XBox One - Celebrating Microsoft's Design Arrogance

As the news surrounding the XBox One comes pouring out of E3, the details of features and implementation on the platform are seeing some serious PR backlash and groundswell dissatisfaction among their existing XBox customer-base. From stomping on the used game market to the must-connect-and-phone-home once-per-day or the always on Kinect monitoring the room, Microsoft has implemented a lot of features that seem more closely aligned to the interests of Microsoft than those of their customers.

It's not uncommon for products to suffer a misstep or two at launch. For as much time and effort as is put into development, it's still difficult to interpret applied uses. And the are always bugs. But with the XBox One platform, it's difficult to envision a product that has done more to take aim at their existing market and customer base, line up their most sensitive parts, and fire not once, but multiple times. Full disclosure: the XBox game that I'm currently playing is a first person shooter.

Seriously though. Consider some of the design changes that have been implemented on the XBox One platform:

• While the XBox360 always tries to connect to XBox live when it's turned on and there is a network available, it will function without an Internet connection. Now the platform is being changed so that it won't work without phoning home? What problem does this solve for the user?
• While the XBox360 can operate without the Kinect and a user has the option to connect the Kinect or opt out, the XBox One will not operate without the Kinect, and the Kinect is always on. Was it really necessary to eliminate this option with the system? What problem does this solve for the user?
• While killing physical game media may simplify Microsoft's distribution network and reduce costs, killing the used game market essentially takes aim at long tail game market, gives it the finger, then fires both barrels. Again, what problem does this solve for the user? 

All in all, it sort of exemplifies that traditional Microsoft approach.

1. Start with 'what would be best for Microsoft'. 
2. Make it the standard on all of our stuff so that it only works this way, our way.
3. Tell everybody how awesome it is and how they are fools if they don't recognize the Microsoft genius.

Remember all of the various iterations of IE that worked their own way? And Silverlight? Or Microsoft's Java?

In that way, you kind of feel sorry for the businesses in the used game market. Like Microsoft's notebook and tablet partners with Surface, they are the latest ecosystem to get oops-ed upside their heads. Classic.

Opportunity Lost
Perhaps the most disappointing thing about XBox One is that it really was an anticipated platform. Microsoft really does have a strong foothold in the living room with the XBox360 console. XBox One could have been a contender. If they had simply made it a consumer friendly, not always-on-nanny-cam that worked with any media, they might not have alienated a huge chunk of their core.

What's more, most hardcore gamers will tell you that, while Kinect can be an amusing accessory, it doesn't really add to or improve their experience for the games that they play the most. It's more of a Wii-wannabe that's makes the platform more accessible for families -- anything but a "Must Have". In that way, must have, always on kind of spits in the eye of some of current platform's most passionate evangelists.

Some of these problematic features could be easily corrected, simply by making them optional. Imagine if they had kept Kinect as an accessory but did a "look what you can do with this" presentation. My guess is that, given the option and enough benefits from having always-on enabled, you would build a large base of users who ran that configuration.

In conclusion, here's a little thought for take-away. With many approaches to technology, there are trade-offs. But a lot of idea acceptance comes in the way something is framed. During some of their presentation materials, Microsoft reps talked about smart phones and always on connectivity. In that way, it's easy to think about the privacy that we give-up by opening geo-location features on our smart phones. But in asking people to adopt this, do we say:

• Imagine the power of being able to know exactly where you are?
• Then imagine if, when you are somewhere you don't know, the information was appropriate for that place -- like finding a nearby restaurant? If you open your geo-location information to Yelp, then they can help you when you're someplace you don't know.

Or do we say:

• Imagine if we knew where you were all the time? 

That is a truly frightening concept.

Marketing, NSA Monitoring and Big Data

In light of the numerous overblown 'scandals' running through the recent stories in the news, the NSA data monitoring story offers a tale that's actually worth looking at, reflecting on, and thinking about in greater detail. The story is an interesting look at both the amazing upside of our modern technology world and a reminder about how difficult it is for us to truly conceptualize the full scope of big data.

Remember this story about how Target figured out a teen girl was pregnant before her father did? It's an amazing story about what a corporate data group was able to accomplish with records that they were able to obtain from within the public domain. But, again, the key aspect of this story -- and one that's fundamental to the broader big data story -- is that the individual data points can look trivial because they don't tell the story. It's not the data points, it's what happens when you have lots of data points and you can use them to make correlations. In Target's case, it's not that you bought unscented moisturizing lotion, it's multiple factors that make that an indicator of a stage of pregnancy. One data point that statistically correlates to many, many others in a demographic model.

From a human perceptual perspective, it's really difficult for you to extract yourself from the personal significance of that transaction moment and extrapolate that as a data point in a bigger picture. We all see ourselves as individuals, not as similar patterns. It's part of what makes a big data surveillance program frightening. Instead of seeing the aggregate data and what the potential impact of that could be, we're more likely to worry about those times when we drunk-dialed our exes late and night, and what might happen if somebody found out. Or all of those times where we viewed the web sites with the lingerie models.

On some level, we all break the rules. Whether it's driving 70mph sometimes, even when the posted speed limit is 65 or downloading an episode of that epic cable television show that everyone is talking about because you're unwilling to pay the crazy annual subscription price for one show that only lasts a few weeks. Most of us understand that there's a cloudy area that separates the letter of the law from violating the spirit of the law. In most cases, we -- as members of a society -- hold to a set of values that keep us within that cloud, within our perceived sense of the spirit of the law. And so, while we might tolerate someone driving 10% faster than the posted speed limit, we tend to wish for law enforcement when we see someone operating outside of that range. And so, if some unrestrained adult tweener recklessly drives his Ferrari though your residential neighborhood, you're probably going to be outraged.

The Threshold and the Target
With all of the data available on these networks, it's hard to imagine not aggregating intelligence from it. As with the Target story, there are aspects of this process that are somewhat common in the modern Internet age (which is probably one factor in why there isn't an overwhelming amount of outrage surrounding the privacy concerns). At the same time, because these practices are so common, it's almost more surprising to hear the outrage from some government officials over these programs being revealed -- sort of like unveiling the secret that Facebook tracks your activity and builds an electronic profile of you. I would describe the outrage as laughable were it not for the mysteries that still remain cloaked -- both the Guardian and the Post have only published limited details of the program.

So, if it's helping keep you safe from the terrorists and it's commonplace, what's the concern here? Well, first and foremost, is the application of that data-gathering intelligence. While it seems surprising that Target can make good guesses about whether a woman is pregnant based on her buying habits, imagine what the government might be able to profile and demographically target. While international terrorists might avoid electronic communications, what about some of these lone wolf crazies? Imagine if you could build a profile to identify and monitor them? The upside of all of this has the potential to capture bad people and prevent bad things. At the same time, what happens if you're one of those people who thinks that the Occupy Wall Street participants are terrorists? Or those people from the Tea Party showing up at political rallies carrying guns? Maybe part of Code Pink and potentially going to heckle the President?

And think about the Target story again. Remember how Target was sending it's pregnant prospects coupons? Understanding that this is a potential use of the data, how does the government handle it? And at what stage of their 'terrorist' or 'criminal' pregnancy term do they target the person profiled? And when does behavior or electronic communication become 'thought crime' or 'pre-crime'?

Ultimately, I think that this is where we need more sunlight and a more publicly visible oversight of the process. While the overall problem is complex and probably difficult for the 'tubes' using Internet public, the potential to abuse this process is vast and powerful. After all, one of the biggest differences between the profiling that Target does and the profiling being done by the government -- if we don't like what Target does, we can opt not to shop there. We can opt to not participate, to not give them data. With the government, we don't have that option.

Are Upsells Being Oversold

During my recent series of travel, I was struck by the number of times I was offered opportunities to spend on upgraded services. From upgraded airline seats to hotel rooms, it seemed like every service wanted to entice me to pay just a little bit more for something extra. By my third trip I was so exhausted by upgrade offers that I began to imagine a one price all encompassing service.

Remember when the Saturn dealerships offered their one quote, no haggle pricing?

One of the funnier ones was the hotel reservation upgrade system. Essentially, there's an online business out there that, once you make your reservation, will offer you the chance to commit to spending a bit more for an upgraded room if it's available when you check in. For the hotel, they pitch the service as a no-lose offer. You're already committed to the service, but now there is a chance that you'll spend more, but only if it's available. What I found funny was, when I was checking in, they offered me the same upgrade deal -- there was no benefit to making the online commitment. Of course, the sad part is, remember when they used to just upgrade you? It's like they were just frivolously throwing money away on good customer experience. 

But it's not just travel. In the old days it was warranties and service agreements, but now retail upsells happen all the time. As more and more cities here in Silicon Valley impose bag bans, the transaction close is just the beginning of the sale. "Would you like a bag for 10 cents? Or we also have this nice reusable bag for two dollars. Would you like to donate a couple of dollars to the local charity?" At one of the local hardware stores, they seem to run a contest where they try and get the cashiers to compete at adding in something to the ticket.

As tired as I am of the world of constant upgrade selling, I don't foresee it going away. Look at the airlines and their checked bag fees. They have been able to rake in a ton of money from these fees -- enough to drive that same approach to all of the other aspects of their customer experience.

• Want legroom?
• Want to make it less of a hassle to go through security?
• Want to have a nice experience at the airport in our lounge? 
• How about miles? 
• Food? 
• Want to turn off the rolling in-flight advertisements running on the entertainment system?
• Would you like to upgrade from cattle-class to being treated like a customer?

How long before we see credit card sliders on the bathroom doors? Or, if you commit to purchasing bathroom services before your flight, you can get unlimited trips to the bathroom for the entire flight for $10 ($15 on flights over two hours).

Dear Apple, WTF did you do to iTunes?

I'm not a fan of the recent updates to iTunes, but I probably shouldn't be surprised by the changes. Driven by the 'need' to address complaints from some iTunes critics, Apple seems to be steadily devolving the software.

It started out with the most recent 'major' revision to iTunes. This is the one that switched everything from one window to a series of functional pull downs for music, videos, apps. Suddenly, a list of options that that could toggle from a single screen required a pull down, and the app couldn't remember it's previous state. Way to bury the functionality guys.

And for whatever reason, the guys in charge of this version felt like when you couldn't remember where you were before, the place you probably wanted to be was looking at the list of things that you already downloaded from iTunes. Use case? You've got me.

Essentially, what it did seem to do for me was add clicks and interaction when you just wanted to sync your phone and update any apps. Not to mention the whole, where am I and where is the stuff that I'm looking for...

But when your so close to brilliance like that, you probably just need a couple of tiny tweaks to make it really special.

Enter the latest version. It looks like they've fixed the problem with remembering the app's previous state (sort of), but they also seemed to have decided that what you really need is extra security. Now you have to enter your password two or three times in order to update the apps on your phone. And you have to love the latest feature that they introduced; namely, they've figured out a way where it can't remember all of the apps that you were downloading during an update. Trying to update five apps? It may stop on the second or third app download. And, if that wasn't frustrating enough, the only thing that could be better? You need to enter your password again in order to download.

It's crazy. It's like iTunes has gone from overly simple to the kind of craptacularly disjointed and complex that Microsoft might engineer. If this is the future, we're doomed. Talk about an overhaul that needs a serious overhaul...

Mary Meeker Gives Internet Trends Presentation for 2013

At All Things D's D11 Conference yesterday, Mary Meeker took the stage to present her 2013 Internet Trends presentation. All in all, it's a great overview of the state of technology and a look at trends -- totally worth your time to go through. Here's a link to story and presentation on All Things D:
Mary Meeker’s Internet Trends Report is Back, at D11 (Slides)

New Xbox360 Announcement Scheduled for Today

So the next generation Xbox360 announcement is scheduled for today, and it's going to be interesting on several fronts.

From a hardware platform perspective, there are all the questions about processors and such, but a bigger deal might be whether the platform is online only. Today's software is distributed through the cloud, enabling businesses to reap larger profits and avoid costly distribution infrastructure expenses, but not everyone is wired with a fast broadband connection. There have also been rumors that you wouldn't be able to play unless you were connected online. If this turns out to be true, it might be an issue for some as well.

Perhaps a broader question relates to the overall roadmap of the platform. While Xbox360 and Xbox Live sail along, the Surface tablet series has been dragging like an anchor. There have been rumors that Microsoft might use the new Xbox platform to try and raise Surface out of the depths. Will the new XBox be the savior and driving engine for some of the other product lines? Only time will tell.

Late Night Mix Tape

The downside of the modern world is that your not supposed to stay up late listening to music and doing stupid stuff -- there's work to do. And yet, somehow we find a way.

This is sort of like a late night mix tape. We'll kick it off with a great little piece, filled with marketing nuance. It's a story that somehow seems all to familiar. You feel like you're being sold. You have a choice, the complacent, easy choice, or the thing that you know you want, the bigger prize.

Next, we have a tune linked in the sidebar that reminds you incredible influence of Bob Dylan. Think about all of those pop tunes that echo Dylan's style, from Donovan to Don McClean. Where would this tune have been without Bob Dylan?

Next, and strangely linked to the last one by YouTube is this one. I remember this as a kid, but I didn't really remember it until I listened to it again.

And finally, for another period piece that serves as a great reminder as to the difference between today's pop-music performers that dance, auto-tune and lip-sync, here's the a nice clip of the Wilson sisters playing music live in the 1970s.