Chicago Beta

I waited in line for a few hours yesterday and purchased an iPhone. I avoided the Apple store on Michigan Ave and instead found a small AT&T store near me that wasn’t that bad with the wait. After playing with the phone for half a day now, I’m still saying WOW.

I’m on the fence about replacing my Treo with this as my phone. Most things I love about the Treo the iPhone does poorly: composing an e-mail, keeping my contacts, calendar, email synced and updating all of those items on the go. But the iPhone does a TON of new things incredibly well that the Treo can’t touch: browsing the web, music, photos, video, and checking voicemail. And most of all, I’m amazed how how fun it is to use. Even though this is a gadget with buttons and a screen, surprisingly, it has the fun-factor of a mechanical puzzle. In every single application: flicking, stretching, pinching, and sliding the interface is just plain fun.

There are a lot of great reviews (Pogue’s and Mossberg’s), but aside from the issue of whether to purchase an iPhone or not, there are some really interesting software design lessons to take away from what Apple has done. And even though this is a hardware “gadget,” 90% of the brilliance is in the software.

Every truly great piece of software I’ve used was great because it focused on a very specific need and it addressed that need incredibly well: the “less is more” philosophy. At first, when you see the list of features, it seems that the iPhone is the antithesis of this approach. But unlike most focused software, the iPhone’s focus is horizontal rather than vertical. Yes, it has a lot of applications, but in each application they only cared about half of the usual functions–in every application the focus is on retrieving information, not entering it. It’s an interesting design decision and it works surprising well.

This is most evidence in the biggest hardware decision: 100% screen, 0% keyboard. Screens are for retrieving information, keyboards are for entering information. I think the only reason they even included the on-screen keyboard is for the simple inputs like entering an address into Google maps, entering a URL into the web browser, etc that can’t be avoided when you’re trying to retrieve. In fact, 75% of the time I use my Treo it’s to read email, check and appointment, retrieve driving directions. However, one common task I perform on my Treo is when someone emails me a time to meet, and I copy and paste their address and phone number into a new appointment. There is no copy and paste anywhere in the iPhone, copy and paste is for entering information, not retrieving it.

Take away: You can narrow the scope of your application by focusing horizontally rather than vertically.

The second interesting take away: I knew interfaces could be poorly designed and confusing or well design and easy to use. The iPhone has elevated interface design to a new level; interfaces can be made fun. It’s hard enough to design an interface that is easy to use, and I would have thought the extra effort to take it beyond easy into the realm of fun would not be worth it. With any product you hit a point of diminishing returns when you are trying to improve a particular aspect of it, I would have thought “fun” would be in the realm of diminishing returns. But I’m amazed how much the “fun” adds.

Over the years I’ve noticed one of the biggest differences between “expert” users of computers and “novice” users is their willingness to explore a piece of software. Novices memorize a series of steps to get the computer to accomplish a desired tasks. Experts explore the software and come to intuitively understand the underlying mental model governing its design, this enables them to teach themselves new uses of the program. There is an analogy in mathematics: novices memorize the steps to apply a certain formula, experts understand the underlying meaning of the formula, they can apply this knowledge in ways beyond just the simple steps.

Take away: What does “fun” have to do with this? If an interface is “fun”, even novice users will be motivated to explore it and “accidentally” develop a deeper understanding of it, and hopefully get some of the same benefits that experts do from using it.

Dick Costolo had a great post recently about companies’ customer service (Customer Service - Foundation over Platitude).

The airline’s website and official customer service language are all about lines like ‘the customer comes first’, ‘you are [airline name]’s most valuable asset’, etc. The hotel’s website and official customer service language are non-existent. I couldn’t find anything on the site that explicitly mentioned customer service. Of course, the actual customer service experience was first-rate at the hotel and miserable with the airline.

Dick talked about the importance of transparency. How even bad situations can be made significantly better by informing the customer of what the problem is, rather than just leaving them in the dark.

It reminded me of an experience I had the last time I visited IKEA. The principle of transparency can be used by companies, not only to right a wrong, but also as a competitive advantage–by explaining the reasons behind seemingly unacceptable behavior.

IKEA has built an amazing business by providing high quality products at incredibly low costs. I can attest, every time I go there I buy much more than I ever plan to because the products look fantastic and the prices are so unbelievably cheap. Trash cans, pictures, champaign glasses, “I know I don’t really need a new dish scrubbing brush, but this suction cup thing is so cool, and for 50 cents, what the hell.”

But saving money can require cutting corners, and cutting corners isn’t always acceptable to customers. On my last visit I noticed a number of signs posted around the store. (I couldn’t find pictures online, so these are from memory):

In the restaurant/cafeteria:

Please bus your own dishes. This allows us to have less staff on hand, and keeps our prices low for you.

Throughout the store:

Why s it hard to find help at the store?  Not having lots of staff, and not having commission sales people, allows us to keep our prices low. Look around for one of the information booths and someone will be happy to help you there.

In the loading area when you pick up the pieces of your furniture:

Why do you assemble furniture yourself? Having someone in a factory assemble furniture would make our prices more expensive. Although it can be difficult to assemble yourself, it means you get the furniture right away, and for less cost.

Etc…  The cafeteria one struck me the most. When I read it, as I was carrying my tray to the dish bin, it gave me a sense that I was participating in the business model. What would have normally been an unpleasant activity, gives the customer a small sense of pride.

In my own business, I make sure I don’t make the mistake of assuming things have to be a certain way. IKEA gave me evidence that customers will jump through a lot of hoops, and be happy about doing so, if you can give them something they really want. Don’t be too quick to assume, “But the customer wouldn’t like that…”