Tag Archives: Android

Apple Versus Android: Are We Google Fans Kidding Ourselves?

Image

Google+

It’s supposed to be a place to meet and converse with people from all over who share your interests. Yet, the early adopters were all tech nerds whose main interests were Google products and news, how Android is superior to iOS (it’s not, and I am a massive Google fan)?

Android

My Android sometimes acts buggy or slow, and that never happens on my iPhone or iPad. And I use a Samsung Galaxy S4, the so-called “flagship” of the Android phones. 

Over the last year, Android has made some smart moves and improved things quite a bit. But they are forgetting the primary focus of the multi-billion dollar company: the customers

Make People’s Lives Easier

How can we make this easy enough for a child to use, while still having high-tech abilities? They say Apple is for non-technology people who don’t like to configure and modify their device. But with the exceptions of gadget nerds, users just want the features to work automatically. 

Simplicity

I’m a tech geek myself, and I occasionally fiddle around with my Android for fun, but my iPhone actually makes me a more efficient, productive, and organized person.  

Bottom Line: Google needs to focus on simplicity and customer experience.

 

Advertisements

Making Google+ the Best Social Network (Part 2) – DESTROY FACEBOOK

google plus

[Takes off Gloves…]

I disagree with most other power users / old schoolers in having so many ways a user can customize the way their stream comes in (i.e. volume controls).

Although I do think there should be different types of streams available, I don’t think that a user should have to go through the work of setting it up and customizing it. Power-users don’t mind doing the grunt work, but honestly it’s a cop out and a massive turn off to any new users.

The fact that we have to manage the stream by organizing circles and setting volumes is weak. Google has the capacity to carry out the same goal without users having to micromanage their circles and set volumes.

They have our data and usage statistics. They know exactly how we use the site, what type of content we like, who we interact with and how. This data should be used to make multiple algorithms (equations that figure the flow of the stream) available for a user to select from.

For Example, There Could Be:

  1. a “What’s Hot” stream based on popularity.
  2. a “Recommended Content” stream based on shared interests and shared social graph.
  3. a “Interests” stream not taking social into consideration.
  4. a “Social Stream” not taking interests into consideration.

It Just Works

They can cook this up behind the scenes, and user just automatically is immersed in the full experience of Google Plus. Managing Circles is strictly for organizing who you want to post to, but is not required. This is what I go into depth in my post titled “Making Google+ the Best Social Network” under the hashtag #MakingGooglePlusTheBest (Search for that hashtag on Google+).

Honestly, its user base is the best, and a lot of what it has to offer is the best, but it really could rival and beat Facebook for all types of users, not just power users. If it was my first day on Google+, and I wasn’t such a geek, I would GTFO ASAP, because it takes so much work just to get it to work.

Ask Yourself That Same Question:

If this was your first day, as a new user, on Google+, and you weren’t already a Google fanboi, would you come back the next day?

If the answer is anything short of “HELL YES!,” then the network has failed.

Google+ Should “Just Work” on Day One: Automatically, Intuitively, and Quickly

I have suggestions of how they can accomplish it on the post I referred to earlier, with a combination of changing / adding different algorithms for streams, setting up an “interests” tab on a user’s profile (one column for “what I want to see” and one column for “what I post about”).

A user sets this up day one, and Google+ is suddenly immersing the user in a full user-friendly experience unlike anything else out there. Plus ones would be used to further refine this interest graph, but the primary cause would be the “interests” tab set up by a new user on day 1.

logo-stumbleupon
If you need an example of what I’m talking about, refer to StumbleUpon as an example. When a user sets up their initial profile, they select from a huge list of generic interest topics (it’s about 200 topics). Google could use this data to instantly give users with the types of content they want to see. Setting up a second column for “Things I post about” would allow Google to know about that user’s posts, helping deliver it to the right people (since somebody might love reading about science, but only post funny pictures).

Give the user the opportunity to set that up DAY 1, and Google+ automatically is serving up relevant content to the user (before they even circle one person). Then, as time goes on, they see certain users they like, or interact with them in comments, and add them to the circle.

  • Delivering relevant content is Priority 1.
  • Meeting other users is Priority 2 (caused by Priority 1).

Flip it Over

Right now, you have to meet people first, and hope that what they post about is what you want to read about, you have to go back and adjust your circles when you put someone in a circle with too high of a volume or they don’t end up posting anything you like.

I’m sorry, but that’s not the future of communication, it’s actually kinda BS if you think about it. Google+ should work for the user, not the other way around.

Currently the User is Doing ALL The Work

That’s why it will never beat Facebook in its current condition. It needs a prime differentiating factor, and that differentiating factor needs to take precedence over everything else. Facebook provides content from people you’re connected with. Google+ should allow you to connect with people you share interests with.

DESTROY FACEBOOK

Some people say, “well Google+ doesn’t have to be as big as Facebook to be successful,” and to those people I say “bullshit.” Meeting new people based on shared interests is the future of communication,and it is a stronger working model than what Facebook is built on.

If Google capitalizes and realizes this, it actually will “take over” and still have all the benefits that power-users love today. If it’s absolutely needed, further personal customization could be an OPTIONAL feature that power users can take advantage of, but which is not NEEDED in order for the site to be enjoyable.

Google+ will never beat Facebook, until it becomes a DAY ONE FULL USER EXPERIENCE. Until that point, users will sign up, fiddle around for a bit, and then chunk a deuce, because there’s now too much work for a user to do to make the site even enjoyable. It needs to be improved to the extent that the site is enjoyable for a brand new user on day one, and in a different way than what’s already available to them on Facebook.

Heavily Weighting Interests is the Key to Google’s Future Growth and Success

It’s what gives it the potential to be the best, hands down. I know I’m being harsh, but it’s only because, while I love Google+, I see it as a failure in living up to its potential (I don’t use Facebook or Twitter).

Google+ should be THE BEST, and anything short of that is unacceptable in my opinion. Google is the greatest company in the world, with the smartest people working on their products. Anything other than the best is not acceptable. Anything that is just us “Google Plus Been Here Forever Nerds” enjoying the site is unacceptable.

Google+ Suggested Main Stream Algorithm

User Experience

They learned this lesson with Android vs Apple… the product has to just automatically work for anybody day one. They were still able to support the ability to customize it, but they changed it up enough to be more intuitive and user-friendly.

This is what I’m saying they need to do with Google+, so don’t worry power-users. I’m not trying to take anything away, I’m trying to improve upon what it has, recognize what it lacks, and make improvements that keep the great stuff and get rid of the not so great stuff.

Ultimate Goal:

Make Google+ fully working on day one to the point that you could randomly take a stranger off the street, sit them down in front of a computer, and within a couple of hours they already love Google+.

That is the standard I am calling for / demanding. I know I was a bit harsh, but keep in mind that I am probably as big as a Google+ fan there is. When I write this post, I’m not bashing Google+ or bitching about its flaws, I’m mentally acting as the CEO, calling a meeting of the people who work so hard on this site:

Keep up the good work, but get better. It’s time to step up our game. It’s time to stop settling for being a niche network. It’s time to DESTROY FACEBOOK!

“Living Well is a Healthy Disregard for the Impossible.”

– Larry Page

I’m sorry, but I don’t see that motto being applied to Google+. I love you like a brother, Larry. We are soul mates, separated at birth, whom both see the world in the same way. At the same time, I love Google+ enough to call you out on its shortcomings. It’s what I would want you to do to me, if we were in reverse roles.

Facebook sucks, and Google+ is squandering its potential to be the number one social network in the world, forever changing the way society interacts. Go big or Go home.

Keep Customization, but Hide it

Make it optional. Keep it in the backstage, where power users can still get to it. We won’t get any more power users, if user-controlled customization is necessary to make the site work.

On the surface, it runs automatically using secret sauce. Off to the side, there are options for users who want to do super geeky customizations.

The same thing that had to happen with Android. Google learned that it needed a more intuitive experience, and they made significant changes that would appeal to consumers in the same way that iOS did to Apple users. They still kept the customizable, geeky stuff available, but it was no longer required or predominantly featured.

How Google+ Should Be Like

When you open it up, it just works. When you spend more time on the site, you find ways you can make tweaks to it. So, the geeks and tweakers stay happy, but the average joe can enjoy the site just as much. Right now, it’s a geeks only site. Some people like that aspect, but from a business standpoint, that is a failure.

  • EVERYONE uses Google Search.
  • EVERYONE should be using Google+.

Time or Minor Updates to the Site Will Not Solve This Problem

Google+ needs to first define it’s purpose:

  • Delivering awesome content and allowing you to meet cool people from around the world while interacting on that content.
  • Second, it needs to build the site to maximize on its differentiation.
  • Third, it needs to market the shit out of what’s so cool about Google Plus and why it’s so different.

Circles was their original plan for differentiation, but not only did Facebook immediately join these same abilities into its site, I don’t think it’s that great of a system.

Yes, keep circles. There are reasons for them, but don’t make THAT the primary focus. Don’t make circles required for the site to work. Circles comes after you meet the cool people. You meet the cool people as you discover the amazing content, not by searching through hundreds of profiles or blindly adding shared circles.

 

Stop Being Such a Wuss and Release a Full New Phone Each Year

iphone-fingerprint-sensor

AKA Stop Being a Pussy and Be Innovative

Rumors say that the new iPhone 5S will have a new super HD camera/screen, a better battery, NFC, and “possible updates include an IGZO screen for Retina+ 128GB storage.” It could sport a 4.3-inch screen and feature a slo-mo camera and faster processor. It may also come in 6-8 colors, similar to the iPod Touch, and will be thinner and lighter than its previous version and fingerprint reader technology. It may also have a price of $199, just like the current iPhone 5, and have possible release dates of August, September, or October.

The iPhone 6 may have a 12-megapixel sensor, up from the 8-megapixel version of the iPhone 5. It could be waterproof with a 4.8-inch Retina+ HD display with a 3D camera and fingerprint reader. In terms of storage, the next-generation smartphone will come with 128GB instead of the current 64GB. Also, the iPhone 6 may have an indoor mapping feature, NFC integrating with Passbook App for storing store cards, tickets and coupons integrating with NFC. It will have a smart bezel and may have a quad-core Apple A7, using ARM Cortex A15-based cores, or update A6. The iPhone 6 also may have iOS 7 and be made out of plastic and cheaper, with a release date of June 2014.

For Apple, no more of this “S” crap to test out new technology.

Make your products groundbreaking, push the limits, and do it each and every year. Give Google some competition to actually work with.

Since Steve Job‘s death, the lack of innovation at Apple has been unacceptable. Sure, he may not be around to “push for things” anymore, but his cultural influence should have left a mark for Apple to do the same things without him. In my opinion Apple is being pussies and is no longer the innovative, “Think Different” company they once were.

Google is close to becoming this type of company, but they need to fully embrace their GoogleX tech and lead with that, instead of minor updates to their existing products.

GoogleXLabs

People resist change. People don’t understand how the future is going to be. They need to be lead, taught, and shown how things will be.
Like a magician, Google (Apple used to do this) needs to show users what’s in store for their future. Get them excited about the change. Get them ready for the innovations ahead. Push yourself to be more groundbreaking and rely less on playing it safe.

google-project-glass-3

Google, you did this pretty well with +Project Glass , but the advertising should have been stronger and more conceptually oriented. There should be commercials showing us the world of tomorrow. There should be commercials showing a world using Glass , Self-Driving Cars, and Embedded Systems to get us pumped up about what’s coming next, and to create a demand for it. This will allow you to dedicate more resources to developing the technology, since it will be a shared vision of the future with users, and not just the one you have in your head.

self-driving-car

Google has quite possibly the most consistent, well-performing products in the world, and this helps them market themselves. But, Google still needs a “Steve Jobs” to be a showman and to get people excited about the future. Google should continue to run it’s bread and butter search operation, and continue to make improvements to the Android phones, but focus their advertising on Future products that will mystify and amaze people.

bits-robot-blog480

The word “Google” should become synonymous with the words “Future Technology / Amazing Culture,” no longer just the word you use to look stuff up with.

This is ultimately Google’s responsibility to present themselves in this manner. The future is almost here, and the ones quicker to accept this and take full advantage will be the future leaders.

Is Google doing everything they can to make this point known to the average user?

Is Project Glass and self-driving cars just something that geeks know about and think will be super awesome, or are there average consumers talking about this shit at the water cooler?

Who Wants to Build a Startup with Me and Get Super Rich While Changing the World?

let's_get_rich_and-73774

Who wants to change the world (and make some serious cash doing it)?

Change-the-World-Logo

I have the concept and the knowledge… I need a small team who want to change the world.

changetheworld

I really want to develop a new Personality Type testing system, more advanced than the standard MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator). There is so much useful information scattered about the internet, it’s just that you have to look in a million different places and put the pieces together yourself.

As an ENTP, I’m super excited about this challenge and am very knowledgeable about the subject. I’ve even studied up on Socionics, which is like twice as complicated as the MBTI.

I want to build the test, and then make a website, perhaps even an app that:

  • Allows you to take a real test, and then has detailed, complete information about your type. I’m also wanting to go as far as inter type relations (how your type interacts with other types).

I need a few people that can help me out. As an ENTP, I’m a natural collaborator and brainstormer. If I try to complete the project by myself, it’ll honestly never happen.

start-ups-1024x565

I think if we could build an app for iOS and Android, we could perhaps even turn this whole thing into a startup company. I met a gentleman yesterday who has a ton of money, and is looking for a creative way to invest it. For example, he’s in the process of buying 85 used houses, remodeling them, and then flipping them for profit. So, he’s got serious cash.

Not only that, but we could include in the app various types of feedback to find out what kind of music they like, what hobbies they are into, where they work. We could use that data to create a quantified self, and I think we could sell that data for big bucks.

This is the future, ladies and gentleman…

the-future-is-now-700x422

But, I absolutely need a few good people to help me with this.

Please let me know if you would be interested in developing this project with me. Anyone who gets involved in the pre-investment stage would be made a part owner of the business. We could actually make some serious cash here, guys.

team-awesome-t-shirt

I have a couple job interviews in the next few weeks, but if this would absolutely be my first choice if we could work it out. We could be the team, the originals, the Mark Zuckerbergs and Shawn Parkers… the Steve Jobs and whoever the hell he worked with. We would be in control and in it from the beginning.

People love this Personality Type stuff, and I know that we can do it much better.

IMG_1453

MBTI breakdown for Men and Women

IGMen IGWomen

Cognitive Information Functions

IMG_1320

MBTI Chart

mbtiNew

Socionics-based Inter Type Relations Chart

IMG_1353

Socionics Chart for the Different Types.

They have different terminologies, for example an ENTP is an ILE in Socionics (It stands for Logical Intuitive Extrovert). Logical being the Thinking functions, Intuitive being the Intuitive Function, and Extrovert for Extrovert. The reason there is only 3 letters vs 4 is because of the order they are placed in. They don’t need a J or a P at the end to identify the type, it goes by what order the letters are in.

Socionics: Types by Quadra

What the Hell are Those Symbols?

Each of those symbols represents a different cognitive function. The triangle is Intuition, the circle is Sensing, the square is Logic (Thinking), and the L-shaped thing is Ethics (Feeling). The Dark ones represent extraverted functions, and the White ones represent introverted functions.

image

Duality in Socionics

One of the strongest variations from MBTI is the belief in “Duals.” These are two different personality types that compliment each others’ strengths and lessen their weaknesses. It is said that “Duals” are IDEAL companions / mates, as they together form an almost Yin-Yang like full entity.

The Dual Functions:

socionics

Cognitive / Information Functions and their Interaction with Each Other.

They compliment / contradict each other, according to socionics. It’s a brilliant philosophy, but it was abandoned by the inventor of the system (who came from Soviet Russia) several years ago. Nobody has taken up the reigns to fully flesh out the system and simplify it for the regular non-sociologist. THAT is the objective of the startup.

Socionics is a branch of psychology that studies relationships between psychological types.

It is based on somewhat modified system of psychological types described by C.G.Jung in his Psychological Types (1916, 1920 etc.) and Tavistock Lectures (1935).

You also know a different version of Jungian typology known as the Myers-Briggs Type Theory (MBTT). It is based on the test called Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). It is well known in the US, and for the last years in Europe as well.

The Myers-Briggs Type Theory is sometimes confused with socionics, although there are some differences between these two theories. Let us describe them shortly:

  1. Different methods of type evaluation. MBTT almost completely relies upon tests, while socionics from the beginning developed alternative methods – determining type by interviewing, observation, etc. Verbal testing is considered as a secondary, not primary method, because it says nothing about the nature of types. This does not mean that tests are not known in socionics. For example we the authors of this article developed the Socionic Multifactor Test, which we are going to discuss below. In the last years socionics focuses on biological parameters of types.
  2. Somewhat different definitions of the 4 basic type criteria. In MBTT, the type is defined as 4 basic choices: extraversion (E) or introversion (I), sensing (S) or intuition (N), thinking (T) or feeling (F), judgment (J) or perception (P). Socionics uses terms logic/ethic – instead of thinking/feeling, and rationality/irrationality – instead of perception/judgment. However, more important is the contents of these definitions, they do not always coincide.
  3. Intertype relationships. Although several representatives of MBTT proposed their own views on compatibility between the Myers-Briggs types, a thorough theory of intertype relationships does not exist in MBTT. By contrast, Socionics, from the very beginning, was created as a theory describing and explaining some regularities of relations between people.

On the other hand, there is also a lot in common between these two theories. Main fields of application are the same: family and business consulting, education etc. When first publications about MBTT appeared in the former USSR (a very short overview appeared in 1984, and several popular books were translated since 1994), socionists found a lot of useful information there. We believe in fruitful cooperation between these two branches of Jungian typology is possible; we should not forget about the differences, but we believe they can be resolved.

Here are some links that go into depth more about the way the functions interact with each other (and it goes into much more detail about socionics:

I know it’s a little tricky and complex, but that’s the point. We make it simple and user-friendly and we disrupt society.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/32-foundations

http://www.socionics.us/relations.shtml

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/10-socionics

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/22-socionics-hypothesis

http://www.socionics.us/theory/information.shtml

http://www.socionics.us/practice/duality.shtml

http://www.socionics.us/philosophy/scientific_theory.shtml

Google’s Steve Jobs

 

Google’s Move to the Future

Project Glass eyewearLately, their products have gotten slicker, there’s been more focus on futuristic products such as project glass and self-driving cars, it’s own social network, and even Android itself was a huge leap from the search giant’s normal way of doing things.

Where is this focus and vision coming from? I definitely have an opinion about where, but I wondered if anyone else has pondered this. When did the conservative ad agency and search engine decide to focus more on what’s next versus what’s hot now?

Google’s self-driving car

Meanwhile, without Jobs, Apple has begun to slump into mediocrity. There hasn’t been a product that sparked magic since the iPad. It really makes you wonder how much one person’s influence can have over a company’s direction.

Apple lost their Jobs, but where did Google find theirs, and where is he hiding?

 

Build What’s Next, Not What Is

whats-next-jpg

Focus On What’s Next, Not What is.

A billion dollar company should take advantage by heavily investing in the development of next generation technology (even more than they now are).

Build what will be popular, not just a slight improvement on what already is popular:

  • Use Android to create wearable personal tech: augmented reality glasses, wrist-based devices.
  • Use Android to power embedded systems, connecting all devices for a seamless experience.
  • Push harder with the self-driving cars to make them a finished product.
  • The auto industry lacks vision and innovation.
  • Why can’t a tech company show them how it’s done?

quantified_self

Use a human subject to create a quantified self. Define the entire psyche of a person. Test to see how targeted messages can impact behavior.

Allow them to use evil methods on me to extract an unprecedented amount of data. I would represent the customer, on a massive scale. Lock me in a cage and use Neuromarketing to see what you can get me to do. Be really evil to one person, to create a better experience for everyone else.

Have them keep rejecting me to allow their culture. Build a person who understands and appreciates the value of their environment.