Who Does This Sound Like?

Who does this sound like: a generation of “idealists” who came of age attacking their elders’ institutions; who were the best-fed, best-housed, best-educated generation in U.S. history; who refused to compromise over principle; were often seen as moralistic; often accused of “radicalism;” perhaps “strident” or “extreme” in their search for truth, while others were inner-absorbed seekers of spiritual growth; who were known for seeking “altered states of consciousness;” “inner truth” and the “stream of consciousness.”

“Finding myself” was always considered important and worthwhile. Communes appealed to some. 

Their student leaders were “preachy;” the females often rebellious career women. They were certain of their truths, so sometimes riots or bombings happened. Campus rebellions and redefining the role of women are associated with this  generation. 

“Any opinion was a religion once they decided it was right.” So the phrase “which side are you on?” was relevant. 

You’d probably pick “baby boomers.”

But you’d be wrong. All those descriptions were of Americans born in 1584 to 1614; 1701 to 1723; 1792 to 1821; 1860 to 1882. All those exact personality traits, in those generations, are described in Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584–2069, a 1991 non-fiction book by William Strauss and Neil Howe.

People born in those generations do, however, tend to share a peer personality with baby boomers (born 1943 to 1960). Whatever positive attributes you might think they have, they have some unfortunate attitudes as well. 

They are narcissistic, smug, self-righteous, intolerant (“puritanical” in the sense of being rigid and intolerant). I’m a boomer myself, and I’ve had lots of time to ponder the particularities of my generation. Not all of it is in any way “good.”

Looking at today’s political culture, the polarization is a reflection of our attitudes. Since nobody instinctively will compromise on a matter of “principle,” (on “either side,” however you define the sides), you have sharp division. 

Perhaps tragically, certainly ironically, a generation that thinks of itself as tolerant and accepting is actually the very opposite. We have a genuine tendency to be smug, self-righteous, intolerant and actually closed-minded, because, of course, “we are right and they are wrong; we are moral, they are immoral.” 

The odd thing is that people seem to have no self awareness, as hard as they seem, on some matters, to try. Self deception, hypocrisy and moral failure know no bounds, even for a generation that often seems convinced it is accepting, tolerant, principled, moral and just.

"Do as I Say, Not as I Do"

The “evidence paints a complex portrait of a company working toward an overall goal of maintaining its market share by providing the best user experience, while simultaneously engaging in tactics that resulted in harm to many vertical competitors.”

That quote from an actual Federal Trade Commission report might sound like a reason for imposing strong network neutrality rules.

Extracted from a 160-page FTC report, the conclusion does not, in fact, refer to any ISP, or any content slowing, blocking or acceleration.

It refers to Google, the company whose mantra used to be “don’t be evil,” and what the report says were efforts by Google to use its monopoly power to quash competitors.

Ironically (or maybe worse, perhaps it is venial), the antitrust agency rejected the report’s conclusions and cleared Google of any wrongdoing.

To be fair, this illustrates a danger. For those of us who believe antitrust remedies always are possible when bad actors emerge in the Internet ecosystem, and for that reason no additional “protections” (more laws, more rules) are required, this represents a potential failure.

The FTC failed to follow through when its own studies suggested there was abuse of commercial power in the ecosystem.

On the other hand, despite the failure to act, the market itself seems to be moving clearly to reduce Google’s dominance in search (Facebook and others are shifting the “search” process away from Google).

An irony here is that Google might have been vastly more implicated in potential antitrust activity, on a broad scope, compared to the two documented instances of Internet service provider content blocking, both of which were quickly squashed by the Federal Communications Commission.

That is a precedent some will say shows the necessity of strong network neutrality rules. Others would say that if a problem did ever develop at scale, the FTC would have acted, and that the FCC acted in the past without any such rules.

Ironically, a company that has pointed to potential non-competitive behavior by others actually has engaged in such activity, on a broad scale, itself.

Google’s actions  likely helped to entrench monopoly power over search and search advertising,” the FTC report says.

The staff report from the agency’s bureau of competition recommended the commission bring a lawsuit challenging three Google practices. The move would have triggered one of the highest-profile antitrust cases since the Justice Department sued Microsoft Corp. in the 1990s.

The revelations will not be helpful to Google, which is fighting European regulators worried precisely about this sort of behavior.

FTC staff said Google’s conduct “helped it to maintain, preserve and enhance Google’s monopoly position in the markets for search and search advertising” in violation of the law.

An additional irony is that action might now be taken just at a point when Google’s dominance already is challenged by the shift to mobile content consumption, where “search” or “discovery” happens in different ways.

As the old adage suggests, it is a case of locking the barn after the horse has already gotten out.

Looking forward, one might argue Google already is on the strategic defensive, making any potential new restrictions a bit late, and likely unnecessary.

Still, some might note the irony.

Google might have actually engaged in widespread and arguably successful anticompetitive behavior, where ISPs already were covered by FCC no-blocking rules, and have actually never been shown to engage in “slowing” or “speeding up” content of competitors.

It's a blemish on the record of a firm whose products and inititiatives valued by so many, and brings to mind so many adages. "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. "Do as I say, not as I do."

Sprint Sells HTC Touch Pro2

Sprint Nextel will begin selling the Windows Mobile-based HTC Touch Pro2 on Sept. 8, 2009, for $349.99 with a two-year service agreement and after $100 mail-in rebate. The touch-screen device features the more-popular slide-out QWERTY keyboard and a 3.6-inch tilting screen.

Additional business features available on HTC Touch Pro2 include International Quad-Band capability (CDMA, GSM), full HTML browser from Opera, stereo Bluetooth wireless technology, WorldCard Mobile Business Card Scanner, Facebook integration and Linked inboxes, which link personal and work contacts. A 3.5 mm headphone jack, a microSD card slot and an auto-focus 3.2 megapixel camera/camcorder also are standard.

As does the Palm Pre, the Touch Pro2 organizes messages across message formats, so that voice, text or email messages from a single person can be searched "under a single contact card," HTC says.

Sprint appears to be bundling the device, or suggesting it be bundled with, Sprint TV and Sprint’s sports applications NFL Mobile Live and NASCAR Sprint Cup Mobile.

Without knocking either the device or the way Sprint Nextel envisions the user scenario, the launch illustrates the complex problems marketers now are having in positioning specific devices and network features.

"Smart phone" doesn't cut it, in many ways. HTC seems to have developed the Touch Pro2 as a business device, aimed at users who want to do things like participate in conference calls. But it seems to me a confusing positioning to emphasize entertainment applications for such a device.

That isn't to say people aren't increasingly interested in devices that bridge the work and personal spaces, but simply that the positioning of the Touch Pro2 would more logically have been as an enterprise tool for users who think conferencing on a mobile is a more compelling feature than simple email handling, which RIM seems to have staked out, or the simple Web surfing niche, which Apple now "owns."

"Conference in your pocket" would seem a better fit between end user niche and the device's native capabiltiies. To be sure, Sprint is emphasizing "stay productive" in its messaging. And perhaps that is where Sprint should be developing messaging around this specific device, as tough as that is. The references to Sprint TV--to me, at least--conflice with the "collaboration tool" features of the device.

HTC’s Straight Talk technology enables the Pro2—with carrier cooperation—to transition from an e-mail to a single- or multi-party conference call, as well as having the ability to offer itself as a conference room–like speakerphone system.

Straight Talk technology, according to HTC, includes a mechanical and acoustic design that allows it to offer a speakerphone experience similar to those in boardrooms; asymmetric speakers and noise suppression technology with full-duplex acoustics deliver a “high-fidelity voice and sound experience.”

That's the end user niche it seems to me Sprint Nextel should not stray from with this particular device.