iPhone: Good or Bad for the Industry?

Loading ...

Before Apple released the iPhone it irked me that the pace of technology for cell phones lagged at an incredibly slow pace, the user interfaces were crap, and the deal between cell phone providers and service providers seemed to completely leave the consumer out of the value chain.

Apple changed all of that by going “over the top”, picking a winner in each market, but limiting what deal those winners would get. That was great, and really stuck it to SPs (who got rich anyway). They’re trying to do the same thing with the iPad, but in the meantime Apple has changed the accepted development model for businesses.

It used to be that you needed rich web connectivity, and that was good enough. Now you have to have an Apple app in order to reach all of those customers who love their iPhones. Good examples of this include Facebook, Airlines, and even that dinosaur who is responsible for Formula 1 promotion, Bernie Ecclestone. Yes, even F1 has an app.

Here’s the problem: many of the Apps are nothing more than shells for garbage that companies want to shovel at you, and they don’t want others using “their data”. A perfect example is American Express, who requires an app in order to view flight reservations. THERE ALREADY ARE MANY SUCH APPS. One of them is your calendar program. One thing you might want to do is download reservation information into your calendar. But American Express‘ travel web site GetThere.Com won’t let you do it. You have to download their app.

And GetThere is getting sneakier, as they no longer send many corporate travelers a full reservation in email, but instead simply send a pointer to their web page. Why are they doing this? Because they don’t want others like TripIt to capitalize on “their” (really your) information.

And so there seems to be no incentive for these bad players to be good players in an iPhone world, in spite of the fact that there are perfectly capable standards and programs and libraries to deal with much of stuff that’s being exchanged. What can be done to change that?

More Airline nonsense!

Yes the airlines are at it again. This time, according to the Wall Street Journal, they are complaining about the idea that you might actually want to get off of a plane after some number of hours of sitting on a tarmac. The pendulum has swung so far to the side of the airlines that they think that they can simply bully the FAA into backing off on the meager regulations they’ve proposed. I have another idea.

With the airlines threatening to cancel flights at the first hint of trouble, I propose that the FAA institute one additional rule: when a flight is canceled, the airline responsible must rebook a passenger for a flight to his or her destination on that same day, or allow the passenger to book the next available flight to his or her destination on any airline. Just for spice, we might add something about allowing that booking to be in a higher class of service if it is the only available manner to get a passenger moving.

Still think we don’t need a real Passenger’s Bill of Rights?

Loading ...

Airlines’ motto: Squeeze now, apologize later

Who’s getting squeezed? Of course we all are. with additional costs for everything, including seat assignments, baggage, and (Heaven help you) change fees, airlines are making money again, on our backs. One might think there would be an easier way to do this, like simply increasing fees, but for whatever reasons, it’s not the case. Southwest has always been on the forefront of charging for this or for that. It’s latest adventure into charging people who seem too large seems to have gone awry, thanks to the light shown on this policy by Hollywood director Kevin Smith. A spokesman told CNN, “We want to assure everyone that has expressed concern over the situation that we will use this experience in our customer service program when training our employees on the correct way to apply the policy.”

This discussion isn’t about the size of individuals, or even Southwest’s policy on large people. It’s about the fact that they were able to impose a policy, which until this point hasn’t really given them much grief. And why not? Many people agree with the policy in principle: you take up more than one seat and you should pay for it. The problem is, of course, in how the policy was implemented, and this is often the case. Often the result of poor training, contracting of services, or just underpaid staff, passengers are subjected to policy fabrications. A classic case that we have suffered is whether our FAA-certified car seat can go on board a passenger plane. What often happens is that it is allowed in one direction, and then we have to argue for it to be allowed in the return direction. Worse was when we were in Newark Airport and were told by a staff member that we would not be allowed to rebook our flight when a security incident occurred, even though Continental Airlines had stated on its web site that we could.

And so what do the airlines do after such events? They apologize. They ask for our forgiveness. I would gladly give them that forgiveness, were it not for the fact that forgiving often doesn’t go both ways. If I need to make a change to my flight will they forgive me? If my daughter is ill and we need to reschedule our trip, will they forgive me? Of course not.

The underlying problem is that individual consumers have very little buying power. Even large corporations get very little say in how airlines treat them. With market entry costs in the tens of billions of dollars for an airline, consumer protection laws are needed to keep airlines honest. Kevin Smith should be compensated for the poor service he received. So should people who are less visible, who are not Hollywood directors. America really needs the same sort of protections that the European Commission implemented in 2005.

Airlines may argue that such regulation hampers their ability to offer tailored services, or that it is simply too costly. It’s difficult to quantify the impact of such legislation as well, because airlines airline statistics in Europe are not easily available. Still there is a moral need to address the problem. Agree? Disagree?

Loading ...

Credit Card Protections and Privacy Eroded Yet Again in the USA

When we got married, we ordered our invitations over the Internet from a company that seemed fairly reputable. Apparently, however, their ordering process was screwed up because we didn’t get the invitations until 6 weeks prior to the wedding. No big deal to some, perhaps, except that almost nobody was going to be local to the wedding location, and many people were going to have to book airline reservations. I asked the credit card company to stop payment to the vendor because of the late delivery.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reports on a new service that vendors can use to spot consumers who stop payment through their credit cards. Sometimes consumers will stop payment when they have received products in time, and used them. This is particularly common this time of year, when lots of vendors sell lots of crap about which they know nothing. The consumer gets pissed off because they’ve just bought a no-good product, and the vendor gets pissed off, because they have to spend time fighting the consumer instead of selling.

The new service blocks consumers’ credit cards due to this so-called friendly fraud. In most cases, the consumer will likely have no idea why their card is being turned down, and will simply pay with cash (a vendor who accepts a different card from such a consumer would be stupid).

Is this the way things should be? Vendors are reporting credit card information to third parties without the consent of the consumer, and then that third party turns around and makes a profit on that information. The consumer is the loser for having availed himself or herself of her rights under the credit card agreement. What’s more, what is to stop a bad vendor from reporting a good customer? Who will have the last laugh?

Now some will say that a good customer can always fight, and the article does say that these new services often offer avenues of appeal. And I bet it will work not quite as well as credit agencies handle it. At least in those circumstances, there are laws.

Nokia making money the old fashion way: suing Apple

Back in the early 1990s, when Apple saw the threat coming, but didn’t have a decent response, the only resort they had was to sue Microsoft in what became known as a “look and feel” lawsuit. They lost, and their fall from grace continued like a lead balloon. It was only when they came to terms with the fact that they really had no decent products that Steve Jobs was able to rescue the company.

courtesy: Yerson O

Today, the shoe is on the other foot. Once again, there has been a fall from grace, but this time the one doing the falling is Apple’s disrupted competitor, Nokia. Apple has taken huge swathes of market share away from Nokia because, quite frankly, Nokia phones aren’t what they used to be. They suck in comparison to Apple, and the reason they suck is that they attempted to cater strictly to service providers and not to the people who use the phones. Nokia’s Symbian O/S is slow and uninteresting in comparison to Apple’s OS/X. Their integration with existing products such as the iPod is so limited compared to Apple’s ecosystem as to be entirely insignificant. Nokia’s network functionality was so poor as to be unusable, except for specific applications like Good. Their IMAP functionality was just broken for mailboxes of any size.

And so Nokia has announced that they are suing Apple for infringement of ten patents, since it seems that it is the only way they will make money. I don’t know whether there is any merit to their suit, but I can say two things:

A lawsuit will not help consumers one bit; and
There is a special place in Hell for those who bring lawsuits involving technology that is standardized.

If Apple’s earlier experience is any indicator, Nokia has further to fall. They must stop suing and start innovating and catering to consumers, who Apple rightly recognized were the real customers. Apple has given Nokia a good kick in the pants, but Nokia has a long history of success. They are down but not out. To be out, they need to be thinking about new approaches to the consumer, new ways to attract developers, and it actually all has to work.

Nokia image courtesy of Yerson O