inquisity

The NY Times had an article today about the assault of the iPhone on the BlackBerry. Key quotes:

An industry once characterized by brain-numbing acronyms and droning discussions about enterprise security is now defined by buzz around handset design, video games and mobile social networks.

At the end of last year, BlackBerry had a 40 percent share of the United States smartphone market, down from 45 percent at the end of 2006, thanks largely to the 17.4 percent share the iPhone grabbed in its first six months.

Later this year, phone manufacturers have promised to start selling smartphones running Android, Google software based on the open-source operating system Linux and backed by a coalition of 34 wireless-industry companies. Google’s idea is that Android can be a more open and a less expensive alternative to the proprietary mobile technologies of Apple, Microsoft, R.I.M. and Nokia in Europe.

Analysts say that R.I.M.’s greatest challenge in a consumer-driven smartphone industry may simply be creating devices that people admire and covet as much as the iPhone. Despite the faithfulness of its flock, R.I.M. is not there yet.

In a survey this year of 3,600 professionals by ChangeWave, a research company, 54 percent of BlackBerry users said they were very satisfied with their devices. Even so, the BlackBerry was a distant second in the survey: the comparable figure for the iPhone was 79 percent.

I’m not sure I would talk about the downfall of RIM so quickly. The BlackBerry is primarily an email device, and has its strength from being the best in its market. The BlackBerry is also aimed at corporations and professionals who want tight integration between their e-mail, calendar, address book, and their laptop.

The iPhone, however, is a mobile device geared to the consumer who wants rich-media functionality like music, movies, and web browsing. It’s clear from the lack of a physical keyboard that e-mail is not the primary function of the iPhone (and the inital lack of “push” functionality).

RIM should take development of their mobile devices in two directions: one for businesses (BlackBerry) and one for consumers (a new product which should not be called a BlackBerry). According to the article, RIM is in development of a touch-screen device (which they call the “apple killer”). It’s very important, however, that they continue to innovate on the BlackBerry as a business device independent of competing with Apple in the consumer market: make typing easier and faster, the screen larger, and integration of address book and calendar cheaper/faster.

True, Apple is adding the “push” functionality for the iPhone, which will allow it to receive email just like the BlackBerry. But the fact remains that having a physical keyboard is a huge advantage if your primary use is email.

I used to have a BlackBerry for Verizon, and according to the customer service people you have to have a data plan in order to use a BlackBerry on the Verizon network ($25-$45 per month in addition to what you’re already paying). I’m not sure how it works on other carriers, or if it’s true that RIM requires a data package and not Verizon, but it doesn’t seem in RIM’s best interest. I would gladly buy a Pearl so I could have my calendar, contacts, and phone all in one device, but right now I don’t need the email functionality. This makes me think it’s actually a Verizon requirement, unless RIM earns revenue from the data package as well.

There was an interesting article awhile back on the expectations of Generation Y workers. The general premise is that we believe we’re entitled to more than any generation before us. Key quotes:

Employees under the age of 29, also known as Generation Y, expect their employers to provide more benefits and other perks than their older counterparts, according to a new survey from CareerBuilder.com and Harris Interactive. Gen Y workers want better pay, a flexible work schedule and company-provided.

“Employers expect entry-level employees to have substantial work experience, be top of their class, dress professionally, et cetera,” Treichel says. “Personally, I worked hard at two year-round internships while still going to school my last two years. I don’t expect high pay and a BlackBerry, but I do expect to be compensated for the hard work I put in preparing for the position.”

Fifteen percent of employers reported modifying their policies in order to appease their Gen Y employees. Of those employers who made changes, 57 percent implemented more flexible work schedules and 33 percent created new recognition programs.

I think it’s true that we have a strong sense of entitlement when it comes to work. However, we back that entitlement up with hard work – between email and cell phones, we’re always on call and willing to travel.

While I acknowledge a shift in expectations of new workers is tough for companies, it also provides opportunities for early-acknowledgers to recruit the best talent by using instruments which speak to us: make us excited with YouTube videos, give us incentives like flexible work schedules, and reward us and our fellow employees based largely on merit. The companies that have started doing this really stand out.

A couple months ago, a sleek, red machine called Redbox appeared at my local grocery store advertising movie rentals for $1 per day. I was intrigued and tried it out.

The process was really easy: use the simple, visually appealing interface to find a movie, swipe your credit card, and out came your movie. The screen told you when your movie was due, and emailed your receipt. When you were done, all you had to do was stick the movie back in the slot, and it was automatically returned via barcode on the case (no receipt needed).

This is the first innovative way to rent movies I’ve seen since Netflix in the late 90s. Blockbuster tried to remake itself by developing its own online/in-store rental system, but it was too late, and the first in the market had the advantage.

Redbox has much more effectively targeted the gap in between the people who will wait for movies to arrive by mail (via Netflix or another service), and those who want instant-gratification (those who go to Blockbuster). By ubiquity of locations, Redbox has made it easier, faster, and (potentially) cheaper to rent a movie. I end up going to the grocery store one or two times a week, and on my way in I can just return the movie.

Best of all, if you’re on top of your game, you can return it the next day and only pay $1.

I don’t rent a lot of movies, but the only problem I had is when I wanted to return a movie. There was a couple browsing through the titles, so I had to stand there and wait until they were done. After a couple minutes, however, they saw I was just returning a movie, and nicely let me get in front.

Interesting tidbit: Redbox is a subsidiary of McDonald’s and Coinstar. This makes a lot of sense: McDonald’s has practical ubiquity across the US, and Coinstar has the technology to operate the machines.

The name Redbox is also good – I’m glad they didn’t go with something like “Micky D’s DVDs.”

In a video posted on TED, Stephen Patranek talked about the 10 ways the world will end. The #6 way is a destruction of the world’s food supply (skip to 14:40):

[link here]

Opponents of allowing cloned food (or “BT Foods”) into the food supply have shifted their efforts from banning BT foods altogether to mandating labels on foods containing cloned ingredients. However there seems to be a serious roadblock.

From an article in January: “The FDA will not require mandatory labels for clone-derived food and will review “clone-free” labels individually.”

After the decision by the FDA, some states are considering stepping in to mandate labeling.

It seems smart to me for opponents of BT foods to lobby for food labels. This seems like an easier fight than banning BT Foods altogether (easier is definitely a relative term here since anti-labeling lobbyests are incredibly strong. For example, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) started to lobby against the use of trans fats in 1987, and only on January 1, 2008 did it become mandatory across the board in the US to disclose the amount of trans fats in foods).

If all foods that contained BT Foods had a label indicating “cloned foods” were inside, it would probably scare many consumers. At a minimum, consumers would start to ask questions, which would bring visibility to the issue.

Wouldn’t you think twice if the ground beef you’ve always bought suddenly had a label that said “cloned beef inside”?