I stumbled across an MSDN Magazine article from a tweet that pointed out it made the absurd statement that all people with smartphones are early adopters. That was strange enough, but then I found myself disgusted with an apparent attempt to prove why there are so few women in Computer Science.
I’m surprised they didn’t edit out the “if you have a smartphone you’re an early adopter” comment. If you trust Wikipedia, smartphones existed in 1992. RIM’s BlackBerry was out in 2002, and Windows CE was the OS for “Microsoft Windows Powered Smartphone 2002”. iPhone’s been out since 2007. I’m not so sure I’d qualify people buying a 3-year-old technology as early adopters, and I’d certainly avoid saying it for an 18-year-old technology. Are VB6 developers still early adopters? I suppose if you narrow the definition of “smartphone” to “Windows Phone 7” it works. At least MS doesn’t have Google’s arrogance and didn’t create a lame new term like “superphone”. I understand his point that smartphones tend to employ cutting-edge technologies, but if we apply that as the definition of early adoption then anyone with a PC is still an early adopter.
The rest of the article turns patronizing and downright sexist. I agree with the premise: we need to make smartphones to appeal to the masses, not just for profitability but because smartphones have the capability to reshape our lives. Mr. Platt suggests we should focus on making smartphones appeal to women to accomplish this. I assumed this would be followed with statistics that showed smartphone usage is a male-dominated area; no such data was referenced so I assume Mr. Platt is relying on his experience. What does Mr. Platt believe appeals to the modern woman? Grocery shopping! Managing appointments for the family! Nurturing children! Making sure the husband’s supper is warm when he gets home! I’m surprised the article doesn’t suggest an application that suggests which sandwich my wife should make for me, or sound an alarm when GPS detects her out of the kitchen to remind her where she belongs. Maybe Mr. Platt believes we should make Hello Kitty themed phones in addition to writing apps to help those of the other gender feel less threatened by this manly device. Oh, but heâ€™s not entirely sexist. He did mention that the woman works a job before tending to her domestic duties.
I suppose Iâ€™m trying to get offended so I can write something sensational but I think he could have picked a better way to phrase his example. In particular, I think one should be sensitive when speaking specifically about women then focusing on tasks that line up with traditional gender roles in American society. Thereâ€™s more to the market of people without smartphones than homemakers. To many people, a smartphone is just an expensive cell phone. Others donâ€™t like the idea of being connected to the internet 24/7. A very large percentage of the country canâ€™t afford smartphones even with the subsidized pricing (My smartphone bill could buy me lunch for a month.) The way to open the market is not to appeal to stereotypes. The way to open the market is to showcase how a smartphone can dramatically improve your quality of life by keeping track of menial information and coordinating with other peopleâ€™s data. Scoble wrote a good post I canâ€™t find right now outlining scenarios where a smartphone can really make life better. Iâ€™ll paraphrase from memory the kind of scenario that would get people to buy smartphones:
Weâ€™re in the minivan driving to the conference. My kidâ€™s hungry, so I say â€œPhone, find me a place to stop and eat.â€ The phone looks at my GPS location and route and finds several restaurants along the way. It finds a Burger King in 2 miles but notices I tend to eat at McDonaldâ€™s more and picks one of those 4 miles away. â€œDoes it have a playplace, I need one of those.â€ The phone checks a database, realizes thereâ€™s no playplace at this McDonaldâ€™s, and asks if Iâ€™d mind visiting one thatâ€™s 10 miles ahead instead. We stop and spend 30 minutes; the phone notices this will make us arrive 30 minutes later than expected and that I had a meeting I might be late to; it sends a notification to the participants to give me some extra time.
Thatâ€™s the game-changing kind of functionality we need. Scoble wasnâ€™t making this point (he was discussing how data islands are preventing this scenario) but itâ€™s the future I want. If I wanted to do this kind of work today Iâ€™d have to pull over, check the map, find the restaurants, then start using individual websites to determine which restaurant had a playplace. My GPS can find the restaurants, but it doesnâ€™t know which ones to suggest. It canâ€™t tell me the closest McDonaldâ€™s is closed for renovations but thereâ€™s another one 12 miles ahead. Itâ€™d be up to me to check my route, recalculate arrival times, and pull over (again!) to notify my colleagues Iâ€™m running late. Ubiquitous web connectivity enables a device to perform these tasks for me, and a smartphone is the strongest candidate for a web-enabled device Iâ€™ll keep on my person at all times.
So I agree that practical apps are what will win the masses over. There is a need for apps that are recipe books, pantry managers, shopping list generators, and train schedule monitors. But itâ€™s wrong to say these apps are important because women need them. Everyone needs them.
Iâ€™m additionally disappointed that Mr. Platt is writing about this as if itâ€™s some revelation. When I went to Apple’s online app store, I found categories like “Apps for Cooks”, “Apps for Students”, and “Apps for Working Out”. The â€œApps for Studentsâ€ page suggests a National Geographic reference application, a scheduler and homework planner, and a couple of other useful applications for students. Apple knows real people are using their phones and has created lists that appeal to these real people. Androidâ€™s market is a step down from that; their online presence gives me categories, but isnâ€™t searchable and isnâ€™t organized well. I expected some kind of encyclopedia application at the top of â€œReferenceâ€, but instead itâ€™s â€œWorship Musicâ€, â€œFinal Fantasy XIV Guideâ€, and â€œBlack Ops Intel Plusâ€. That definitely has the â€œthis tool is for geeks onlyâ€ vibe to it. What of Microsoftâ€™s app store? If I donâ€™t want to download Zune, all I get is â€œFeaturedâ€, â€œTop Paidâ€, and â€œTop Freeâ€. A few of the apps look useful, but it really gives the impression that WP7 is a gaming platform for geeks. (Androidâ€™s app store is probably better on an Android too. I think itâ€™s stupid to require your user to download software/purchase a phone to see your store.
It seems Appleâ€™s the only company thatâ€™s figured out what Mr. Platt is saying and following up on it. Appleâ€™s the only company that lets me get a phoneless view of their store that makes me feel like their device is intended for normal people. I suppose thatâ€™s why the article was written: if you narrow your definition of smartphone to â€œWindows Phone 7â€, you find a world of early adopters and developers that need to write for the masses. This is why Iâ€™m waiting a while before picking up a WP7: itâ€™s still going through the â€œgeek appâ€ phase Mr. Platt suggests the iPhone is still langushing in. No, real developers are writing influential apps for the iPhone. If itâ€™s happening on Android or WP7, I canâ€™t see it without buying a phone. They might want to see about that.
Update: Check out Word Lens: an application that translates text in an image from one language to another. Fancy fart app for the iPhone, no?