I guess people will interpret delight in different ways, and I'll admit that most people won't find it in such an ignorable scenario as the one pictured above. But you can't not appreciate how easily Microsoft could have made the update screen for Windows Phone just generic and plain, how easily they could have not said "...and it will be worth the wait". After all, they had no obligation to say that, nor any expectation from the consumer to be told that. In the grand scheme of things it makes no difference - I still have to wait the same amount of time for the update, the update will still be as amazing or disappointing as what awaits on the other side of this loading screen when it's done.Â
But in the small scheme of things, not the grand scheme of things but the minuscule scheme of things this little statement can mean so much. It's hard to imagine a Windows Phone user who won't be touched by this in some way or another. Even for those users who don't care and are just updating as a routine obligation may find the wait bearable because of this message. For others it builds anticipation. For people like me who live and breathe the details this message is a little glimpse at a refreshed Microsoft, it turned the 19 steps from an arduous toil into an exciting building of suspense, but probably most important of all it made me smile. Just a little half smirk.Â
It's a good sign, sometimes going the extra mile for a great user experience can be done in less than a sentence.Â
The sick thing is that these companies are selling to those who are less fortunate. I really think that manufacturing a product that you know is killing people should be against the law and that you should prosecute those who do it. It’s murder like anything else.
Michael Bloomberg, talking to The New York Times about his crusade against the cigarette industry. (via parislemon)
The story of the next century is the transition from an industrial, resource-based economy, to a knowledge economy. An industrial economy is zero sum. If you own an oil field, I cannot go in that same oil field. But knowledge works differently. If you know something, then you can share that — and then the whole world gets richer. But until that happens, there’s a big disparity in wealth. The richest 500 million have way more money than the next 6 billion combined. You solve that by getting everyone online, and into the knowledge economy — by building out the global Internet.
No doubt that the ultimate end game of the Internet.org initiative purely from Zuckerberg's vantage is to increase the number of potential Facebook users. The social media market in the developed world is saturated, most people who want to be on Facebook are already on Facebook and most are aware of the methods with which the company is able to make money - through personalised advertising. As such, the potential to exploit this is becoming increasingly more limited.
Compare this with the developing world, where a few billion people live without Facebook, but would really love it. Zuckerberg makes an implicit statement that Internet.org is a fundamentally altruistic initiative, aimed to alleviate economic disparity by levelling access to the 'knowledge economy' through equitable internet access, but it's obvious that the initiative is just as much, if not entirely about Facebook's long term prospects. Internet.org is a portal to an enormous untapped market with huge financial potential, where Facebook has milked the developed world for its worth, developing countries present the company with a girth of opportunities.Â
The company will be able to build a strong rapport with the citizens of the developing world who will not be cautious of the company's sly strategies for monetization but are likely to embrace the platform along with all its offerings as the opening to an exciting and broader networked economy. With intelligent strategies such as Facebook Zero, Facebook can become the consumers' first taste of the internet which culminates in the tremendous strategic opportunity to become synonymous with the internet. Zuckerberg never got this opportunity when launching in many developed countries where internet culture was already becoming deeply embedded.Â
Critics are quick to discount Zuckerberg's plan of being self-interested, which is not false but are we really so cynical to deny that Internet.org - along with assisting Facebook's business objectives - can really make a positive impact and make the world a better place?
Why can't Facebook do both? Much of Zuckerberg's dialogue about the knowledge economy is airy fairy corporate speak, after all the causation which Zuckerberg emphasises between being able to share information through the internet and getting richer is somewhat vapid. However, when examining a much broader scope where the whole world is connected, equality is able to be achieved simply through a more level playing field. Where efficiency in communication can be more readily achieved leading to a much more proficient delivery of services. Where research can be conducted, and action undertaken to achieve a more sustainable economy that permanently locks itself out of a poverty cycle instead of simply relying on the cyclical supply of foreign and humanitarian aid to assist.Â
And it's very possible that Facebook can play a part. Humans are inherently personal creatures, so Facebook is a very useful tool for getting people engaged with the internet, from which users will be able to discover further use cases. Zuckerberg is right, and I commend his vision, in fulfilling his own interests but also playing a part in making the world a better place. As a long term strategy, getting the world online will probably have a greater impact in mitigating economic disparity than sending clean water.
Maybe if Zuckerberg didn't try so hard to disguise it as a purely humanitarian play (Internet dot ORG), then people would be more receptive.
A feeling I got from working at Google was that technology could solve any problem. Yes it’s fantastic, but what I realized later was there’s technology and there’s people. Google had its list ordered: Technology. People. And I think the right order is: People. Technology. You have to think about people first and technology second. Hopefully technology gets out of the way.
My partner Reid has a fun metaphor he uses when he’s describing how companies think about their core strategies (which don’t change very much). He says that he thinks about a company’s strategy as a cup of water they’re holding, trying to keep as much water...
Daughter is returning to our Australian shores to perform two intimate sideshows in Sydney (Tue 4th Feb @ St Stephen’s Uniting Church) and Melbourne (Mon 10th Feb @ St Michael’s Uniting Church) when they are in the country for St Jerome’s Laneway Festival next February.
