Starbucks began life as a small chain of coffee shops founded on the principle that consumers would pay extra for a better cup of coffee. As it turns out, a LOT more. It worked. The company created an experiential mystique that enabled them to justify paying outrageous amounts of money for a cuppa joe. (This is a quantitatively provable, as blind taste tests have repeatedly shown that grocery store Folgers beats Starbucks coffee on taste. It’s the perception that Starbucks java is better that let’s them charge out the wazoo.) As a way to keep buns in seats, Starbucks began offering WiFi access. After some experimentation, Starbucks settled on a WiFi provider, and a standardized pricing structure. Another effort to make Starbucks Uber Alles was to put cafes in other retailers, such as Barnes & Noble Booksellers locations. It’s a nice fit – books and coffee. Recently, Starbucks and B&N announced a new policy, offering WiFi access at no charge within every B&N location.

In Shreveport, there’s a Barnes & Noble almost directly across the street (Youree Drive) from a freestanding Starbucks store. You can argue that the ambience is different at the two stores – the freestanding store has a few stuffed chairs, while you have to walk out of the Starbucks and into the B&N store area in order to find a comfortable chair. And of course, the B&N Starbucks has a virtually limitless supply of books and magazines. And free WiFi.

I learned of the WiFi policy disconnect today, when I took my dad to the freestanding Starbucks in search of some java and a change of scenery. It was then that I learned that WiFi access is not free at Starbucks. Well…not at that Starbucks. The one directly across the street has all the free WiFi you can eat, and books to boot.

The net effect is that the freestanding Starbucks has lost a customer, for I value the ability to get online as much as I treasure my beverage du jour. If I can get one for free, I’m gonna beat a path to their door, leaving the freestanding Starbucks one or two customers the poorer. The whole experience makes me wonder, just how long it will take Starbucks to realize how many customers they are alienating by charging for something in Store A, that they are willing to give away in Store B.

If I have a gripe, I suspect it will be with battery life, but that’s only because I’ve been on it so much. Not sure, short of using an OLED screen, what they could do to fix this, but from what I hear, the 3G S is a lot better than the 3G in that respect.

By comparison, at this stage of the game with the Windows Mobile phone, I was busy making excuses for the OS, doing my best to explain away the problems, like some newlywed who’s desperately trying to believe that their spouse is “just a little stressed” and not really abusive.

Ouch.

That leads me to what I think is a huge mistake that Apple and AT&T are making regarding the marketing of the iPhone.

As a user interface architect, I appreciate the value of a good user interface, and understand that the interface is the most important factor, long-term, in how easy your phone is to use, as well as the long-term aggravation factor involved in using it.

The key phrase here is long-term.

You simply cannot make an informed buying decision based on reading about phones, or in a side by side comparison in a few minutes in a store. Just not gonna get it. So here’s what I think they should do.

The iPhone challenge.

If this sounds a lot like the Pepsi Challenge from the late 90s, you’re right. I propose a side-by-side challenge between the leading smartphone OS and devices. Here’s the way it would work…

AT&T stores would host an event. It might be held using a tractor-trailer that would travel aroudn the country, or simply do it in their stores – or perhaps hold it off site, at a hotel meeting room. The stage would be set up with an iPhone, a Palm Pre, a Google Andriod phone, and a Windows Mobile phone. (Did I miss any?) Audience memebers would be asked to volunteer to pilot each of the phones in a competitive situation. They would each be given tasks to complete – with the fastest time judged the winner. One group of users would be novices to their chosen phone, another group would have experience on their platforms. Each “contestant” would have the opportunity to say a few words about what they liked and what they didn’t like about the phone they used.

The event would then finish up with an opportunity for every audience member to get some hands-on time with the phone they like the best. Then they would be given the opportunity to use a reconditioned phone for 30 days, with the option to either return the phone after 30 days or getting a new one. Users would pay only for their airtime minutes – not the phone – for the first 30 days. After that, they’d get to swap the used phone for a new one, or just return it.

After 30 days, I was ready to throw my Windows Mobile phone through a window. I suspect that after 30 days, I’ll be ready to build a shrine for my iPhone.

You see, the thing about the iPhone is that it’s a big committment. Two-year contract. Higher charges for data plan, insurance, et cetera. That is, as they say, a barrier to entry. But it’s worth it, if you’ve ever been saddled with a similar contract for a Windows Mobile phone. The laughable claims that Sprint has made about their “iPhone-killer” phones would evaporate if prospective buyers could get some real time using the phone, and compare it to the iPhone. But it takes more than 5 or 10 minutes in a store. You need real-world use to really understand the iPhone adavantage. The challenge/30-day trial program would accomplish that .

Will AT&T listen? I suspect they won’t. It’s too “out there” of an idea for it to gain traction with the suits. Apple might like it, but when you’re selling as many iPhones as they are right now, I’m not sure they’d see the benefit. But I wish they would – for I wouldn’t wish a Windows Mobile phone on anybody.

I suffered for years as a water-carrier for Windows and All Things Microsoft. I had a late-model Windows Mobile phone, the Sprint/HTC Mogul. Never again. In the final months of my contract, I grew to loathe the phone, refering to it as the “Wagon Queen Family Truckster” of cell phones. You know how when you meet someone and you’re really attracted to them, but they have some obvious personality flaws, tics, or other weirdness, but you tell yourself “it’s okay…I don’t care about that…it won’t matter,” but in time, you can’t think of anything else BUT the annoying flaws? THAT sums up my relationship with the Windows Mobile OS, and, by extension, the Sprint/HTC Mogul. From the 1/2 day battery life, crappy keyboard, and lame 1x service (in Amarillo…don’t believe that 4G BS they’re pushing on TV) to the idiosyncratic operating system (with an emphasis on the “IDIO” part, as in “IDIOT”) that only an uber-geek could love, I’m glad to be rid of that crapalicious excuse for a phone. Two tin cans and some string would have worked better on occasion.

What impresses me so much about the iPhone is that it’s so bloody intuitive, simple, and…fun. The interface doesn’t make you work to do something – it gets out of your way. That’s the way a tool should be…it’s raison d’etre is to make your life easier by working for you. Not in spite of you.

It’s also great to see that Apple’s marketing team doesn’t over-hype the phone. They don’t need to, but it’s nice to see them sell the reality and not the promise.

So count me as one satisfied customer, at least at this stage of the game. The price of admission is still high, but if you want a phone that just works – but does a LOT more than just let you make calls, check out the iPhone. And stay away from anything that says “Windows Mobile” on it. Remember – I did warn you…

Other inventions or innovations are a lot more obvious. You can instantly understand how they will change everything. Today, I learned about one such innovation, and lemme tell you, it’s Katie bar the door time in Telecommunications Land. I speak of the imminent release of Google Voice.

Google. The company that is “this decade’s Microsoft” much like “green” is the new “black” (or more aptly, the new “red” – but I digress). Google is a bloody force of nature in the tech world. Seemingly, there are no markets, no challenges, and certainly no technologies they cannot conquer. You thought their forays into telephony would be limited to the Android O/S and phones? Think again, bunkie. Google Voice is a game-changer in the same vein as Alexander Graham Bell eclipsed two tin cans and a piece of string.

What is Google Voice? It’s a complete re-think of how we use telecommunications, that’s what. And it’s gonna mark a tectonic shift in the markets for land lines, cell phone services, and will effectively free customers from the chains of telephony companies for all time. Sound like it’s too good to be true? Read on, McDuff, and cursed be he that puts you on “Hold”…

First of all, Google Voice will let you pick out a number that will become, forever and for always “your number.” All of your other phones – work, home, cell, you name it – will be able to answer that number – and you’ll have complete control over how it works.

Google Voice will replace your voicemail with a single message service that will allow you to do things you used to be able to do with a mechanical voice messaging machine (remember those?), i.e.: monitor your incoming calls as they come in, and decide if you want to take the call. Even better, your incoming voice message can be customized for each (and if you like, every) person in your contact list. Here’s a biggie: you can actually block specific callers, who’ll get the “We’re sorry…this number is no longer in service” message. (Tell me you haven’t wished for THAT feature once or twice.) And, of course, you’ll also be able to retrieve your messages from any of your phones – or even from the web. Oh, and get your voice messages transcribed automatically, to text. Did I mention that all this is FREE?

There’s more. Go here to see the feature list. I’ll wait.

You back? Good. Okay, now put on your marketing point-of-view goggles, and think about what this is gonna do to the telecommunications landscape. First of all, you’ll never again have to care about a land line or cell number portability. Wanna change carriers – go ahead. Your clients/friends/family will be calling your Google number. Tired of paying out the wazzoo for extras like caller ID, call forwarding, call blocking, et cetera? They’re free with Google Voice. Oh, and all calls within the U.S. are FREE, so forget about paying for long distance ever again. Paying extra fees for landline voicemail? Fergeddaboutit. Tired of telemarketers calling? Block ‘em. Wish you could transfer a call from your cell phone as it starts to run out of juice, to your land line? You got it.

See what I mean? The features they’ve packed into this service are huge. The idea that they’re gonna give them away for free is a game changer, period.

I’d hate to be some AT&T VP in charge of land line service right now. Between getting beaten up on price by Vonage and Via-Talk on one side, the Cable bundle deals on another and now Google on a third, it’s gotta be getting pretty hot in that particular seat.

Now stop and think: what’s Google’s typical “second act,” in every other market they’ve penetrated? That’s right. Mash-ups and third-party add-ons. Imagine a virtual call center made up of hundreds of Google Voice numbers. You see where I”m going with this…if phone equipment and software guys thought the commercial markets were safe, guess again. My guess is that it won’t take more than 18 months for Google to go after commercial voice traffic and call centers. When that happens, you’ll watch call center companies dropping like flies.

Where does this all lead? I dunno. But as far as I can see, it means power to the consumer, one more notch in Google’s belt, and a fervent hope that Google continues to be a corporation that wants to “do good,” and not morph into some kind of online Dr. Evil, bent on world domination. Of course, if you can dominate the world by giving everything away for free, who needs to be evil?

Color me frustrated.

Despite the ads you hear nationwide, where Version brands itself as “most reliable,” AT&T as “largest network with the best signal strength” and Sprint “fastest 3G” – not a one o’ these clowns offer 3G in lil’ ol’ Amarillo. Why? And from a marketing perspective, why bother to spend money on advertising 3G locally, when it’s not available?

The ugly little secret of the cell phone industry, is that 3G = higher infrastructure costs. When you light up a 3G network, customers will use more airtime, to transmit more bits. That means the companies need more capacity out of each cell tower, straining networks that were likely underbuilt in the first place. Higher data use (at 3G speeds) means more dropped calls when you have a network that can barely keep up with demand as it is.

What’s a rich, greedy poor cell phone company to do?

Their answer is a sort of gentlemen’s agreement that nobody needs to light up 3G in what they laughingly call a “secondary” or “tertiary” market, until somebody else does. In other words, I’m not likely to see the little bandwidth indicator go from “1X” to “EV” on my Windows Mobile (accursed piece of crap) cell phone here in the Panhandle any time soon, because neither Altel/Verison nor AT&T want to be the first to light up 3G. Sprint, being the Luddite of the group, will not be the first to the 3G table here, at least not while I use their service. (June – and the end of my indentured servitude contract to Sprint can’t come quickly enough.)

I recently flew to Dallas, then rented a car and drove to Shreveport, some 180 miles away. Dallas, of course, is one of the 10 largest cities/metro areas in the country. Shreveport is…not. While Shreveport is either the second- or third-largest city in Louisiana (depending on the state of New Orleans population), it’s not Dallas. Shreveport is, as far as I was able to determine, totally bereft of 3G service. Sprint showed “1X” my entire time there. Interestingly enough, I had EVDO service (Sprint’s version of 3G) all the way from Dallas to just on the other side of Longview, about 2/3 of the way there. For those of you unfamiliar with the terrain, allow me to illustrate:

View Larger Map

So if Shreveport dwarfs the population of Longview, Marshall, Tyler and all the other stops betwixt Shrevepit and Big D, why does 3G service abruptly end shy of the Texas/Louisiana border?

I dunno. I presume they have the same kind of situation in the town of my birth and childhood that we do up here in Amarillo, i.e.: nobody wants to be first. That begs the question, why advertise 3G locally, when it’s not available.

I chalk it up to a combination of stupidity, laziness, and insensitivity.

You see, most of the cell phone spots you see, are going to run within the national block of programming airtime, even on local stations. But most local viewers aren’t knowledgeable in the ways of advertising to realize that just because they see a spot run on their local CBS/ABC/NBC/Fox/CW affiliate, it doesn’t mean it’s a “local” spot. Add to that the fact that many national brands provide taggable spots to local vendors, and you have a situation where most spots that are run locally advertise whatever the national vendor is pushing. Since that’s 3G at the moment, local yokels see ads for 3G from all sides, even though they can’t get it.

You’d think that Verison, AT&T and the hapless, clueless bunch at Sprint would provide some spots for 3G-less areas, to avoid the problem of advertising something that is not available, whetting the appetite of consumers who will likely be un-sated for some time to come. And you’d be wrong.

I don’t know what these guys are thinking, but when I hear execs from Verison and Sprint brag that they have “all majority of their network” lit up with 3G, it makes me feel as if we’re just not that important to them, in the greater scheme of things.

Think that’s bad? Here’s the REALLY sick, sad world part of this: 3G networks exist in both Amarillo and Shreveport. Yep. That’s right. The hardware and software is there, and functioning. It’s just not turned on. How do I know? They told me. They’ve spent the bucks to upgrade their infrastructure, but because they believe the demand isn’t sufficient for them to make money on it, each network has chosen to keep 3G turned off until one of their competitors turns it on.

This makes for a really stupid situation with AT&T. I’ve been jonesing for an iPhone for some time now. My Sprint contract is up in June (Thank GOD). I’d like to switch. However, the shiny, new 3G iPhones come equipped with a (required) 3G data plan from your friends at the Death Star, a.k.a.: AT&T. But wait, you realize. Why should I pay for 3G service, when it’s not available here. Aye, laddie, that’s the rub. You see, AT&T’s position is that, even if you live in a non 3G area, and don’t travel to places that are graced with 3G service, you might, someday, sometime, be in a place that offers 3G, so you should pay for it, just in case.

Talk about chutzpah.

And of course, AT&T still has an exclusive relationship with Apple’s iPhone, at least for another year or two. After that, I’m sure Version (and Sprint, if they haven’t managed to alienate every customer or prospective customer they’ve ever had and driven themselves out of business) will get the iPhone, version 4 or 5. At that point, you might be able to get a deal on a data plan. Until then, rotsa ruck.

Lost in all this marketing madness is…the customers. I have no desire to pay for something I can’t have. I have no interest in watching ads for products not available to me, especially when there’s no indication as to when – or if – I’ll ever get them. And I’m weary of hearing execs proudly trumpet their “3G coverage statistics” when I’m on the outside, looking in.

Call this one for bad marketing, from an industry who’s most accurate slogans could be “_______ Wireless…we’re marginally not quite as awful as our competition. Seriously.” Now there’s an industry in need of some help, well beyond what marketing can do.

What fools these cell phone companies be.