept this reality. Once again, like Moses coming down from the mountain, Apple brought us the singular digital metaphor for computing and interactivity.  

Worse for Apple's competition is the fact that, even today, in mid-2012, Apple does not simply make the best smartphone -- it makes the best phone and the best platform for apps. It's lead in profits and popularity should widen. Android was *not* optimized for apps. Nor Blackberry. Nor even Windows Phone. Think of a PC company in 1996, say, that didn't get desktop and folders correctly. 

From AllThingsD:

Judging by two of the most hyped deals in recent Silicon Valley history — Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram for $1 billion and Zynga’s acquisition of Draw Something for $200 million — it seems like a foregone conclusion that the era of the app has arrived.

And some new numbers from Nielsen that chronicle the rise of “AppNation” on Android and iOS between March 2011 and March 2012 back up that notion. The study shows the average number of apps per smartphone has jumped from 32 apps to 41, and growth in time spent on app usage outpacing the growth in mobile Web usage on smartphones by a hefty margin.

With respect to deals like Instagram, you must understand: an app is not an app. The app phone, particularly the iPhone, is a platform. The new web. The app is like a site on the new web. 

This makes it easier for people to comprehend, though we still cannot know just how the monetization of content and the delivery of data and engagement will fundamentally change in this era of the app.

Last week, I asked in that way of mine, "will the big tech blogs ever call Tony Hsieh an asshole?"

We have our answer.

No.

Probably he doesn't deserve such a label. If he did, his PR firm will certainly never tell.

The reason I continue to expose the inter-connectedness of the VC funded blogs and the stories, businessses, people and products they focus on is because it reveals what a *non-meritocracy* Silicon Valley has become. The big blogs take the big money from the rich insiders. They promote the myth, build the buzz, and cheer when their latest non-revenue generating venture is purchased for big money.

While you remain some nerdy Jean Valjean hungry for crumbs.

The incestuous, tightly connected relationship between big blogs, serving as PR firms, and venture capitalists, who have become masters of the fast flip, further reveals, dear reader, that there are many gatekeepers you must pay before your grand idea or wonderful business gets the press it so richly deserves.

As I've said many times: there is a reason why rich insiders fund the big tech blog media sites -- despite the fact that they will *never* earn a acceptable payout on their investment.

Because they are getting paid in so many other ways.

In my post last week, I noted that Tony Hsieh, head of Zappos, before he sold it to Amazon, is an "investor" in PandoDaily.

He also employs PandoDaily's founder's spouse.

A writer for PandoDaily is launching an online magazine. With funding from Mr Hsieh. Possibly, all its funding. 

Mr Hsieh's *other businesses* are "paid sponsors" of this funded online magazine.

That buys a lot of good press. Literally.

Today, in PandoDaily, from the founder:

She was, of course, talking about Zappos, and it was clear by listening to the ensuing conversation that this woman works at Zappos for one big reason. It’s not the discounts on shoes or the crazy headquarters with different noisemakers on every aisle or the almost cultish, feel good all hands meetings. It’s because she’s insanely, ridiculously proud to work at the place that made insanely expensive customer service that almost no company could justify into a $1 billion exit. She lives her life looking for reasons to brag about that very fact to complete strangers.

That alone is an astounding fact, if you think about the trend corporate America was on with outsourced, voice recognition software and endless phone tree call centers just a few years ago. And Zappos isn’t alone. Increasingly, middle America is reclaiming the call center. Don’t call them “fly-over states” anymore, you coastal snobs. Thousands of people in America’s heartland may no longer be farming or building cars, but thousands more are making all of our lives way better every day call by call.

Something well beyond Zappos is happening here. And it’s similar to the move from commerce mega sites to curated content-driven experiences. It’s not too dissimilar from our own ethos at PandoDaily that page views are not what build a big business, rather seemingly crazy investments in what we consider to be good work does. It’s a move from a slavish reliance on machines and metrics towards things that humans are uniquely good at, things that can not be automated. It’s a reaction against the phone tree, voice-recognition software, the algorithm and any too-good-to-be-true shortcut that companies embraced over the last five to ten years.

Is it too much to say that the outsourcing wave was wrong, that the business pendulum is swinging back en masse to expensive investments in making customers happy? Probably. (Unfortunately.) But these four companies — and doubtlessly others like them — are setting an important precedent in how short-sighted the outsourcing and automated customer service boom was.

Zappos, GoDaddy, Qualtrics and Braintree have proven that spending money on customer service isn’t throwing money away — it’s investing in the business. Done well, good customer service is the difference between a mediocre business and a great one. You can get shoes anywhere, and Zappos’ site design has never been that amazing; its entire success is wrapped up in treating people well. GoDaddy doesn’t view its call center as a “cost center,” arguing it has actually generated more than $100 million in annual revenues. And Qualtrics — and loads of other new enterprise companies like them — have effectively substituted these call centers for expensive sales people and marketers.

Everything in business moves in cycles. If this is the beginning of a move back, it’ll be a temporary one. At some point, skimping on customer service will again be on the vanguard of cost-cutting. But until then, let’s enjoy the pampering.

Oh, and Zappos.

Oh, and those proud folk in flyover states are doing god's work by answering your calls. Go pat them on the head.

Oh, and no mention anywhere in/around the post that I can tell of the relationship between PandoDaily and Zappos's moneyman.

Will your business get this type of glowing, gushing coverage? Will your awesome commitment to customer service get singled out?

We already know the answer.

You people have no idea. None. I bang these blog posts out while boiling water for the day's ramen. I write a post in the time it takes Justin Verlander to shake off a sign.

(Oh, but still donate -- I'm killing myself here, just for you.)

Writing, however, writing a novel -- that shit is hard. Trust me. Hard. Here's a taste of the daily grind, from PJ Reece:

This morning I awake to a new schedule—START NOVEL. 

No shower, no coffee, don’t even get dressed.  Don’t clean up the desk.  No email, no surfing blogs, no Facebook or Twitter.  No opening the snail mail, no Globe and Mail.  No logging on to the Internet, period. 

I have a speech to write—forget it.  Another blog post—not now.  Another eBook in the works—later!  Just man up to the blank screen, PJ, and thrill to the experience of not knowing what’s going to happen.

My finger tips are moving… oh, look!  On the screen… “The dead don’t care…”

My novel has begun!

Since I almost certainly will be using an iPhone this year and next, at least, I hope I am wrong about this though I think not. 

Via Parislemon:

I haven’t heard anything specifically about this [offering turn-by-turn navigation], but my guess is that Apple has been hard at work on it for some time. The fact that the maps update is coming seems like a good sign.

They know this is one of the remaining “low-hanging fruits”, as John Gruber calls them, that they can add to iOS. It’s also an area where Android is, without question, winning.

Do not get your hopes up, dear reader.

Mapping and navigation are not Apple strengths. Improved mapping and navigation functions can better support app developers and social media platforms on iOS. But for the most part, mapping is only marginally connected to Apple's larger strategy and business model.

Let's get confirmation that Apple will be replacing Google Maps in iPhone, and that it will offer something TOTALLY AWESOME in its place, before we start hoping for free, embedded, Apple-y turn-by-turn support.

My assumption is that this will remain a rather expensive add-on service long after iPhone 5 (or whatever it is called) is released.