An article on TUAW about the history of the MacBook Air prompted me to think back in early 2010, when I was comparison shopping for a lightweight laptop. My search had come down to four choices:

• the Toshiba Portégé M800,
• the Panasonic Y5,
• the Lenovo ThinkPad X301, and
• the MacBook Air.

At the time, these light-weight machines were premium-priced products that were selling between $2000 and $3000. So only after painfully extended deliberation did I order the Lenovo X301 because of its inclusion of the DVD drive. However, Lenovo cancelled my order in the spring of 2010. And that has made all the difference.

I have always despised that convention unique to PCs of appending a bunch of numbers to the name. Fittingly enough, I would have been fine just choosing the MacBook Air on that criteria alone. But practically, I wanted a very light machine with as minimal a power brick as possible. And I could not make that personal compromise about my DVD drive very easily. The funny thing is that I ended up buying a SuperDrive, trying not to make that compromise at all. I used it once since I purchased it. Smart compromise, Apple.

To round out the experience, the support for my MacBook Air has been fantastic, with only one battery issue between the two machines I owned (side note: I was a bit impetuous when the late 2010 MacBook Air refresh came out with the 4GB of RAM that I really wanted in order to run VMWare smoothly).

I have been asked about my favorite product before, and it is hands down my MacBook Air. I choose to remember that the past was filled with backache and heavy messenger bags loaded up with power adapters and extra batteries. I know that a better way exists, and that the right compromises were hard to accept but necessary for each of our sakes. Looking forward to 2012, I want to make products that solve people’s problems and to make the right compromises in the process. It will be a tough road, but definitely worth traveling.

Addendum: http://www.tuaw.com/2012/01/15/the-macbook-air-four-years-later/

I just don’t understand why the idea of web properties sponsored by advertising continues to be news. In fact, this quote from Alicia Eler from RWW sums it up pretty well:

If you pay for a product, you’re a customer. If you don’t, you’re the product. On Facebook, you are the product.

It’s applicable to just about any product or service you do not pay for. From a product management standpoint, every feature introduced is intended to maximize the value of the product. If the relationship is such that you’re paying, then the product is attempting to improve its value to you.

Conversely, if you are the product, then value is being squeezed from you. Incidentally, the advertisers are the consumer in this model. If you think that’s nefarious or shady, try an alternative. And if you find that hard to swallow, remember that the juice presser that’s squeezing you is deliberately very hard to leave.

If Samsung is not willing to extend the life of its hardware for its customers, won’t those customers be less willing to buy Samsung again? Won’t those customers just be dissatisfied with Samsung? I’ve used customer satisfaction metrics in the past to qualify areas of improvement in live products, and with Samsung’s situation, I would do exactly the same thing. Based on this J.D. Power and Associates report issued only recently, performance and ease of operation were identified as two top customer satisfaction factors. And certainly, both can be addressed by both hardware and software changes.

Samsung probably weighed the ROI of developing new hardware as opposed to the ROI of developing a version of TouchWiz on top of Ice Cream Sandwich. Given that Samsung is supposed to have a competitive advantage in terms of hardware development, I can imagine that they concluded that making a new phone is simply more profitable than investing resources into extending the life of the Galaxy S. To me, that’s a shame since it leaves current customers in the cold.

Although the smartphone industry is still maturing, this move could be interpreted as the inflection point where commodification of Android hardware is simply standard operating procedure, in contrast to the typical Apple iOS hardware lifecycle. Considering that it’s easier and cheaper for consumers to realize value in new software on their existing phones as opposed to setting their apps, preferences, and data on a new phone, I wonder if this will be a hard lesson for Samsung to learn in short order.

When it comes to product development, a customer on your books is worth more than two who are just browsing around. And I’d bet that customer on your books will be more likely to buy from you again, as long as you don’t treat them like dirt.

It is particularly telling that Jeff Bezos is honest enough to state:

We don’t think of the Kindle Fire as a tablet. We think of it as a service.

At this point, Amazon’s not competing with Apple; Kindle Fire to iPad comparisons are oranges and apples (pun intended!). Amazon is instead pursuing its original intention all along, by taking on the entire digital media industry and making Amazon an indispensible, frictionless, and fast service provider to consumers everywhere.

I especially liked two points of his that related to build/iterate/innovate, which were:

• creating space vs. churning features, and
• iterative process – customer feedback

The first, “creating space vs. churning features,” is so relevant to today’s software products that need to scale. Build a simple product first, then layer on convenience and complexity as needed. In contrast, so many organizations end up trying to build in everything, and end up with products like Microsoft Word where so much was invested in every detail, with only a fraction of its capabilities being used.

The second, “iterative process – customer feedback” is so important to maintaining great products. Ultimately, any product that gets launched will inevitably get feedback. Two lessons that I’ve learned the hard way: first, set yourself up to measure everything about your users. And second, always leave room to reinvent the product. It’ll never be perfect the first time around, and frankly, using a combination of KPIs/quantitative data as well as observations in the field will be a huge source of innovation. There’s no such thing as “build it right the first time;” it’s really more like “build it good enough the first time, and be prepared to change.”

Over the last few months, there’s been so much turmoil in the touchscreen tablet space! Consider:

1. HP’s newest foray into tablet computing, not with a Windows OS but instead with WebOS, subsequently gets beheaded in under 2 months after the TouchPad’s launch.
2. Android’s Honeycomb and Gingerbread tablets are growing in number, but not so much in market share.
3. RIM’s launch of the Playbook is widely acknowledged as a flop.
4. Apple’s iPad 2 launch in March is one of the most successful product launches in recent history.
5. And last but not least (by a slim margin), Microsoft continues to plug away with its Windows 7 stopgap strategy while working on Windows 8.

As a product person who’s been working on a HTML5-based offline web application, it’s been an exciting ride! So far, the recent events underscore several key ideas that product folks should take into account: platform flexibility, platform longevity, and control over the platform.Developing platform-specific applications will give you the broadest access to that platform’s advantages and features, but ties you into an ecosystem. Developing platform-neutral applications will give you the broadest access to a user base, but ties you into a variation of whack-a-mole. Given that a platform is composed of both hardware and software, product people have a set of issues to face which will shape your strategy. Hardware ends up being a snapshot in time, an end result of the evolutionary lessons and manufacturing capabilities up to a certain point. Unless a company directly controls their own hardware, it’s unable to fully understand and leverage all the nuances and potential of a device quickly. It takes time and exposure in a marketplace for both developers and consumers to achieve that knowledge. And in the case of hardware manufacturers themselves, failure is not so kind to a company and the ecosystem. In contrast, software is more malleable and can be adapted more easily. Your ability to deliver frequent iterations have less limitations to delivery.

The interesting development lately has to do with HTML5 apps versus native apps. While I’m a bit biased to one camp, I can say this: longevity aside, I’m interested in hitting the widest user base possible, and I’m willing to compromise slightly on performance and hardware features to gain an edge in control and reduce the friction it takes to get the user up and running. Not every company can say that, but every company needs to weigh those factors. And here’s the kicker: HTML5 is still an evolving spec. It is expected to get better over time, and build its API inventory up and continue cutting into the advantages that native apps have. As a wise man once said: “Choose wisely.”

Here’s why I’d predict this sort of product from Apple: the current field is ripe for two things, simplification and opportunity. PayPal touts that their NFC solution only needs a few taps of the phone; Apple will figure out a shorter series of steps. The world’s largest App Store still needs a credit card; Apple will make purchasing digital goods even more seamless and accessible than before. And with its current hardware profile that includes a camera, I’m sure an app will appear faster than George Costanza can say “Important things go in a case”, which would likely scan old-fashioned paper receipts on the spot for tagging and uploading into iCloud. Apple will ask you to say goodbye to back pain, cash, credit cards, and receipts. And consumers will love it.

The right solution to handle the obsolecense of cash is to give consumers a physical alternative. And I don’t mean printing more money with a different ink; rather, a standalone device that can represent your money aside from a given institution or being networked. It should be a physical object, tied uniquely to some asset. It can be a vault in its own right, embedded with value. I’d envision something like the RSA hardware tokens, used to implement two-factor authentication, to ensure that your money stays with you and you alone. And for goodness’ sake, make sure the battery life is robust! Imagine if you’re just headed to your local coffee shop, and your “wallet” runs out of power. If that local coffee shop doesn’t have an AC adapter for your device, you’re out of luck!

The point is that cash has a lot of advantages that we take for granted: standard value denominations, physical security, intermediary-less (for the most part), and universal transference. If the world moves towards a cashless society, we have to ensure interoperability, security, and usefulness of our electronic currency.

Conclusion: If cash disappears, something just as easy and tangible needs to replace it. And for anyone who asks: No, it can’t have a “low battery” warning!

In contrast, Visa and Square jointly took the high road and continued to build their positive brand image while pushing innovation in the payments space. While Square seems to have capitulated to Verifone’s claims, it is far more likely that implementing encryption was a part of Visa’s terms to publicly back Square. The monetary contribution certainly seems to be far less significant than the potential reduction of Square’s barrier to entry to the payments market. After these events, Verifone may have been better off just ignoring Square!

Conclusion: Innovate with newcomers in your space, and you’re bound to get some halo effect and drive benefits to both companies!