Search Mailing List Archives
companys at stanford.edu
Thu Mar 21 16:12:59 PDT 2013
Yes. I meant that the superior technical solution could not provide
better branding/usability in my hypothetical example. There are
plenty of examples of superior technologies having great branding.
Case in point is Procter & Gamble, which is successful in part because
it only makes marketing investments in products with superior
technologies because its research has consistently shown that
consumers aren't loyal to a product unless it demonstrates technical
merit in use. In other words, you can persuade people to try your
product, but if it is not technically superior, they will use your
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Brian Conley <brianc at smallworldnews.tv> wrote:
> +1 Yosem, except I take issue with the last point.
> I don't think its always that superior technical solutions *can't* provide
> better branding/usability, its that they choose NOT to, or in the past have
> even demonized anyone who thinks there is value in such things.
> luckily this is changing!
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Yosem Companys <companys at stanford.edu>
>> Rich, that's because you're not thinking like the average non-technical
>> user, who usually does the following:
>> The user hears from a friend that she can make calls for free over Skype.
>> So she clicks on the Skype link. Skype has millions of users, meaning it
>> will be around for a while. The Skype website looks visually attractive,
>> meaning that it must have a lot of developers. More recently, it is owned
>> by Microsoft, which the user trusts for similar reasons. "Most large,
>> stable, visually-striking brands can be trusted," the user thinks. She
>> doesn't think for she doesn't know that "Microsoft has been attacked a lot."
>> Now, the user installs Skype. She clicks through a few steps, easy
>> enough. That's a low barrier to adoption.
>> Next, the user sees all their family and friends on there. "Great," she
>> thinks. "Now I can call that friend who told me to install it."
>> After that, the user reads in a news article that Skype is insecure.
>> "That sucks," she thinks. "But it's not like I do anything confidential on
>> there anyway." Or, perhaps, she thinks, "I haven't done anything wrong, so
>> who cares if I'm being watched. I'm glad the government is looking out for
>> those terrorists."
>> To the extent that the user cares about security, now she needs to figure
>> out what's the best secure alternative out there. But notice what happens:
>> There's no large, established competitor that is secure. Those competitors
>> don't have brands.
>> To the extent that the user finds a secure competitor, say because
>> Consumer Reports published an article on it (for the average non-technical
>> user may not know of EFF), then she might click and check it out. She might
>> ask her family and friends. But their family and friends have never heard
>> of it and, even worse, are not on it.
>> "I care about my security," she may think. "So I will try it anyway." But
>> all the time it gnaws at her that she doesn't know the competitor's name and
>> that she has to take a leap of faith to install it. The company says it's
>> open source. "What the heck does that mean?" She thinks. "What if this
>> company is untrustworthy? What if this company goes under and sells my
>> data? What if..." Too many barriers to adoption.
>> We always think, "let's make the most private and secure solution,"
>> forgetting that users care about many brand attributes that the most
>> superior technical solution can't provide.
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:17:03PM -0400, Louis Su?rez-Potts wrote:
>> >> One is tempted to suggest using other than Skype. Alternatives exist,
>> >> and these are secure, at least according to their claims. As well,
>> >> Skype's code is not transparent, in the way that other, open source,
>> >> applications' are.
>> > I'm more than tempted: I can't understand why anyone would even consider
>> > using Skype. It's closed-source, therefore it must be presumed
>> > insecure.
>> > Nothing Microsoft says about it can be trusted. There is reason to
>> > believe
>> > that it's been successfully attacked by third parties. &etc.
>> > I dunno 'bout y'all, but I think that's enough to blacklist it
>> > permanently.
>> > Done. Over. Next?
>> > ---rsk
>> > --
>> > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
>> > emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at
>> > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
>> emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at
> Brian Conley
> Director, Small World News
> m: 646.285.2046
> Skype: brianjoelconley
> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by
> emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at
More information about the liberationtech