The Apple iPad vs the Amazon Kindle debate rages on in the media and the blogosphere - with no end in sight.   The iPad fans proclaim that the Kindle is dead : it is no match for the rich, interactive, tactile interface of the iPad  - a superior, almost magical experience some call it.     The Kindle fans counter this view with well reasoned, rational arguments that list all the positive attributes of the Kindle - lower price, e-Ink display,  longer battery life, etc.   - and say that it is the perfect e-reader and will beat the iPad. So which side is right ?  Neither side  is -  the fallacy in all these arguments is that only one type of device can rule the market.   That is akin to someone proclaiming in 1984 - when the Mac was introduced that it would kill the PC  market or that the latest  DVD player from Sony would kill Panasonic.   Why is an e-reader different from these other consumer electronics devices ?   Isn’t this basic  Marketing 101 ?  Markets and consumers are not homogeneous - they are fragmented into many different segments - each one composed of different needs, tastes,  preferences, economics and demographics.

The debate over the iPad and the Kindle however also highlights another  very interesting and subtle divide in tastes, preferences and attitudes - which I think influences  the way  companies design products and the way consumers react to products.   I call it the left vs right brain divide. Now I do realize that the left and right brained model - called brain laterlization - while popular is not as accurate as was once believed. Current research suggests that the brain is far more complex than such a simple  model  suggests.   It is however still a very useful  metaphor in conveying the differences in approach - so keep this in mind when you read what follows.  You may call it the Analytical vs the Designer approach if you prefer.

The first thing that grabs you about the iPad is its beautiful design - it is a perfect mix of form and function in an aesthetically appealing package.   The genius of  Steve Jobs is that he has perfected the art of conceiving and creating products that combine beauty and functionality in a seamless, holistic way. The iPad is visually appealing, intuitive,  fun,  invites play and  exploration and appeals to the artistic, creative side in all of us.  Those are the same attributes that characterize the right side of our brains.  As per the popular theory  -people who are “right brained” are said to be artistic, creative, dreamers, better at art  and visual communication than math and logic.   So if ever there was such as a thing a s a  ”right-brained”  company - Apple seems to fit that bill very well - with Steve Jobs being the ultimate right-brained CEO.   His whole approach to design is to iterate till  ”he falls in love with the device”.    And the iPad certainly is a device designed to appeal to the right-side of our brains - and it succeeds extremely well in doing that.

Kindle on the other hand  is a device that  seems to appeal to the the proverbial “left-side” of the brain.  In  a reasoned,  detailed comparison of individual features  of the Kindle vs the iPad - it comes out ahead as an e-reader.  It is the engineer’s design for an e-reader - an economical, minimalist, efficient design that gets the job done. It is the rational choice for an e-reader. This is not surprising when you look at Amazon and Jeff Bezos.  Amazon is  well  known for its highly analytical approach to problem solving - driven apparently by Bezos obsession for detail and measurement.   So a product like the Kindle seems to be the perfect device that emerges from such an approach - it is the perfect “Left-brained” e-reader.

If you take this analogy further, you  will find “left-brained” thinking is dominant among many technology companies -  with Google being the prime example. Again not surprising considering most technology companies hire engineers,  and programmers - highly “left-brained” tasks.   In fact, Google exemplifies the pinnacle of “left-brain” thinking. Everything is measured and analyzed and split-tested with very little room for subjective design choices.  A designer who quit Google wrote in his blog “Google couldn’t decide between two blues, so they’re testing 41 shades between each blue to see which one performs better” !

So what is the point of all this ?   The runaway success of the iPhone and the iPad - seem to indicate that maybe some “right-brained” thinking may not be such a bad idea in the “left-brain” dominated technology world  ?

After reviewing articles from many sources in the media, I have compiled a list of certain  facts and figures regarding   the recent cyber attacks  from China and the subsequent stunning announcement from Google.   Some  of these are surprisingly under-reported  in the media so you may or may not know them.  Here they are in no specific order  :

1. Over 34 companies were targets of the attack and appear to have been carefully selected to be in industries in which China is lagging. Sources say that one aim of the attack was to steal high-tech information in strategic industries to give China a competitive economic edge.   For example,  the attacks on defense companies were  aimed to steal information on weapons systems. The attacks on  technology companies were mainly to get the  source code  of the companies flagship products.
2. Sources also say that the second aim of the  attacks was  to get  politically sensitive information to  ensure the survival of the regime.   This was stated by James A. Lewis, a cyber and national security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. [Read more →]
   

Google’s bombshell  announcement yesterday about its “new approach” to China is still reverberating across the media and the blogosphere.    Everyone is trying  to put this in perspective, assessing its impact and figuring out  Google’s true  motivations and rationale for this drastic action.   However,  most blogs and analysis focused on two important aspects of this story : Google’s tough stance against the freedom and censorship issues in China   and the business implications of this for Google.  But very few address  another equally important aspect :  The warning to the free world of  the clear and present danger of Chinese cyber attacks and cyber warfare .  Here is a quick rundown of some popular reactions :

Many bloggers and analysts are saying that Google deserves kudos for this tough and brave stance against censorship and oppression in China,  and that they are living up to their “don’t be evil” motto.   Rebecca MackInnon has an excellent post  titled “Google puts its foot down” and writes :

“ They are living up to their “don’t be evil” motto - much mocked of late - and living up to their commitments to free speech and privacy as a member of the Global Network Initiative. “

This sentiment was echoed by many bloggers and media analysts and was certainly a factor in Google’s decision. [Read more →]

In what will surely be remembered as a pivotal and defining moment in Internet history, Google today took a brave stand against China which has so  far dictated how Google  conducts business in that country.

In a post on their blog titled “A New Approach To China”, Google stated that it had detected an unprecedented and highly sophisticated attack by Chinese hackers last month on its corporate infrastructure, and on 20 other corporate entities. The hacking has resulted  in theft of some of Google’s Intellectual Property. Google has also determined that the hackers were primarily targeting the Gmail accounts of  Chinese human rights activists. Possibly there was much more - since Google has only shared some of the information from these attacks. In any case, the attacks appeared to be the tipping point for Google in revising their stance on China.

Effectively this is what Google is saying to China in their announcement  : “We are not going to succumb to your censorship policies  any more and enough is enough   :  So take it or leave it -  we  will either run an uncensored search engine in China on our terms OR  just cease operations there ! “

Putting an economic juggernaut and the next superpower on notice in no uncertain terms  on a matter of principle  requires tremendous guts and vision.   It has never been done, as far as I know, by any large US  corporation (or even by the US Govt for that matter !)  . If ever there was a moment in Google’s decade old history which demonstrated  their resolve and  the true intent of  their  corporate motto “Don’t do evil”  - this has to be  it !    Google deserves the utmost respect and accolades from everybody for this brave stance.   I only wish they had done it sooner in 2006 when they launched Google.cn.  Succumbing to  the unreasonable demands of a communist regime that censors  free  speech, oppresses its citizens, routinely violates human rights and then denies all wrongdoing,  goes  against everything that Google,  and the rest of the free world  believes in.   It is about time someone stood up to them and I am glad Google had the clarity of conviction and the guts to do this.  More power to them and may this be the start of a worldwide movement that puts pressure on  the Chinese Government to revise their policies.

There is  another important aspect to this announcement : If  a $200 billion behemoth like Google,  run by some of  the smartest  engineers and security experts in the world can be breached by hackers in China,  it should be a wake-up call to the rest of the world on  the seriousness of the dire threat that hacking in general and China in particular poses.

Incidentally this attack occurs after several years of under-reported warnings in the press about this threat from China.    The country has secretly been building an army of Chinese hackers on a remote island off the coast of China - with the explicit goal of “electronic world domination” by 2050.  I had blogged about this threat back in April - which you can read here.