Every Pixel is Precious

If there is one key take away I have from years of creating and designing software, it is that the importance of how to approach the problem of initial design of the visual interface and interactions of a product.

When I started my career in software, I approached the problem like most engineers. I put in every feature I thought someone would want, but I did it from my perspective. I wanted loads of features and a way to customize everything as well.

When I started back at Apple for my second tour of duty in 2001, I was given the amazing opportunity to start from scratch on a new product. And better yet, I was shepherded through the process by none other than the late Steve Jobs.

The product was Keynote and it was a delight to be involved in the creation of such an amazing product with such a great team. Instead of doing every feature imaginable, we started from a long list but attacked it one feature at a time. While the engineering team was focused on creating a basic canvas architecture, we focused the design team on the slide outline and overall interface.

The design went through weekly reviews with Steve. Every single pixel was scrutinized. I recall a common question was "why is that there?" If it wasn't something that was needed 95-100% of the time, it was removed.

We also looked at animation of the interface to help explain why things were the way they were. We started with all sorts of different looks and generated small movies to show the animations, but continuously simplified to the bare minimum that clearly and cleanly made the specific feature fluid and obvious.

We never showed Steve wireframes. We occasionally used them internally in the team, but when we showed product ideas to Steve, it was always pixel perfect. This allowed us to focus the conversation on how should the feature be presented to the actual person using the product, versus having everybody make assumptions in their minds about what is meant by the wireframe and how it would actually work.

Oftentimes, we'd find we couldn't exactly duplicate in code what we had animated. Then we'd have to iterate again on the actual product to get the best feel. This was actually highly welcomed as in those days everyone was still trying to understand what was really possible in OS X.

Differences of opinion were common, but the shared goals were the same:

·         Create the most amazing showcase application that the world had ever seen
·         Show off what could be done on a Mac and OS X
·         Redefine what it meant to tell a story to an audience (presentations).

It was these overall shared goals that kept things on track.

So, what did I learn:

When you design look at every single pixel. Scrutinize every single interaction. Keep asking why.

Convergence Does Not Have to be Win/Lose

There’s a huge amount of press and startup activity around the idea of dramatic disruption of the consumption model for long form video. Despite rumbles about the massive amount of cord cutting or trimming that is occurring, the data doesn’t support the story. When presented with these facts the story is changed to “well…, it will be happening, real soon now.” I doubt this. Too many business and financial barriers impede the kind of dramatic sea change that is being proselytized.

Regardless, I prefer to look at the problem differently. People want to consume long form video in many different ways. Heck, they want to do the same with short form. People think of it all as video, period. They love their big screen TVs. They love their iPads (and perhaps someday other tablets). Some even love their iPhones, or other mobile phones. Others are even beginning to like watching via their game consoles, but this is still all about their big screen TVs as the console behaves more like a cable box in its usage.

All these should work, and they should work for all content independent of source or length. Both studio (big media) produced content as well as independent material. The consumer should be able to search and discover across the entire breadth of video and not care from whence it came to their viewing device. If commercials are required to defer the expense of the media, then they should be shown. If it’s a subscription model, then the there should be a simple authentication model. This doesn’t mean it has to be all presented in a single application or a single device. The critical touch points are search, discovery and access.

It doesn’t have to be my cable provider versus YouTube versus Hulu versus this app or that app. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. It should be easy. It should be fun. It should be delightful.

Also, it should include video that could be consumed on a REALLY big screen. You know, the theatre. It’s all the same to a viewer. If I want to be looking for something to entertain or educate myself through the amazing powerful storytelling magic of video, I shouldn’t be limited by either new or old business models. I should have assistance in finding what I want to watch, or be recommended what I should watch, and be delivered to an experience where I can consume the content, preferably on my preferred device(s).

I think the real disruption will play out in true convergence and a viewer’s perspective. The unification of video content will forever change the expectations that people will have on their providers, apps, etc. With this change, old business models will undergo some change, but not as dramatic as complete destruction. New business models will need to change as well. They can all converge to a win/win.

There’s a huge amount of press and startup activity around the idea of dramatic disruption of the consumption model for long form video. Despite rumbles about the massive amount of cord cutting or trimming that is occurring, the data doesn’t support the story. When presented with these facts the story is changed to “well…, it will be happening, real soon now.” I doubt this. Too many business and financial barriers impede the kind of dramatic sea change that is being proselytized.

Regardless, I prefer to look at the problem differently. People want to consume long form video in many different ways. Heck, they want to do the same with short form. People think of it all as video, period. They love their big screen TVs. They love their iPads (and perhaps someday other tablets). Some even love their iPhones, or other mobile phones. Others are even beginning to like watching via their game consoles, but this is still all about their big screen TVs as the console behaves more like a cable box in its usage.

All these should work, and they should work for all content independent of source or length. Both studio (big media) produced content as well as independent material. The consumer should be able to search and discover across the entire breadth of video and not care from whence it came to their viewing device. If commercials are required to defer the expense of the media, then they should be shown. If it’s a subscription model, then the there should be a simple authentication model. This doesn’t mean it has to be all presented in a single application or a single device. The critical touch points are search, discovery and access.

It doesn’t have to be my cable provider versus YouTube versus Hulu versus this app or that app. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. It should be easy. It should be fun. It should be delightful.

Also, it should include video that could be consumed on a REALLY big screen. You know, the theatre. It’s all the same to a viewer. If I want to be looking for something to entertain or educate myself through the amazing powerful storytelling magic of video, I shouldn’t be limited by either new or old business models. I should have assistance in finding what I want to watch, or be recommended what I should watch, and be delivered to an experience where I can consume the content, preferably on my preferred device(s).

I think the real disruption will play out in true convergence and a viewer’s perspective. The unification of video content will forever change the expectations that people will have on their providers, apps, etc. With this change, old business models will undergo some change, but not as dramatic as complete destruction. New business models will need to change as well. They can all converge to a win/win.

Internalizing the Business Model

A critical aspect of aligning a team to produce the "right" product I often counsel the importance of getting everyone who contributes to fully internalize as much as possible the business model for the product.

By business model I mean that the perceived value of the product to the customer be highly aligned to the way that the customer pays, or will pay, for the value derived. For example, in a freemium model, the customer should pay for additional capabilities that's value is clearly understood to expand the value of the base product. The great aspect of this model is there is enough context in the base free model that the value is more obvious.

Once the model is truly internalized by your team they will be able to make clear and quick decisions during the development process that can dramatically speed up the creation of product. What is amazing is when the team discovers that the plans aren't aligned with the business model and they speak up to make the product better. They can champion the features that will more closely align to the business model and/or champion the change to the business model that more closely aligns to the true customer value derived from the product.

A team that is aligned in this manner is unstoppable. Some of my best experiences have been setting up this kind of environment then getting out of the way.

New and More Innovative Mistakes

One thing I always wanted to hear from my development, quality, design and project management teams was that they made mistakes. As long as they were new mistakes I considered them great learning opportunities.

Every now and then I would see a repeat of something we had done wrong before. Pretty much always the reason the error would repeat was due to a failure to truly internalize the first experience into the (dare I say) processes in the organization.

Building an environment where individuals are not punished for making mistakes, especially new and more innovative mistakes is critical. They should be highlighted as successes!

What the pivot?

This is my favorite new (well, for me at least) investor/startup term.

I used to be an investor in the fun .bomb times before I went back to Apple to create more products. Back then when a company was failing they either were closed down or went through what I called an exercise in surface tension (how many startup bricks do you have to tie together to get them to float) aka mergers.

Nowadays when a startup finds that what it set out to do isn't working they 'pivot'. Basically completely change their business, technology, idea, etc. but continue to spend their original investment money. I believe this is a good thing as long as the investor(s) still believe in the team.

This appears to me to be a symptom of the increased number of startups being invested in now at even earlier stages. Their are some special considerations that I believe should be addressed during a pivot.

1) Does the investor(s) want to continue to fund the team?

If not, they should be able to exit the relationship.

If they do, should any note or funding round be revised in some fashion?

2) If none of the investors believe in the team or new direction should the entrepreneurs continue on anyway?

This comes down to burning bridges. If the new idea succeeds then the bridge is fine. If it flops then the investors will probably not make good future references.