I saw a headline yesterday that Apple sold 600,000 iPhone 4s through its pre-order system, which then had to be shut down. I think this is a victory not for only Apple, but more importantly for consumer good quality in general. Let me explain...
My most prized possession is a Nikon camera and lens set that I spent almost two years collecting on eBay. Each piece was built in or around 1979, which makes it older than myself. The reason I was so picky in selecting this equipment is because it represents the pinnacle of quality in 35mm cameras. During the 1960's and 1970's Nikon was the premiere maker of cameras and took great pains to craft them in such a way that they would continue to function flawlessly beyond 30 years of operation. In addition, the optical quality of Nikkor lenses from this era is virtually unmatched by anything currently on the market. Can you imagine a crappy digital camera you pick up today from Best Buy lasting that long? My lenses are made of brass... Anyway, you can read more about that here.
I think my generation has been faced with severely declining quality in all consumer goods. We're expected to pay top dollar for plastic pieces of junk designed to last a few years and then force you to go out and spend again. Our entire economy is structured on the idea of disposability. Our electronics are flimsy, our clothes quickly fade, our roads are designed to last only 20 years, our food is increasingly unhealthy and unnatural. In Pompeii the roads are still drivable after almost 2,000 years.
Anyway, back to Apple. With the latest iPhone incarnation Steve Jobs has taken the opposite approach one would expect. He's increased the quality of the device far beyond what anyone could dream of for the money in 2010. This lastest version is made only of stainless steel and glass and Jobs himself likened it to an "old Leica camera" in his keynote. I think the reason it's selling so well, and Apple items are in general, is because the rising generation has had enough of spending money on flimsy pieces of crap. The Android fanboys will boast that their phones do everything iPhones do, and it may be true, but they are literally a joke to hold in your hand next to an iPhone.
On top of the physical quality, the software in Apple devices (iOS and OS X) is also of exceedingly high quality. This was only able to be accomplished because Apple owns the entire stack, so no time needs to be wasted figuring out how to support and infinite combination of crappy hardware (not to mention leveraging UNIX instead of starting from scratch). Likewise, the App Store has drawn a lot of criticism because of its tight restrictions, but the high level of control Apple has over its platforms is precisely the reason for its high quality and thus its success in the marketplace.
I think if other companies want to compete, they need to bring back craftsmanship. They need to make something that excites their customers instead of something they begrudgingly buy because it's the lesser of many evils. They need to bring back quality and abandon the disposable economy that has failed us.
I recently learned about a project that aims to fully model a human brain on a supercomputer. This sounds pretty far off, but they've already mastered a full section of a rat's brain. Given how quickly processing power is growing, the 10 year goal stated by the project's leader, Henry Markram, doesn't sound all that unbelievable considering what they've accomplished up to this point. If you're interested in the science or philosophy of the brain, there is a very cool talk on TED. I really like how Markram has some very simple yet thought-provoking ways to think about the mystery of consciousness.
I personally believe that consciousness is intrinsically tied to the physical universe in some magnificent way that we cannot even fathom. Our separate approaches to understanding each one might not be the best way to go about finding a "theory of everything". If you think about it, the Big Bang and consciousness are uncannily similar. Their existences are self-evident and their origins are completely inexplicable... Food for thought.
It's been a long time since my last post so I just wanted to check in. As some of you might know, I recently made the move to San Francisco (last September). I have to say it's been an extrememly positive change from LA. While I don't want to delve too deeply into the intrastate rivalry that California is so famous for, I do understand the (often stark) differences between NorCal and SoCal much better now. I'll just give a quick list of (non-social) improvements:
everything is local, no more driving 45 minutes for a simple errand
public transit rules (in case it's too far to walk)
food is cheaper and better
fine IPA and great wines are more readily available
oppurtunities for photography (besides celebrities ;) ) are endless
everyone is in tech
outdoor activities within 1 hour
Regarding the people... this is little more complex. Many will argue that LA is known for superficial folks driven by fame and looks. That might be true to an extent but San Francisco also has its fair shair of superficiality, it's just based on different tenets. Fixed-gear bikes (in one of the most hilly cities on earth) are prevelant, the foody/organic/vegitarians are way more in your face, and I do think the NorCal pride is a little more intense than down south. That being said, San Francisco dominates in non-Hollywood arts and the amount of "old money" vs. the "new money" that is splattered all over LA makes it seem more like a Northeastern city of culture. I like this because in addition to hip, there are opportunities to see some of the best ballet and opera in the world for example.
Anyway, I can go on and on but I'm not. I have a few other posts I've been wanting to make on more concrete topics so stay tuned!
If 411 is a multi-billion dollar per year industry, then why can Google give away GOOG-411 for free? Because every time someone calls it and says something, Google records their voice and matches it to the business name to build a more robust voice recognition system. After a few years of collecting, this database is worth millions and millions. In effect, the caller is doing labor for Google while perceiving that they are using a free product.
If you think this type of stuff is interesting, you should check out the book Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business by Chris Anderson. It's full of interesting ideas about the internet and it's seemingly cost-free nature. I'm only half-way, but I have to say it's caused a lot of discussion so far...
The debate will always* rage between Mac and PC users. I'm not going to go into my personal beliefs here except to say that I was once a Windows enthusiast, and now I'm a Mac enthusiast.
Today I read a great article by John Gruber at Daring Fireball about the state of Microsoft in the face of an ever growing competitor in its core marktet. I would recommend reading it. It definitely addresses a lot.
One of the things to keep in mind that I have noticed about Mac and PC television ads lately is this: Mac ads try to sell their state of the art operating system and computers while PC ads basically try to talk people into buying a cheaper computer so that they'll be stuck with Windows. They don't even care what brand you buy... they barely even say anything about Windows at all.
