Well, I’ve been playing with my iPhone for about a week now, and am impressed overall. Its great as a phone and simple PDA, but the rest of the “productivity” functionality is way behind the times. Most of the issues I’ve found result from the core functional design that cannot be changed (or can only by partially solved) by third party applications.

Granted, its a phone first, and computer second, but my last phone (Palm Treo 700p) seemed to do the job just fine. Despite the smaller screen and less glamour, I felt the Treo was more capable in two big areas (for me):

• Data Storage: Both the Treo, as well as all previous iPods, had the capability of being mounted as a hard drive over USB (and SD Reader). This saved me from having to carry an extra USB/Flash/Thumb Drive. While that’s only a few ounces, the bigger result here is that this problem trickles through all the iPhone applications. This means that (except as read-only) there are no email attachments, web downloads/uploads, and any third party app that would need access to documents (such as an eBook reader) must provide its own proprietary uploader (or web storage). Granted, there are a few third party apps that try to solve this by either mounting over WiFi (DataCase), Web (SugarSync, MiGhtyDocs), or a proprietary uploader (FileMagnet). My testing of all of these solutions shows them as very slow and fairly buggy. Enough to where I would not trust using these as the primary store for a few gigs of documents. Not to mention that they don’t solve the root problem here because the documents are only available in the restricted sandbox of that single application. While Apple has not commented on the reasons behind disabling this functionality, my gut tells me that resource priorities and security concerns have taken precedence over usability. Hopefully over time Apple can provide a solution.

• Office Suite: A sibling to the above problem is that the iPhone does not have an Office Suite. There is no mobile version of Office/iWork/etc. The iPhone does have the capability (and plenty of sandboxed Apps) to display these documents when found in web pages or the third party apps listed above, but cannot edit them. Granted, you would probably not do your main editing on the small screen, but I definitely used my Treo often for touch-up work while on the road. I’ve used the Treo to make last minute changes to Powerpoint presentations, my resume, or Word Doc proposals, etc. This deficiency is visible in both native iPhone Apps and Safari, neither of which support even basic rich text editing (I take lots of notes as RTF’s in TextEdit). Again, I’m guessing that the cost outweighs the benefits for Apple here, but for me this is a big thing.

These issues hit me pretty hard today because I’m off on a quick 1 day business trip this afternoon, and although I won’t need my laptop during my meetings, I’m forced to lug it around just to review a few PDF’s, DOC’s, CHM’s, as well as review and update my RTF notes. I can probably find a combination of various iPhone apps to handle my needs (if i convert my notes to plain text), but I don’t have the time and have come to expect Apple technology to “just work” and not require all these “band-aid” solutions. (And I shouldn’t have to buy yet another device or mini laptop to do this.)

As a professional working in the web industry, I’m a big believer in promoting good design, intuitive usability, and clear Information Architecture. My top design principles (more to come on this in a future post) include: Clarity, Consistency, and Intuitiveness. In a great article on SmashingMagazine, the importance of Simplicity (one of the ways to help achieve Clarity and Intuitiveness in design) was discussed and pointed out that:

If the user can’t find what she’s looking for right away, she’s gone. It’s crucial to have simple web designs to allow the user to quickly find the information they need, especially if you are selling a product.

This is a great article and does contain some good examples that can be used as design inspiration. However good design is not enough. You can have the best design in your market and still fail. And vice-versa, you can have the worst design and somehow come out on top.

Google Search is often hailed as the #1 example of how simple design will lead to great success. However this is not really the case. When Google Search first came out, I heard over and over again that “Google [Search] is great because its so much simpler and gives me much more accurate results than other search engines.” People only attributed the simplicity to Google’s success because it hadn’t been done before. What really kept people coming back though was the quality of the search results. Google Search is not the best ONLY because of its simple design, but because of its combination of good design, great technology, and smart business practices.

On the other side of the spectrum you’ve got most of the social networks, such as MySpace/Facebook which have horrible designs and overly cluttered interfaces, yet people can’t get enough of them. Many competitors try to enter this market with either better interfaces or better features, but have yet to make much traction. In this case, its the business-model completely eliminating the need for a quality product. Peer pressure leads to exponential growth and it doesn’t matter how bad the product is.

Now, I’m not saying I wouldn’t like to see higher quality (and better designed) web products out there, but it just isn’t needed everywhere. Some quick tips for product success:

• Start by concentrating on a solid business-model. Come up with something that solves a problem and you’ll have demand for your product. Find a big enough problem to solve and you won’t be able to hold back the swarm.

• Scalable Supply: There’s nothing worse than the store running out of your kid’s new favorite toy after all his friends got one. Implement Technology that will scale with your product’s demand. And there’s no point in spending excessive amounts on supply until the demand is (almost) there.

• Customer Focus: Figure out how to tweak your product’s design to best serve your customers. Without customer satisfaction, even the best business plans will fail. And scale this appropriately as well. Figure out what your users want and need, and then weigh those against the business impact of not providing those wants and needs.

• Refine. Having a successful product means you’ve got to keep up with market changes. Your customers tastes will change, your business will grow, and technology will innovate. In the Social Networking world, that same exponential growth that made you successful can quickly lead to a wave of customers moving on to the next big thing, leaving you in the dust. Revisit the first three tips often to make sure you’re keeping up with the times.

Business, Technology, and Design (which in this case represents the Customer component of the Triple Confluence) must be balanced in order to achieve success. This is just another example of how the Triple Confluence is an additive principle (and not a constraining principle like the Triple Constraint). Good design can help, but without good business and technology your great design will end up on the cutting room floor.

Yet again, the traditional media industry has failed to capitalize on the business opportunities available with new media. According to TechCrunch’s sources:

… eMarketer put out [an estimate] on Friday that NBC’s Olympics video ad revenues came to only $5.75 million. That compares to $23 million that CBS made from video ads when it streamed the NCAA basketball tournament live on its Website in March. … NBC paid $900 million for exclusive video rights to the Olympics, meaning that its [TV advertising] profits will be about $100 million.

It is unknown how much of this $5.75 million revenue is actually profit.

Around the internet/blogosphere, this small showing has been attributed to many things, including NBC’s usage of Microsoft’s Silverlight technology (a new technology in the already Adobe Flash-dominated web video market) that is not browser-agnostic, as well as its restrictive scheduling and content exclusivity. And while these are not “life-or-death” obstacles, obviously these are purely business decisions without any input from the customer. Based on the accounts I’ve read and my own experiences, people would most likely want a seamless experience using the technology they already have and the ability to watch truly live streaming video rather than having to wait until after the TV broadcast for replays. And when you take into account the “Web 1.0″ style of content exclusivity, NBC has fallen again behind the times.

From strictly a design standpoint, I believe NBC missed the boat on this one due to poor information design. The designers of the site payed little attention to the Information Architecture of its content, providing many duplicative (and therefore confusing) navigation paths throughout the site. As I clicked through the site in what I believed was a linear pattern, it turned out the website was constantly jumping me from section to section without a steady anchor as to where I was at any moment (or how to get back to where I came from). Granted, this is not an easy problem due to the complex multi-dimensional nature of the content (which could be possibly navigated by sport, country, athlete, date, etc), but I can’t believe NBC came up with the best solution. I’m sure many people, like me, never got that far on NBCOlympics.com as I was quickly overwhelmed by the site’s Information Overload. And this doesn’t even take into account the video content which surprised me by how many pages I had to go through to play a video after I actually found the one I wanted. Overall I left the site after 10 pages or so of finding nothing I was looking for (and only what NBC’s editorial team was pushing).

Unfortunately this can only be bad for the consumers in the long run, as NBC (and other similar business) will only see this as a proof of a bad market, rather than fixing the root of the problem by meeting that market’s needs.

Online personal finance product, Mint, has redesigned its website based on user testing. According to TechCrunch:

… Mint has been bucket testing various redesign formats with some users and is seeing conversion rates increase by 20% over the current site. … That equals “hundreds of thousands” of more registered users over the course of a year given their current growth rates..

This is a perfect example of the concepts and methods discussed in my last article discussing balancing Business vs. User needs. In this case, Mint not only figured out what its users want, but also measured how those wants would affect their business.

One of the most common dilemmas related to products/services is how to balance the needs of the Business versus the needs of that business’ Customers. As a web designer/developer (representing the Technology arm in the Triple Confluence), I am often approached by clients to produce a website that will have a design or features I know its Customers will hate or not be able to use effectively.

Many people take one side or the other on this issue, because they are conditioned to believe that “The customer is always right”. And the dilemma occurs because, who the “Customer” is can be seen from different viewpoints. Some Technologists (designers or developers) believe that because that client is paying the bills they should therefore get everything they want. (The clients also believe that too sometimes!) Some Technologists believe the end user is always right (see User Centered Design) because they are ultimately the ones using the product (and will therefore bring revenue to the Business).

However, the only way your product/service will be successful is by balancing these needs. The Business needs to remember that they represent Business needs, not Customer needs (and are usually not the end users). Without meeting the needs of the business plan, your product/service will not meet its goals. For example, users may hate your advertisements, but this may be the only way for you to make money. In addition, without meeting the needs of your Customers, your product/service can’t meet its goals either. For example, if your advertisements are too pervasive, they could prevent your Customers from using the product/service optimally. The solution to this specific example may be to use advertisements that are as non-invasive as possible.

Whether you are on the Business or Customer side (and if you’ve got enough budget to do so) here are a few ways to negotiate or avoid these types of dilemmas:

Early Detection: Spend as much time upfront as you can trying to determine if this dilemma will arise. I always try to feel this out with my clients before taking on any job. I make sure to discuss this with any potential clients early by getting (and setting) their expectations. If you have this discussion early, usually you can tell if your client (or Technologist) lies on one extreme or the other and take the necessary steps to avoid the dilemma (including not moving forward with that client/technologist).

Plain old negotiation: The simplest way is just to sit down with your counterpart and present your case. The best method here is the “Put yourself in my (or your Customers’) shoes” argument. Meeting “in person” always works best for a critical issue such as this, followed by phone communications if that’s not possible (See: The Communication Hierarchy).

Competitive Analysis / Market Research: Figure out what your competitors are doing. Chances are, if they’re leading the market they have already figured out how to balance Business vs. Customer needs. Be very careful on this one though, as many “Web 2.0″ products don’t actually make any money (or even want to make money) and just rely on investment money or an eventual acquisition. Make sure you factor this in when comparing to your business goals.

Business Plan: If you are on the Business side of this dilemma, you need to provide business justification for these types of decisions. If you have a relationship with the Technologist that allows you to share this plan, they will be more likely to understand your side. Especially if you have the data behind it (ie: “We have tested this on a small scale, and have forecasted that this feature will net/save us an extra Trillion Dollars over not using it”).

Focus Groups/etc.: Get the Customers involved. Figure out what they really want and need. This is probably the most important method, as in reality, both the Business and Design/Development teams may think they know what the Customer really wants, but often are both wrong.

Do or Die: In the worst case scenario you need to be able to walk away or just blindly accept your counterpart’s position. Obviously this is not the recommended option, but if there is no other choice it might be the only option. If you have done your homework and are convinced you are right then it may only hurt the other side to continue. Hopefully you can avoid this by the early detection method discussed above, but unexpected issues always arise and ultimately you may need to make this hard choice.