BostonPocketPC

On the heels of friend Chris Leckness' post at MobilitySite regarding recent iPhone issues (Chris, BTW, references another great article by Matt Miller on the same subject), I thought I might chime in with some observations made through all of the recent events.

What has transpired with regards to the iPhone, and MobileMe over the past weeks has, in my opinion, been very uncharacteristic for Apple as an organization. Let's face it - like it or not, Apple may understand the concept of "user experience" better than any software or hardware vendor in history. I regularly reference Apple as the standard-bearer for insuring that any given user experience is complete, well-defined and thoroughly tested before public consumption. It is this mindset that plays a large part in Apple's brand loyalty. The iPhone 2.0/MobileMe issues seem to fly directly in the face of these very principles.

I sincerely believe many of the issues related to the iPhone were avoidable if not for another aspect of Apple corporate culture; unbridled secrecy. Most are familiar with Apple's zealous approach to "keeping things under wraps" until product launch. Few are ever given access to Apple development in its earlier stages, and are sworn to eternal secrecy if they are. While this approach works well in scenarios where the number and diversity of testers are not critical to true validation of the product, it can be the "kiss of death" in scenarios where diversity and number of testers makes all the difference in the world. Keeping that in mind, let's look at some of the issues and how a limited testing group can be a major factor -

• Cellular signal strength/quality issues. While we all often laugh at the Verizon "Can you hear me now?" guy, there is an important principle here. Anyone who works in or around the cellular industry or is tied to a mobile phone while traveling extensively can tell you - what works in one area doesn't necessarily work in another area. The more geographically diverse a testing base, the better the gauging of a cellular radio stack. And no, you can't cover every square foot of North America, Europe and all of the places which have access to the iPhone, but a large testing group is statistically going to be better than a small one. Remember also that with varying geography comes varying carriers and varying cellular networks. Again - the more diversity, the better.
  
  Some recent finger-pointing in all of this is now blaming the radio chipset as the culprit. Even if so, more extensive testing results in more reported issues which results in identifying the culprit - before product launch. Whatever or whomever the final cause is regarding this issue, the bottom line is that a primary user experience with a cellular phone - using the cellular radio - has been far from desirable for many users.
  
• Third-Party application issues. there have been any number of issues reported with the running of third-party applications on the new iPhone. As Chris L. pointed out, many quickly blame the developers. If "bad code" is truly to blame, then so be it. However, with all of the restrictions placed by Apple in relation to third-party developers and the AppStore, a testing/certification process should catch the most flagrant issues. I cannot help but believe that Apple was either unprepared for a large number of applications being submitted or simply did not test the applications as thoroughly as they should have (if at all). What strikes me as most surprising in all of this is the fact that Apple gave a strong impression that a primary reason for the AppStore approval process was to ensure quality control was in place. That being said, a larger testing base may once again have facilitated any QA process.
  
• MobileMe. Honestly, I believe many of the issues here exemplify how any company can struggle when leaving their "comfort zone". While iTunes shows that Apple can managed large-scale connectivity and distribution models over the Internet, synchronization of thousands (if not millions) of computing devices is a far different beast (remember - MobileMe is not an iPhone or even Apple-exclusive technology). MobileMe likely should never have been launched until after the iPhone was launched, and then only in controlled testing modes to ensure reliability and scalability.

There have been other issues surrounding the iPhone floating around the Internet, but I think I'll stop here. The point that I am trying to make is that Apple appears to me to have drifted from what has always made it such a vastly popular company -

User experience took a back seat to a product launch date.

As someone who has worked with and for companies that take this approach to doing business on a regular basis, brand loyalty will only last as long as a new or cheaper competitor doesn't arrive on the scene. In Apple's case, recent events are an exception, not the rule. Moving forward, Apple can (and likely will) return to its tried and true ways. If not, "unApple-like" practices will really test the patience of what is arguably the most loyal customer base in technology history. In addition, people and companies new to Apple (iPhone and the enterprise, for example) are definitely being given an initially unfavorable impression of Apple. To these folks, there is no "unApple-like" thought process; there is only a "bad product launch" thought. Gaining trust with this market is probably going to be even rougher than first thought.

I believe that Apple will correct many of the issues around the iPhone and MobileMe. History proves they are responsive. What will be interesting to see, however, is whether or not Apple is willing to accept the fact that venturing into new businesses and technologies may require a change in corporate culture. In the case of the iPhone, third-party applications and MobileMe, that change may require steeping away from the isolated and limited world of product testing and moving towards more open and expansive testing programs. This would definitely be the most "unApple-like" thing that Apple could do, but likely would allow them to be most "Apple-like" in terms of customer satisfaction.