Thank you for your comment. People did feel that no one cared and that made them ripe for pure emotion. Sadly, the Alpha Factor model cannot be used in this way with long-term success, and it has already started crumbling for our new President (much to his chagrin). It has also been used by other misguided politicians.

The sadder part to me is that neither party seems to recognize the critical value of COMBINING the “ego-satisfaction” factors of the Alpha model with “minimum functionality” that the model requires that proves the promises of ego-satisfaction.

The Alpha sells the highest level of ego-satisfaction that is PROVEN by promises of at least minimum functional performance. This election was a case of only one candidate recognizing people’s need for ego-satisfaction, even though he could not possibly fulfill the minimum functional performance (meaning success in creating a vibrant, healthy economic and cultural system) using the methods that he said he would use.

52% of the population voted for him, because they were not being offered such ego-satisfaction by anyone else. They were willing to trust that he might know what he was doing simply because people will “pay” almost anything for ego-satisfaction fulfillment.

It is the height of dishonesty, however, to use this model to gain a sale, knowing that it is not possible to fulfill the promise. That has been the case far too often in politics. I hope that changes, but it will take a more enlightened population than we apparently have had.

Let’s make sure we never fall into that trap with our businesses.

Yes, I do work as a coach to help business owners drive the Alpha model throughout their businesses. Give me a call, and let’s talk.

To answer the question posed by this actual Blog Post - will the iPhone survive the G1? Yes. It will. It’s not the G1 Apple needs to worry about - it’s Android.

An interesting observation here - ego-satisfaction is important, which drives the iPhone’s sales even up against other solid products. It’s “cool” to have an iPhone - it’s “cool” to have an iPod. However, Google is a massively dominating company, yet their rise to dominance was almost the exact opposite of Apples - a 1 field, plain-Jane website that was 100% focused on functionality. In fact, nothing Google has, other than Android - is pretty or really ego-friendly - yet they dominate - virtually 100% based on function.

But really, the iPhone was cool, still is cool, and will be cool for a while longer - but people get bored with single things and look for the next cool thing. Will Apple continue to set the trends? Maybe. But will iPhone always dominate? Not a chance. Sony Ericcson is already developing an Android phone, Sprint is already on board to carry Android, and the plethora of major players in the Open Handset Alliance is staggering - Apple really doesn’t stand a chance here.

Great analysis of how functional innovation can drive dominance. I have yet to see the ego-satisfaction portion of the Google introduction (other than among the early adopters), but you may well be correct. I need to go play with one and see what is happening there.

You are absolutely correct about the risk for Apple, if it continues its closed access policies. Apple’s fear of allowing programmers to create a plethora of applications has always been their limiting factor. If Google indeed has the ego-satisfaction covered and raises the bar functionally, then Apple will indeed lose its influence.

This is the Alpha model at work. It is very predictive. As long as you offer at least the minimum expected functional performance, the critical innovation needs to be in driving higher ego-satisfaction expectations than those offered by competitors. The entertainment apps you describe being created for the Google product are part of an ego-satisfaction focus. As long as they also drive greater businessperson ego-satisfaction (especially among salespersons), they may have it.

Thanks for the insights. I will go check it out in more detail.

Wes

I fully agree with your points. I didn’t fall into the same trap, in fact, my post had everything to do with the fact that Google is the next Alpha in the cellular market. Apple can still salvage their status, but will they do what needs to be done?

If Apple continues to keep their system relatively closed, and locked in with AT&T - what next? All it will take is for Android to hit an even larger carrier, with a better network than T-Mobile - such as Verizon - for things to drastically move in an Android as Alpha direction.

I think we’ll see a J-curve. Android is already selling better than expected, tons of great free apps are coming out, and people are seeing these phones and using these phones and buzz is generating. All it takes is some upward momentum and buzz for the Android phones - once that buzz generates, it will be cool to have the Google Phone. Remember, a vast majority of phone buyers are in the sub $50 purchase price, and ONLY Android has the opportunity to take over that segment as well. I don’t care what Apple does with the iPhone - if there are 5+ different Android handsets available with different carriers and priced all over the board, iPhone will be in loads of trouble.

T-Mobile stores are already starting to sell out of G1’s - if you order online from T-Mobile it’s backordered. People want these phones - and once G2 comes out and other Android handsets, we’ll really see the upswing on the Android J-curve - and I’d say within 3 years, the iPhone will be “just another phone” that Apple fanatics will buy, but won’t have the street buzz anymore.

My main point is, Android’s openness has it slated to be an extremely high volume seller - which alone would unseat Apple. Couple that with the fact that people like the “cool gadget of the moment” then move on - iPhone is cool right now, but in another year or two - they’ll be “just” an iPhone and the demand won’t be there, people will want the cool Google handset with all the cool things you can do on it because it’s open and there are so many awesome applications.

We’ve seen it happen already with iPods, they are losing marketshare every year.

Thank you for your comment. You have fallen into exactly the same trap that Gig did: you expect functional performance to overcome the Alpha Factor (ego-satisfaction). If you read the book, “The Alpha Factor,” you will understand that the company, brand, or product that provides the highest ego-satisfaction while meeting minimum functional expectations will always be the leader of a category.

You are mistaken about Apple’s business plan. It was never to follow Microsoft. In fact, its feverish focus on NOT following Microsoft by not even allowing open access to its platform has been the limiting factor for the product line for decades. That fact put their functional performance below minimum expectations except for a small segment of artistic and creative applications. It has only been since they allowed more access to programmers that it has opened up their market enough to become the Alpha they always had the potential to become. Had Apple taken this tack earlier, they could have taken over the PC market.

I sincerely hope that Google’s product does drive functional expectations higher. If Apple is smart enough to use the Alpha model for innovation and incorporate those things it wants and innovate past those it doesn’t, it will maintain its Alpha status. It will only be when they pull back and once again believe that “good enough” is good enough that they will be overtaken in influence. That is the mistake Harley-Davidson made, losing its Alpha status to a myriad of other motorcycle marketers not through functional inferiority (they were always functionally inferior) but rather through ignorance of the very Alpha assets that made them what they were.

You should read the Disruptive Innovation newsletter in the list of articles on this site. One of the cover articles is about how many companies believe their innovation is going to change the world due to functionality, when they seldom do. The only predictable way to innovate for sustainable dominance is by meeting (and maintaining) at least minimum functional performance and then driving higher ego-satisfaction expectations to keep competitors in a following mode.

Best wishes.