There are products which assume that people are smart (i.e. Google), and those that assume that users need extra guidance (i.e. Yahoo!). The answer is not so simple, but the way a product team preceives their target audience will determine their product's fundamental structure.

The fact that Google won the search wars with a white screen, a text box, and a "Search" button is pretty amazing. It takes tremendous confidence in the imagination, curiosity and comprehension of the average human to go to market with this interface. No tutorials or help screens. Just a text box.

Yahoo! provides a well structured guide to a variety of news, sports, finance and other information. Results of the click-through navigation are therefore more predictable and limited than a Google search result (for better or worse). The fact that Yahoo! generates more unique visitors than Google supports the idea that consumers prefer a practical user interface and structured information.

So who is correct - Yahoo! or Google? Both are hugely popular, but their difference in approaches to navigation and presention of information create a very different user experience. Google's "people are smart" approach takes a little more trial and error in order to produce the data results than Yahoo! the first time you use a service.

The fact that you can simply type in a street address, city and state in Google's search bar in order to find a map is great once you realize how this works. Yahoo! had trained users to first click on the Yahoo! Maps link, then enter the Street Address in the "Street Address" field, the City in the "City" field, and the State abbreviations in the "State" field. Makes sense right? Yet the number of clicks, tabs and data entry to produce same results to generate a map in Yahoo! was hugely more involved than to retrieve a Google map. Now Yahoo! pretty much offers a map the same way as Google, but to my recollection, that was not always the case.

Google seems to appeal to a person's imagination and joy of discovery. There are many times while using different Google technologies, where I may happen on a new technology solution that I had not anticipated or originally was seeking. Google's "points of interest" maps was one of the "wow, cool idea" moments. On the other hand, I prefer Yahoo! for popular information such as sports scores and news updates, as I find Yahoo's homepage easy to click to find mass media information.

Yahoo! does well by providing an intuitive easy, well organized user interface. Without thinking too hard, you can get to the information you need, though it will generally require more user navigation than a Google approach.

Google excels by presenting results based on a best guess thought of what a user would be interested in, rather then expecting the user to specify much of the particulars of what they wish to find. This is part of the Google magic.

The Yahoo! approach is a safer bet, as many consumers may not take the time to learn the clever user interface approaches of a new technology company. As well, the clever user interface tricks may be too complex to be learned.

Everyone has their own answer to the "People are Smart?" question. I am amazed at how intelligent the average human is*, but am also well aware that many consumers are impatient, lazy, distracted and have a tiny attention span. So if you do decide to take the Google approach, it is important that the user experience appeals to a consumers sense of adventure and curiosity long enough to appreciate your cool new approach before they get impatient, frustrated or bored. Back to the "people are smart", I believe that boredom not lack of intelligence is the biggest challenge to overcome when introducing a novel new approach.

* when they are motivated

Product design and development is a give in take between product features and functionality versus simplicity and ease of use. Google, eBay and Apple have thrived by believing that "people are smart" and giving them a reason to use their brains to learn a new way to approach an old problem. Providing these riskier novel approaches are very difficult, and that is why few companies venture and succeed with the "people are smart" approach. Either approach you take, the end goal should be to service and delight your customers, which Yahoo! and Google both continue to do.

Then (Internet): The first killer application of the Internet - email.
Now (Mobile): The first truly robust and addictive mobile application - Blackberry.

Then (Internet): Chat Rooms/Bulletin Boards.
Now (Mobile): Texting.

Then (Internet): Yahoo! for News and Sports.
Now (Mobile): Yahoo! for News and Sports.

The early Internet was confounded by weak browsers (no cookies), slow connections (14.4 Kbps modems), slow computers (pre-Pentium microprocessors), inconvient connectivity (dial-up), and a lack of strong development tools (no Java).

Mobile applications are hindered by weak browsers (no cookies), slow connections, expensive data plans ($20/month), lack of keyboard/mouse, lack of screen real estate, lack of processing power, and lack of memory.

So why am I bullish on mobile commerce? Moore's Law.

The average American consumer has a phone that:
- has minimal memory (10MB)for data storage,
- a tiny 2.2" 176 * 220 pixel screen, and
- has no QUERTY keyboard.
(ex: Motorola RAZR V3 - considered state of the art 2 years ago)

Compare that to the latest and greatest now available:
- 8GB storage,
- 3.5" 480 * 320 pixel screen,
- touch screen for navigation, and
- a touch screen QUERY keyboard system.
(ex: Apple iPhone)

More importantly, smartphone sales in the US grew 165% in the US year-over-year during for the third quarter of 2007. That comprised 11% of all mobile phone sales in the US. Source: http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/11/smartphone-sale.html.

In the next 1-2 years, Moore's Law will deliver us:
- low-cost smartphones,
- robust mobile processing power,
- advanced web-browsers,
- massive data storage, and
- broadband like data connectivity.

Due to the widespead adoption of smartphones, data plans will plummet in price and the mobile web will transition from cutting edge to everyday usage.

It took a while before the web evolved to deliver e-commerce on a significant scale. Today, e-commerce has redefined how Americans shop. Mobile commerce will be equally impactful and will provide consumers with friction-free transactions. A killer mobile-commerce application will have to contend with the inherent limitations of a mobile phone (screen size, keyboard size), and therefore will have to provide a faster simplier shopping experience than a full-fledged e-commerce transaction. Although there has been some success with text messaging based mobile commerce, there is reason to believe that consumers will far prefer a graphical user interface (GUI)-based mobile commerce tranasction.

When was the last time you heard someone long to go back to the days of DOS?

Expect smartphones and GUI-based mobile applications to put text-messaging based mobile commerce solutions out to pasture. Moore's Law is coming to mobile and not a moment too soon.

So is Apple's entry into the space good or bad for GetQuik?

It is too early to tell, but it presents challenges and opportunties. With Apple's presence, the growth in on-line and mobile restaurant transactions will greatly accelerate. Apple will create awareness from consumers and restaurant operators. Additionally, Apple will be landing major deals with large operators such as Starbucks. Restaurants in the US generate over $500 billion in revenues. Of this $500 billion, approximatley $350 billion is spent on casual and quick service dining. The other $150 billion is spent on fine dining. With such a large addressable market comprised of single unit, francisors, regional, and national chains, GetQuik sees an opportunity to take advantage of the PR and awareness Apple creates. There is room for more than one winner in this market. There is a very good chance that Apple with their brains, resources, and passionate user base will make the final cut. The competition to join or beat them will be fierce, and that is why Apple's entry will be interesting. The race is afoot and only the strong will survive.

Happy New Year indeed.

For the record, GetQuik has offered mobile food ordering solutions since May 2007 (J2ME and WAP).