The Donnybrook Fair: Apple, Blackberry and Google

One touch of nature makes the whole world kin,
That all, with one consent, praise new-born gauds.
And give to dust that is a little gilt
More laud than gilt o’er dusted;
The present eye praises the present object.

Troilus and Cressida, William Shapespeare

The emerging battle between RIM, Apple's iPhone and Google Android have all the classic hallmarks and of a true marketing melee. That’s great to see and instructive for all.

RIM’s Blackberry, for years, has made the market for smartphones, being the corporate darling for its ease of email use. How many times have you sat in a meeting, suddenly see the flashing light on your Blackberry go from green to red and feel the need to know and to answer?

Oh, and who did Blackberry pass on its leg around the track? Palm, which came late to smartphones. While Blackberry software and third party apps were not as robust as Palm and even though Palm had a huge installed base of users tracking their calendars, the functionality of its email system and the alignment with corporations won that race thumbs down, even though its first devices were black-and-white and clunky.

Now we have the iPhone, a cooler piece of hardware and software than the Blackberry. But not the winner out of the gate. The functionality and ease of use (my thumbs are just too big for the accurate and fast touch screen typing) do not match the Blackberry, limiting its ability to gain a broad base of users. Who bought the iPhone first? Consumers, the bedrock of Apple users.

Now it is getting interesting:

· Apple is preparing to launch a 3G iPhone and use Microsoft corporate email technology, a needed move to get corporate IT departments to sign on to iPhones.

o But you have to wonder how much this pains the purist in Steve Jobs?

· Blackberry is also preparing a 3G version and a better piece of hardware (bigger screen, better processor with a better browser).

· Google is licensing its Android operating system, based on Linux, to gain “screen share” on cell phones globally.

Google is operating under a totally different business model, fighting on only one battlefield. They are hardware-agnostic, freeing themselves of tactical hardware tactics, desiring share of eyeballs for its many apps. Google margins should be better. Their design focused on the visual look and click-throughs as they eschew plastic, metal and processors, leaving Nokia, LG, Motorola etc to the battle of the tiny boxes.

So the battle of flanks and enfilade goes to Blackberry and iPhone as they strive to win the minds and thumbs of both consumers and corporate users. The Blackberry Pearl and Curve are okay consumer phones, but they ain’t no iPhone.

When all things about performance are equal, great design wins. In a world of parity claims about superiority, whether it is soap or cosmetics or furniture or drugs, the cool-ness factor can win. Just ask Ideo.

The real and complex battleground here will go to the winner who must strive for superiority on both hardware and software. That is not an easy task. There are a thousand different cell phone sku’s in the mobile telephone category, but few offer truly differentiated in performance. Design becomes key. Remember the success of flip phones vs. candy bars? The first Razrs vs. everything else? Even the StarTAC. What makes this new evolution so interesting between iPhone and Blackberry is that it requires a skillful combination of both performance and design.

In the thirteenth century, King John gave a license to hold an annual fair in Donnybrook, outside Dublin. By the eighteenth century, it had become a huge two-week assembly for horse dealers, fortune-tellers, beggars, wrestlers, dancers, fiddlers, and food sellers. It was known for its rowdiness and noise, particularly for the whiskey-fueled fighting that went on after dark. The traditional advice for an Irishman going to the fair was, “Wherever you see a head, hit it.” Eventually the fair was closed by the Irish government in 1855.

I don’t know if you can combine the idea of a donnybrook with a Smartphone (since smart and donnybrook seem antithetical), but that it what this category is re-shaping itself to be.

Saving Winston Churchill's Chilly Heart

Lady Nancy Astor: Winston, if you were my husband, I'd poison your tea.
Winston Churchill: Nancy, if I were your husband, I'd drink it.

Having a defibrillator at home does not protect heart attack survivors against a cardiac arrest any better than having someone at home with good cardiopulmonary resuscitation training.

Dr. Gust Bardy of the Seattle Institute of Cardiac Research and colleagues studied 7,001 people at moderate risk of sudden cardiac arrest, each of whom had a spouse or home companion willing and able to perform CPR and use an AED. He presented the results of the study of automated external defibrillators or AEDs used in the home at a meeting of the American College of Cardiology in Chicago.

In public places such as airports, AEDs have helped people survive sudden cardiac arrest, when the heart stops pumping blood. Without immediate treatment with a defibrillator or a bystander who knows CPR, most die within minutes.

As about 80 percent of sudden cardiac arrests occur at home, researchers wanted to see if putting defibrillators in the home could save lives.

One group was told to call an ambulance and perform CPR, while the other group was told to use the defibrillator first, then seek emergency help. They were followed for three years.

What a gamble to participate in this study? Will I live because I depended on skill vs. a device? What’s my risk for sudden cardiac arrest anyway? What’s the book in Vegas on my chances of the big bang and then surviving it.

Wait a moment. Wow. How much faith does it take to trust that your spouse knows enough CPR to save you vs. having the AED in your home. Or that she'll even make the attempt at all. Basically, if she fails, it is okay because it was only a clinical trial that didn't work.

Now that’s love. As you lie there on the floor, clutching your chest, you look up with pleading eyes that say save me.

And then she (oh yes, we assume it is a she) remembers all the garbage you didn’t take out, the beer on your breath when you came home at 2 am, the mess your buds made after the Giants won the Super Bowl and a thousand other slings and arrows that outrageous fortune rained down on her because of you.

"There was no mortality benefit," said Dr. Gust Bardy of the Seattle Institute of Cardiac Research, whose study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

No benefit? Someone still lived.

Out of 123 arrests, just 63 of those were witnessed and a defibrillator was used in just 32 people. The device, which can assess a patient's rhythm, called for a shock to be delivered in just 14 patients, and only four survived long enough to be discharged from the hospital.

Bardy told reporters the rate of cardiac arrests occurring at home was lower than expected, and many occurred when the victim was alone.

And he noted that patients' spouses and companions in the control group had been well educated in how to respond to a heart-stopping event, something that could have improved survival in the group that did not have an AED.

Interestingly, the devices were also used by neighbors who borrowed one of the defibrillators to revive a family member. Two out of 7 of those people survived. Bardy said whenever the devices were used, they worked well.

AEDs for use at home cost $1,200 to $2,000 per unit. AEDs used in the study were made by Philips Medical Systems, a unit of Royal Philips Electronics, which are the only AEDs available without a prescription.

Bardy said most of the devices are purchased by the "worried well," and confessed to personally owning four.