Woz: Android Will Dominate Mobile. Jobs: Yawn.

Steve Wozniak told reporters yesterday that Android would become the dominant smart phone platform, not the iPhone. Of course, this got the tech blogs in a buzz, with Woz’s Apple ties and the classic open vs. closed platform debate making this quip juicy link bait. But I couldn’t help but think that Steve Jobs sees this quote and just yawns. Literally.

Does anyone think that 1) Jobs is worried about Android becoming the dominant OS or that he wants the iOS on every phone and 2) that Android’s destiny is preordained? I don’t think so.

If we define “dominant” by the number of devices carrying the OS, then there’s no way that Jobs is worried about it. Look at the market caps of Apple and Microsoft. Look at the install bases of both. Jobs knows that winning doesn’t mean putting your device in every hand. It means creating a profitable ecosystem and customer base that wants to pay a premium for a premium product. The idea that Apple would suddenly want to be the commodity leader in the ultimate commodity technology market completely ignores Apple’s strategy since Jobs’ return to power. Apple is about premium products, premium experience. It’s not about OEMs, licensing across a million platforms and trying to get every single member of the mass consumer market using their products.

If Android becomes the largest share of mobile phone OS installs it has little impact on Apple as a company, and less still on their mobile product strategy. Of course, they want to get people into the walled garden and let them know how nice and cozy it is so that they’ll grow their customer base – but they aren’t trying to be the Windows of the phone world, that hasn’t been their corporate strategy to date, and there’s no reason to think it will be in mobile now.

Jobs knows that being the commodity leader is not being the market leader. But giving Android the commodity crown now is also flawed. Android has a long way to go before regular users will adopt it, recommend it and use it.

Woz makes the mistake of equating “more features” with greater product desirability by the market. We know, from countless historical examples, that this just isn’t true. In fact, I’d argue that a more limited OS is more desirable to most consumers. Take my mom for example. She just wants a phone that works. She doesn’t want a phone that works like her PC. She HATES her PC. It takes forever to load, is still filled with garbage from OEM installs of anti-virus trial offers and doesn’t offer a seamless experience in any shape of the word. The last thing my mom wants in her pocket, when she needs to make a call, is another implementation of her disaster of a PC experience.

This is where it will be difficult (not impossible, just difficult) for Android. How do you keep the user experience high on a device that should just “work like it’s supposed to?” People have learned that computers crash, have performance issues and are generally a pain. But people have learned that the phone just works. Just like cars. Just like electricity. Consumers will get frustrated if the Android marketplace and software emulates the PC experience. They won’t adopt it in large numbers.

And if the Android market isn’t secure there will be a public perception problem about the safety of installing apps. We’ve already had the stories of malware in the Android App store. These will take hold and create challenges for the OS in public adoption. Users aren’t sophisticated enough to navigate this themselves, and when people start losing business contacts due to viruses on their phones the backlash will follow.

So while the tech industry can crown Android now, and call it the soon-to-be dominant OS I can see the folks at Apple, Jobs particularly, sitting back and yawning. Knowing that 1) it doesn’t matter if it does come true and 2) it’s not guaranteed to, anyway.

Update: Apparently Woz was misquoted and basically sums up what I said above in his response here:

According to Steve, that’s about it — he says he’d “never” say that Android was better than iOS, and that “Almost every app I have is better on the iPhone.” Woz did say he lightly prognosticated that Android would become more popular “based on what I’ve read,” but that he expects Android “to be a lot like Windows… I’m not trying to put Android down, but I’m not suggesting it’s better than iOS by any stretch of the imagination. But it can get greater marketshare and still be crappy.” He’s not shy, that Woz — listen to him say it all for yourself after the break.

What I’m asking on my job interviews

As I announced a few weeks ago, I’m leaving my current job and am on the hunt for the next great opportunity.  And while I’m sad to be leaving my current role, I’m excited about what the future holds and the opportunity to find the best fit for me and my next employer.  What I’ve learned over the last few years is that the most important thing is to ensure your world view lines up with the people you work with.  You need to understand, at their core, what drives and motivates them.  You need to really understand the goals of the leadership and the company in general.

I think this idea has been crystallized nicely in the two videos below.  The first is based on Daniel Pink‘s new book Drive, the second is a TEDx talk by Simon Sinek, that is based on the principles of his new book Why?

Both focus on this idea of what is the motivating factor in the office place.  And it comes down to much bigger things that simply monetary rewards.   It comes down to purpose.   And that’s what I’m looking for now – people who share the same purpose. The same outlook, the same opinion on what it means to run a successful business.

I’m looking for the Zappos, the 37 Signals, the Apple’s and all the other companies that aim to change the world and make great products and experiences.  I believe that if you do that the money follows.

If you believe that, then I’m interested in talking about how we can work together.

Rewarding Hard Work Rewards the Wrong Thing

Hard work and good work. Two things that should be rewarded and are. But sometimes I believe we place more reward on hard work then on good work. I think this is backwards, and it hurts companies more than they know.

It goes something like this. Stay late, get rewarded. Deliver a day ahead of a deadline, get rewarded. Create a great design in half a day and cut out early? Well, the boss wants to know, what else could you have done with that extra 30 minutes?

It doesn’t always happen like this, and, in the long run, good work is what is rewarded, by the market. But for the day-to-day it’s the martyrs that tend to get the kudos. Regardless of whether that extra work is of any real benefit to the company at all.

Why is this? I think it’s two fold.  One, good work is much harder to do than hard work. Hard work, ironically, is the easiest pursuit in business. It’s easy to put your head down and grind out a ten hour workday. Much easier, than say, creating a product that resonates with your audience. Two, it is exceedingly hard to evaluate good work as it is happening; to the point where it’s easier to revert back to the tried and true, and ask “how hard are they working?”

In this TED talk Daniel Pink, author of the new book Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us (affiliate link) describes a fascinating study call the “Candle Problem” wherein a group of people motivated by financial rewards based on performance (speed in this case) perform worse at solving the problem than those without any incentive to solve it as fast as possible.

And I believe that this thinking, that rewards for metrics like speed and volume over quality, is what ruins many work places and diminishes the value of the employees that work there.  For example, it’s been said that Apple’s upcoming tablet computer has been in prototype for at least 6 or 7 years.   Never quite ready for the big time in the world of high Apple standards.  Is there any question that it will crush the slew of PC-based tablets just released at CES last week in order to get “ahead” of the Apple launch?  There shouldn’t be.  Apple will own the dominant tablet device.

Now, do you think that the product managers and designers on the tablet are more worried about making the tablet their life’s work, or shipping something quickly?  The answer is obvious.  Apple values good over hard or fast or any other attribute.  More and more the successful companies are the ones that value good thought and products over hard work and speed.

It’s not that hard work and speed to market aren’t important.  Of course they are.  But on a continuum of business priority in what order do they fall and in what way are they rewarded?  Is good thought rewarded above hard work? Is it even rewarded in the same way that hard work is?  Highly doubtful. Highly foolish.

So back to you.  When is the last time you evaluated how you reward your people? If successful companies are more successful at rewarding good thought over hard work, it seems imperative that your people are rewarded the same way.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]