I have used an iPad for a while now. At home, in the office, up and down a few planes (tip: you do not have to take it out of the bag at security, which is nice), at conferences. My iPad is Wi-Fi only. It does not have the 3G option.
Many people have asked me if I will upgrade to the 3G version. My answer? Nope.
First of all, let me ask you this: do you have a smartphone? Do you have a data plan on it? If the answer is no, then it is a different story. But if you are an early adopter (and only early adopters get a device that has been released less then a month ago), you already have a smartphone with a data plan.
Now, the next question is: are you paying for your smartphone data plan? If the answer is no and your daddy is paying for it (or your company), then you might not care. But if you pay for it, what Apple is asking to do is to pay twice. It is $14.99/month for 250MB or $29.99/month for unlimited. On top of your data plan, which - if you have an iPhone on AT&T - is $30/month.
Granted, the iPad data plan is prepaid, so you do not have to buy it every month. You can decide not to pay when you are home and pay when you go on vacation. But does it make sense? Only an idiot goes on vacation with an iPad (guilty as charged :-) And when you taste 3G... you won't live without it, and you will pay every month.
Ok, let me ask another question: when do you think you are going to use the iPad with 3G? Not at home or in the office. Not at the coffee place (they have wi-fi). Not at the airport (same as before). Not on the plane (you have to turn it off anyway, and if they allow you to connect, that will be wi-fi).
So, when do you need 3G? When you walk down the street? With a thing that does not fit in your pocket?? Taking it out of your bag to check maps and walk around with the device in your hands (it is heavy after a while, even if it is light...)? Didn't you say you had a smartphone and you could do that with it?
Ok, I get it. On the train! Unless they have wi-fi, of course. And unless you are in the US (and you know how to drive :-))
Honestly, if you are like me and you have a smartphone, the need for 3G on the iPad is limited. In a month of use, I had the need only once: I was in an airport that charged a fortune for wi-fi, and my daughter really wanted to buy a stable on WeRule (very addictive online game...). I could have paid for wi-fi, though...
Or maybe one day I will need to buy a book online on the bus to the airport. Or on a cab. Or in a bar with no wi-fi. Or at the stadium (not where the Giants play, there is wi-fi there...).
My answer for these extreme cases? Tether it to your smartphone. It has 3G already, and you are paying for a data plan. Make them talk and you are good to go.
The issue is that the iPad has only wi-fi. So you need your smartphone to create a wi-fi hotspot the iPad can use, you connect to it and your phone bridges the network to 3G. BTW, this works also for your laptop, so it is an added benefit, in case you are traveling with your laptop and the iPad.
The problem is that the carriers do not like it... It sucks too much data off their network. They will prevent this from happening as much as they can.
What are your options? It depends on your device. In any case, using any of the solutions below means breaking the contract you have signed with your carrier... I am not giving you advice to do this, do it at your own risk and peril. If they catch you, they could make you pay or, most likely, shut you down.
iPhone: I use mywi. It works like a charm. It is $9.99 and it requires you to jailbreak your iPhone (I told you, AT&T does not like it). There are other ways to do it, but this is the simplest.
Android: you have to root your phone (same as jailbreaking for the iPhone), then get the Barnacle Wifi Tether app from the Market. Also, there are some mods that have tethering installed. One that I would like to try out, when I find some time to do it, is putting the HTC Sense UI on my Nexus One.
Symbian: I haven't tried it personally, but I am told that JoikuSpot works well.
Palm: WebOS is the only OS I know that allows you to do it legally, simply because Verizon is nice. Actually, they might just be desperate (Palm) or not believe they will sell many (Verizon), but since the beginning of April you can now get Mobile Hotspot for free (it was $40/month...). On Sprint, you are out of luck (sorry...) since they are pushing MiFi (see below).
BlackBerry: I looked around but I could not find anything. And my Curve does not even have wi-fi, so I cannot try it anyway... If you have a solution, feel free to add it in the comments.
Windows Mobile: I do not care anymore, I use mine only for demos. I am waiting for WinMo 7, so should you.
What if you do not want to root, jailbreak, or do anything illegal? You can always buy a MiFi from Sprint. It is free with rebates, but you still need a data plan... If you are not planning to tether your laptop as well (or your wife's iPad), you are back to square zero.
And, BTW, it is only for emergencies, so you can actually survive without tethering...
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
The enterprise does not matter anymore in IT
If you have been around in IT for long enough, you must remember how technology decisions were made in the past: first, the Enterprise would adopt a technology, then it would trickle down to consumers.
Apple tried to break this cycle, pushing the Mac in the consumer world, just to be crushed by Microsoft. The enterprise adopted the PC, Windows ended up in consumer homes, game over.
If you look at what is happening now, thanks to mobile, it is exactly the opposite.
The enterprise is pushing Windows Mobile? Consumer buy iPhones, bring them into the enterprise, and the IT Manager has to suck it up and build an infrastructure to support the iPhone. The CEO ego is bigger than any policy...
One more evidence? Look at the master of the enterprise software: Microsoft. They built an enterprise mobile operating system. They had a large market share there (second to BlackBerry). They started losing it fast, then they shelved the entire Windows Mobile 6.x strategy. In favor of a purely consumer-centric operating system, Windows Mobile 7. They went all the way, throwing away years of applications built by enterprises. Pissing off every IT Manager in the world.
Does it make sense? Of course, because now consumers make choices, and the enterprise does not matter anymore. The IT Manager has to take what others bring in the door.
This is not a small change. For now, this is limited to mobile phones. But it is starting to move fairly quickly to netbooks and the iPad. Who is not betting on your fancy CEO using the iPad to ready his/her email? What is going to be the result? Yep, the IT Manager supporting the iPad.
If you want to build a large company in software, you have to target the consumer space first. The enterprise will just follow. The world has changed. Mobile changes everything.
Apple tried to break this cycle, pushing the Mac in the consumer world, just to be crushed by Microsoft. The enterprise adopted the PC, Windows ended up in consumer homes, game over.
If you look at what is happening now, thanks to mobile, it is exactly the opposite.
The enterprise is pushing Windows Mobile? Consumer buy iPhones, bring them into the enterprise, and the IT Manager has to suck it up and build an infrastructure to support the iPhone. The CEO ego is bigger than any policy...
One more evidence? Look at the master of the enterprise software: Microsoft. They built an enterprise mobile operating system. They had a large market share there (second to BlackBerry). They started losing it fast, then they shelved the entire Windows Mobile 6.x strategy. In favor of a purely consumer-centric operating system, Windows Mobile 7. They went all the way, throwing away years of applications built by enterprises. Pissing off every IT Manager in the world.
Does it make sense? Of course, because now consumers make choices, and the enterprise does not matter anymore. The IT Manager has to take what others bring in the door.
This is not a small change. For now, this is limited to mobile phones. But it is starting to move fairly quickly to netbooks and the iPad. Who is not betting on your fancy CEO using the iPad to ready his/her email? What is going to be the result? Yep, the IT Manager supporting the iPad.
If you want to build a large company in software, you have to target the consumer space first. The enterprise will just follow. The world has changed. Mobile changes everything.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Android is evil, but not for the cloud
Few days ago, Andreas Constantinou posted on the VisionMobile blog an intriguing question: Is Android Evil? As usual, I liked the post. And I loved even more the comments (you should read them, in particular if you are thinking about starting a blog ;-)
His final response?
For developers, Android being open source is marginal (what counts are APIs, even if the OS is closed). However, I was told by my engineers that they were able to build Android apps faster, because - whenever they had a problem understanding how the APIs were supposed to work (docs usually suck, it is a law of software) - they could look at the original code. That works only if your source code is public.
For OEMs, Android is evil. However, there is an area that I believe Andreas is not focusing on. Something both the OEMs and the carriers are doing: leave the OS alone, build applications on top that interact with the cloud (but NOT the Google cloud).
This is the most interesting area today on a mobile phone. Anything below the surface is boring and does not add any differentiation. The Home Screen is king. Services tight to the cloud are the queen.
MOTOBLUR is a good example. Android is left untouched, everything look the same (including the Market). But the Home Screen is different. It is connected to the cloud. It delivers social networks updates. It presents a social address book.
We are seeing more and more device manufacturer approaching us to add Funambol as an additional sync engine on Android. One that works in parallel with the existing Google Sync engine. However, instead of delivering your address book and pictures to the Google servers, it syncs them to the Funambol server, inside the carrier network. It is "Android without Google".
It is the power of an open OS, although it could be done with a closed one too: HTC was able to do it on Windows Mobile, although it seems Microsoft won't allow any changes to Windows Mobile 7 (are they really sure Apple is the model to follow?).
Android being open guarantees it will be always possible. If you consider how you differentiate on a mobile device as an OEM or a carrier, having the ability to take over the Home Screen and the cloud services attached to it is HUGE.
Google has created Android to maximize their cloud services and ad revenues. However, they have left the door open to strip out just the cloud services part... Definitely not evil.
His final response?
[There are] the two types of ecosystems in mobile: the pre-load and the post-load ecosystem.
- The pre-load ecosystem (aka 2nd parties) is made up of handset manufacturers, operators/carriers and their 350-400 trusted software suppliers and integrators. These are the guys shipping, marketing and supporting phones.
- The post-load ecosystem (aka 3rd parties) is made up of software developers who can download the source code, SDK or get a developer-edition phone without signing any NDAs (and usually) not paying any access fees.
[..]
The Android pre-load ecosystem is closed (as per my 8 control points), while the post-load ecosystem (the 3rd party developers) is totally open – and indeed more open than any other operating system in the history of the mobile industryOverall, I believe Andreas' analysis to be fair. I do not think Google is a great open source citizen. I never believed it. They give what they want to give, and keep what they want to keep. They are a corporation built on a very closed IP. They will use open source when is useful for them. Period.
For developers, Android being open source is marginal (what counts are APIs, even if the OS is closed). However, I was told by my engineers that they were able to build Android apps faster, because - whenever they had a problem understanding how the APIs were supposed to work (docs usually suck, it is a law of software) - they could look at the original code. That works only if your source code is public.
For OEMs, Android is evil. However, there is an area that I believe Andreas is not focusing on. Something both the OEMs and the carriers are doing: leave the OS alone, build applications on top that interact with the cloud (but NOT the Google cloud).
This is the most interesting area today on a mobile phone. Anything below the surface is boring and does not add any differentiation. The Home Screen is king. Services tight to the cloud are the queen.
MOTOBLUR is a good example. Android is left untouched, everything look the same (including the Market). But the Home Screen is different. It is connected to the cloud. It delivers social networks updates. It presents a social address book.
We are seeing more and more device manufacturer approaching us to add Funambol as an additional sync engine on Android. One that works in parallel with the existing Google Sync engine. However, instead of delivering your address book and pictures to the Google servers, it syncs them to the Funambol server, inside the carrier network. It is "Android without Google".
It is the power of an open OS, although it could be done with a closed one too: HTC was able to do it on Windows Mobile, although it seems Microsoft won't allow any changes to Windows Mobile 7 (are they really sure Apple is the model to follow?).
Android being open guarantees it will be always possible. If you consider how you differentiate on a mobile device as an OEM or a carrier, having the ability to take over the Home Screen and the cloud services attached to it is HUGE.
Google has created Android to maximize their cloud services and ad revenues. However, they have left the door open to strip out just the cloud services part... Definitely not evil.
Friday, April 16, 2010
What is Apple thinking with iAds?
Of all the things Steve Jobs talked about during his announcement of iPhone 4.0 OS, only one deserved his full enthusiasm: iAds. Those who have seen this live will tell you that his energy levels were at level high only when he talked about ads (here is the video).
Why is iAds significant?
The first easy answer is: it is Apple's answer to Google, they hate them now, Google stole AdMob from them, and they declared war on the #1 revenue stream Google has (and the only one: keep in mind how diversified Apple's portfolio is compared to Google).
Sure, that is key, but I believe there is more. To understand this, you must see the presentation and the ads they showed. Check this video. Again, do not read anything else in this post without watching the video.
Jobs says: "the same as a television show", but better because we are adding interactivity on top of the emotions.
When I looked at mobile ads as a business model for Funambol, my first instinct was to consider mobile an extension of the Internet.
On the Internet, you have transactional advertising, where the goal is to have you buy something. It is the business Google is built on. Click on an ugly banner or even text link, jump to a page and do something. The ad is a teaser to get you someplace else, a place you were looking for (you searched for it). Forget where you were. It is the same model used in newspapers (call this number for a super discount on a trip to Hawaii, and drop your newspaper). No wonder newspapers are dying and all that money is flowing to online advertising (note: TV is not dying).
Most people thought mobile will be the Internet on steroids. Not only you could jump somewhere, but you could also be physically close to that store. Because you are mobile.
If you look at TV, the model is different. It is branding, not transactional. They want you to remember their brand, not to leave your couch. TV ads are all about emotions. Videos, stories. They work wonders, although they are hard to quantify (but, once again, they work, look at the number of Droid sold by Verizon because of the campaign they built: no surprise it is the most used Android phone). Branding works the same on billboards and magazines.
Now, let's go back to mobile. When I asked Ujjal, one of my advisors, about mobile ads he told me: "I know everyone is convinced mobile ads are going to be transactional, but I think it will be branding instead". He told me the mobile device was not a good medium to do things (like buying stuff) because of the size, and location where you would be looking at the ad (in a parking lot). Yes, you might buy a book on a mobile phone (or a wallpaper, or another mobile app) but it stops there. You won't buy a mortgage in your parking lot, and that's where a lot of transactional advertising comes from...
Now I believe Ujjal is right. And I believe iAds is the start of the explosion of mobile advertising. I think transactional mobile ads will be linked only to Maps (and Google has a big lead there, so I am not saying they will be dead, at all). But in apps, it will be all branding.
What is iAds? Branding, with interactivity. "The same as a television show". But better.
Will the barber shop down the road have this ads? No way. It is the traditional brands, those that use the vast majority of their budget on TV ads. Where the real money is.
It is the TV money coming to mobile. Something that will generate a lot of revenues for developers, if the ads are properly targeted (and, believe me, they will: Apple will make sure they will). Something that will lock developers even more on the iPhone/iPad platforms. Why moving to Android when the billions of ads are flowing to the Apple platforms and you can make a ton of money? If money is made with Maps in Android, what is in store for developers? Nada, it is all dollars for Google, not for developers.
If the iPad is the future of computing (in the home, at least), and the Internet becomes a subset of the Mobile Internet, iAds could become the dominant force of advertising. Add interactive TV and it is game over.
Why is iAds significant?
The first easy answer is: it is Apple's answer to Google, they hate them now, Google stole AdMob from them, and they declared war on the #1 revenue stream Google has (and the only one: keep in mind how diversified Apple's portfolio is compared to Google).
Sure, that is key, but I believe there is more. To understand this, you must see the presentation and the ads they showed. Check this video. Again, do not read anything else in this post without watching the video.
Jobs says: "the same as a television show", but better because we are adding interactivity on top of the emotions.
When I looked at mobile ads as a business model for Funambol, my first instinct was to consider mobile an extension of the Internet.
On the Internet, you have transactional advertising, where the goal is to have you buy something. It is the business Google is built on. Click on an ugly banner or even text link, jump to a page and do something. The ad is a teaser to get you someplace else, a place you were looking for (you searched for it). Forget where you were. It is the same model used in newspapers (call this number for a super discount on a trip to Hawaii, and drop your newspaper). No wonder newspapers are dying and all that money is flowing to online advertising (note: TV is not dying).
Most people thought mobile will be the Internet on steroids. Not only you could jump somewhere, but you could also be physically close to that store. Because you are mobile.
If you look at TV, the model is different. It is branding, not transactional. They want you to remember their brand, not to leave your couch. TV ads are all about emotions. Videos, stories. They work wonders, although they are hard to quantify (but, once again, they work, look at the number of Droid sold by Verizon because of the campaign they built: no surprise it is the most used Android phone). Branding works the same on billboards and magazines.
Now, let's go back to mobile. When I asked Ujjal, one of my advisors, about mobile ads he told me: "I know everyone is convinced mobile ads are going to be transactional, but I think it will be branding instead". He told me the mobile device was not a good medium to do things (like buying stuff) because of the size, and location where you would be looking at the ad (in a parking lot). Yes, you might buy a book on a mobile phone (or a wallpaper, or another mobile app) but it stops there. You won't buy a mortgage in your parking lot, and that's where a lot of transactional advertising comes from...
Now I believe Ujjal is right. And I believe iAds is the start of the explosion of mobile advertising. I think transactional mobile ads will be linked only to Maps (and Google has a big lead there, so I am not saying they will be dead, at all). But in apps, it will be all branding.
What is iAds? Branding, with interactivity. "The same as a television show". But better.
Will the barber shop down the road have this ads? No way. It is the traditional brands, those that use the vast majority of their budget on TV ads. Where the real money is.
It is the TV money coming to mobile. Something that will generate a lot of revenues for developers, if the ads are properly targeted (and, believe me, they will: Apple will make sure they will). Something that will lock developers even more on the iPhone/iPad platforms. Why moving to Android when the billions of ads are flowing to the Apple platforms and you can make a ton of money? If money is made with Maps in Android, what is in store for developers? Nada, it is all dollars for Google, not for developers.
If the iPad is the future of computing (in the home, at least), and the Internet becomes a subset of the Mobile Internet, iAds could become the dominant force of advertising. Add interactive TV and it is game over.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
When Apple became Microsoft
I have been following the debate around section 3.3.1 of the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement. With the release of iPhone OS 4 SDK, Apple added one little paragraph that says:
One little sentence that kills any cross-platform development in mobile, and not just that, because the iPad is a home device. It is clearly aimed at Adobe and at the possibility of building Flash applications that would run on multiple devices (e.g. the Flash-to-iPhone compiler). As a byproduct, this might mean the kiss-of-death for companies like Appcelerator, although I really hope not because they are a cool team. Our about-to-be-released Mobile 2.0 Framework, instead, will definitely be ok (which is nice to hear).
It is interesting to look at the situation between Apple and Adobe. In my opinion, Adobe would not exist without Apple, because their initial traction was all on Macs (starting with Photoshop). And initial traction is everything. Then they decided to drop Apple and make Windows their main target platform (how to blame them?), pissing off Steve Jobs for good. This seems payback time. But I do not buy the argument that Steve Jobs is just a crazy maniac on a vengeance. There is way more to this story than personalities.
Let's go back to the desktop world: Apple had a superior platform but Microsoft took off faster: they had a better model, for that market, where being vertically integrated meant being different, and a niche... All developers built apps for Windows because they had a larger market share, leaving crumbles for the Mac (it happened with Adobe too...). With crumbles, I mean they built first on Windows with Microsoft tools, then - with the few remaining employees - they built also on Mac. They had 90% of their developers on Windows, 10% on the Mac (since the tools to develop were so different, you had to have a separate team with separate skills). The result: sub-par apps on the Mac, bringing even less consumers to adopt it.
Now, let's take a look at this new world of mobile (which, again, includes pads and it is likely to take over the desktop, excluding maybe inside the enterprise).
Who has the lead here? Apple, by a large margin.
What are developers doing now? Building iPhone/iPad apps first. Their teams are 90% iPhone, 10% Android (some have not even started any Android development).
How does Apple become Microsoft in mobile? Simple, just making sure this does not change. That developers build first iPhone apps, then they look at other platforms. Keep in mind that Objective-C (the language to build apps on iPhone) is way different than Java (the language to build apps on Android). You need a complete separate team to build for Android. You cannot move resources from one to another easily. There is an implicit barrier to entry and a very large cost, which pays off only if there is a large market to target (which is not there on Android, yet).
The only way around this? Cross-compiling platforms, which would allow developers to build one app and run it on both iPhone and Android. One developer team. One skill (Flash, for example).
That is what Apple just killed.
Now you can't do it. You need two teams. You will have to build first for iPhone/iPad (with Apple tools, which will make the apps better), then you can look at the other platforms. With the remaining developers you might not even have.
If this works as Apple hopes, the result will be better apps for iPhone/iPad, less apps and with lower quality for any other platform, which eventually will mean more consumers on iPhone/iPad and less on anything else. I have seen this before.
Apple is the Microsoft of mobile. And they are not going to let go that easy.
The solution, once again, is the web. What broke that Microsoft/Apple/Linux/Unix development tools craziness were web tools. The only way out of this are HTML, Javascript, CSS. Ajax is the solution. HTML5 eventually will win. But only if you can map it on native apps. Stay tuned, this is exactly what is going to happen.
Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited
One little sentence that kills any cross-platform development in mobile, and not just that, because the iPad is a home device. It is clearly aimed at Adobe and at the possibility of building Flash applications that would run on multiple devices (e.g. the Flash-to-iPhone compiler). As a byproduct, this might mean the kiss-of-death for companies like Appcelerator, although I really hope not because they are a cool team. Our about-to-be-released Mobile 2.0 Framework, instead, will definitely be ok (which is nice to hear).
It is interesting to look at the situation between Apple and Adobe. In my opinion, Adobe would not exist without Apple, because their initial traction was all on Macs (starting with Photoshop). And initial traction is everything. Then they decided to drop Apple and make Windows their main target platform (how to blame them?), pissing off Steve Jobs for good. This seems payback time. But I do not buy the argument that Steve Jobs is just a crazy maniac on a vengeance. There is way more to this story than personalities.
Let's go back to the desktop world: Apple had a superior platform but Microsoft took off faster: they had a better model, for that market, where being vertically integrated meant being different, and a niche... All developers built apps for Windows because they had a larger market share, leaving crumbles for the Mac (it happened with Adobe too...). With crumbles, I mean they built first on Windows with Microsoft tools, then - with the few remaining employees - they built also on Mac. They had 90% of their developers on Windows, 10% on the Mac (since the tools to develop were so different, you had to have a separate team with separate skills). The result: sub-par apps on the Mac, bringing even less consumers to adopt it.
Now, let's take a look at this new world of mobile (which, again, includes pads and it is likely to take over the desktop, excluding maybe inside the enterprise).
Who has the lead here? Apple, by a large margin.
What are developers doing now? Building iPhone/iPad apps first. Their teams are 90% iPhone, 10% Android (some have not even started any Android development).
How does Apple become Microsoft in mobile? Simple, just making sure this does not change. That developers build first iPhone apps, then they look at other platforms. Keep in mind that Objective-C (the language to build apps on iPhone) is way different than Java (the language to build apps on Android). You need a complete separate team to build for Android. You cannot move resources from one to another easily. There is an implicit barrier to entry and a very large cost, which pays off only if there is a large market to target (which is not there on Android, yet).
The only way around this? Cross-compiling platforms, which would allow developers to build one app and run it on both iPhone and Android. One developer team. One skill (Flash, for example).
That is what Apple just killed.
Now you can't do it. You need two teams. You will have to build first for iPhone/iPad (with Apple tools, which will make the apps better), then you can look at the other platforms. With the remaining developers you might not even have.
If this works as Apple hopes, the result will be better apps for iPhone/iPad, less apps and with lower quality for any other platform, which eventually will mean more consumers on iPhone/iPad and less on anything else. I have seen this before.
Apple is the Microsoft of mobile. And they are not going to let go that easy.
The solution, once again, is the web. What broke that Microsoft/Apple/Linux/Unix development tools craziness were web tools. The only way out of this are HTML, Javascript, CSS. Ajax is the solution. HTML5 eventually will win. But only if you can map it on native apps. Stay tuned, this is exactly what is going to happen.
Friday, April 09, 2010
Apple opens up: Open Source at work
It has been an interesting five days for Apple, and myself. It developed in three parts.
Part I
I received my iPad on Saturday. I followed the package from China (back) to Silicon Valley on the UPS site, daily. On Friday, I thought it would not make it on time. On Saturday, I kept looking out of the window to see the UPS truck. It arrived at midday. I opened it up, downloaded the Funambol app and synced all my contacts. It worked flawlessly. A big smile on my face.
I played with the device for days, brought it on a plane, used it on the couch, the bed, out in full sunlight. My conclusion is the same of when I first heard about it: it is a home desktop replacement. Something that makes total sense inside your home. The future of computing for the non-geeks, the other 99% of the population.
It is phenomenal for entertainment. Videos are great: I both rented a movie and "found" one divx movie online, converted and synced. Photos look awesome. I bought a book and it is nice to read in bed, without turning on the light (my wife appreciates it). It is the ultimate gaming machine: we downloaded WeRule and my daughter is still harvesting crops, every morning. I read the NYT after breakfast and I do not miss the paper a bit (heck, I finish reading and my fingers are not black from ink, that should count).
It is ok for everything else. Typing is ok, but I missed my keyboard badly. It is fine to write a short sentence on an iPhone, but with that large thing in your hands, you wish you could write longer emails (and the email app is so-so). The address book up is uninspiring (while the calendar is very nice).
It is bad for off-line use (even if you have 3G). All apps sort of sync but not enough. On the plane, you can see only the last 50 emails (you can push it to 200), and that is the time I use to catch up with my Inbox. Most apps are unusable without a connection. It is bad in sunlight: you simply can't read it. And I found myself wiping off finger prints three times a day.
Again, my conclusion is that it is phenomenal in the house. Best for entertainment. Enough for most non-geek users as their main connected "computer". Not really well suited for power users to be their main device. Not meant to be mainly carried around, although I would do it anyway because it is good enough.
Overall, the iPad is a platform with enormous potential, and definitely the future of home computing. It is going to have a large market, moving from niche to niche.
Part II
Now, here you have the second part of the week: I got depressed... We could not develop anything on it. We have a contacts app, which is kinda useless standalone. We could not have access to the calendar, because it was not in the API. Or the pictures. Apple blocked access to everything that matters to Funambol.
I had the future of computing in my hands and I could not develop anything useful on it.
For months, we had an internal debate: we should implement ActiveSync, pay Microsoft royalties and ask the user to create a fake Exchange account to sync contacts and calendar; we should implement CalDAV and ask the user to download our app for contacts, then guide him/her to set up a completely separate CalDAV account. We debated and the conclusion was always the same: it does not make any sense. The user will get confused. It is so much work for such a crappy experience. We are not developing software for geeks, we are doing it for the other 99%.
I told everyone that Apple will eventually get it. That they will open their APIs. That they will feel the pressure of open source, from Android, to Symbian, to Meego.
Honestly, I was not believing it myself anymore. I got even more depressed.
Part III
Yesterday, the unthinkable happened. Apple announced the iPhone 4.0 OS. Christmas came for Easter. Santa brought APIs for calendar and pictures. Apple gave us access to everything we needed.
Problem solved (the community has already developed a calendar sync app, it just works only on jailbroken devices), life is good. We can build the transparent cloud syncing service for the masses, including all those iPhone, iPod, iPad users.
How happy does it make me? Very. I got lucky. Again. Someone somewhere seems to be cheering for me.
Or maybe, it is just the power of open source at work. It has happened before, it is happening now. You get three open source products competing with you, and they force you to change. Apple could not alienate developers any longer (I was alienated, my team was alienated, we were all cheering for Android ;-) Just when I felt they were about to lose us for good, they got us back. It is not an open source platform (yet), but it is open enough. Let's build on it.
Another wall has crashed down. Go open source, let's keep doing it until there are no walls (hint: the next big one is open cloud).
Part I
I received my iPad on Saturday. I followed the package from China (back) to Silicon Valley on the UPS site, daily. On Friday, I thought it would not make it on time. On Saturday, I kept looking out of the window to see the UPS truck. It arrived at midday. I opened it up, downloaded the Funambol app and synced all my contacts. It worked flawlessly. A big smile on my face.
I played with the device for days, brought it on a plane, used it on the couch, the bed, out in full sunlight. My conclusion is the same of when I first heard about it: it is a home desktop replacement. Something that makes total sense inside your home. The future of computing for the non-geeks, the other 99% of the population.
It is phenomenal for entertainment. Videos are great: I both rented a movie and "found" one divx movie online, converted and synced. Photos look awesome. I bought a book and it is nice to read in bed, without turning on the light (my wife appreciates it). It is the ultimate gaming machine: we downloaded WeRule and my daughter is still harvesting crops, every morning. I read the NYT after breakfast and I do not miss the paper a bit (heck, I finish reading and my fingers are not black from ink, that should count).
It is ok for everything else. Typing is ok, but I missed my keyboard badly. It is fine to write a short sentence on an iPhone, but with that large thing in your hands, you wish you could write longer emails (and the email app is so-so). The address book up is uninspiring (while the calendar is very nice).
It is bad for off-line use (even if you have 3G). All apps sort of sync but not enough. On the plane, you can see only the last 50 emails (you can push it to 200), and that is the time I use to catch up with my Inbox. Most apps are unusable without a connection. It is bad in sunlight: you simply can't read it. And I found myself wiping off finger prints three times a day.
Again, my conclusion is that it is phenomenal in the house. Best for entertainment. Enough for most non-geek users as their main connected "computer". Not really well suited for power users to be their main device. Not meant to be mainly carried around, although I would do it anyway because it is good enough.
Overall, the iPad is a platform with enormous potential, and definitely the future of home computing. It is going to have a large market, moving from niche to niche.
Part II
Now, here you have the second part of the week: I got depressed... We could not develop anything on it. We have a contacts app, which is kinda useless standalone. We could not have access to the calendar, because it was not in the API. Or the pictures. Apple blocked access to everything that matters to Funambol.
I had the future of computing in my hands and I could not develop anything useful on it.
For months, we had an internal debate: we should implement ActiveSync, pay Microsoft royalties and ask the user to create a fake Exchange account to sync contacts and calendar; we should implement CalDAV and ask the user to download our app for contacts, then guide him/her to set up a completely separate CalDAV account. We debated and the conclusion was always the same: it does not make any sense. The user will get confused. It is so much work for such a crappy experience. We are not developing software for geeks, we are doing it for the other 99%.
I told everyone that Apple will eventually get it. That they will open their APIs. That they will feel the pressure of open source, from Android, to Symbian, to Meego.
Honestly, I was not believing it myself anymore. I got even more depressed.
Part III
Yesterday, the unthinkable happened. Apple announced the iPhone 4.0 OS. Christmas came for Easter. Santa brought APIs for calendar and pictures. Apple gave us access to everything we needed.
Problem solved (the community has already developed a calendar sync app, it just works only on jailbroken devices), life is good. We can build the transparent cloud syncing service for the masses, including all those iPhone, iPod, iPad users.
How happy does it make me? Very. I got lucky. Again. Someone somewhere seems to be cheering for me.
Or maybe, it is just the power of open source at work. It has happened before, it is happening now. You get three open source products competing with you, and they force you to change. Apple could not alienate developers any longer (I was alienated, my team was alienated, we were all cheering for Android ;-) Just when I felt they were about to lose us for good, they got us back. It is not an open source platform (yet), but it is open enough. Let's build on it.
Another wall has crashed down. Go open source, let's keep doing it until there are no walls (hint: the next big one is open cloud).
Friday, April 02, 2010
Simplicity is the simple answer
You hear a lot about the iPad these days. I am getting mine tomorrow and I will bring it on the road with me, so I will know more soon.
For now, let me comment on one simple thing: simplicity.
Apple is a master at making things simple. I know if you are a geek you do not like it. You like complexity. Sense of power. Ability to be root. Emacs is a dream, with its easy-to-guess Control-x Control-c command to exit the application.
But if you are like the rest of them (I am a geek), they don't. I know, I know, the usual example of my mother is boring. But she is using a computer today and she is scared of it. And if you married a geek, good for you (I did, but she is not into computers). Most of them did not marry a geek. And their spouse do not like computers. Our kids look at technology and devices as tools. They do not need to go deep, they just want them to work (until they grow up and become geeks too).
Geeks do not get simplicity. But the vast majority of users just do.
Let me give you an example. Instructions on the Google site on how to add a Gmail shortcut on the homepage of your smartphone.
Why will people like the iPad? It is simple.
For now, let me comment on one simple thing: simplicity.
Apple is a master at making things simple. I know if you are a geek you do not like it. You like complexity. Sense of power. Ability to be root. Emacs is a dream, with its easy-to-guess Control-x Control-c command to exit the application.
But if you are like the rest of them (I am a geek), they don't. I know, I know, the usual example of my mother is boring. But she is using a computer today and she is scared of it. And if you married a geek, good for you (I did, but she is not into computers). Most of them did not marry a geek. And their spouse do not like computers. Our kids look at technology and devices as tools. They do not need to go deep, they just want them to work (until they grow up and become geeks too).
Geeks do not get simplicity. But the vast majority of users just do.
Let me give you an example. Instructions on the Google site on how to add a Gmail shortcut on the homepage of your smartphone.
On Android devices:Can you notice a difference? I do. And it is for Gmail - a Google product - on Android - a Google product.
1. In the browser, go to Gmail (be sure you've signed in)
2. Press your device's < Menu > button
3. Select More
4. Select Bookmark page and select OK
5. Press your device's < Home > button, then press the < Menu > button
6. Select Add > Shortcut > Bookmark
7. Find 'Gmail' and select it
8. A new Gmail icon appears on your home screen
On iPhone devices:
1. In Safari, go to Gmail (be sure you've signed in)
2. Tap the + at the bottom of the screen
3. Select Add to Home Screen
4. Tap Add to confirm
5. A new Gmail icon appears on your home screen
Why will people like the iPad? It is simple.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Android: fragmentation is innovation, bit it could kill you
Every time open source is in play, the risk of fragmentation is visible. If the code is out there and every hacker in the world has access to it, what prevents a fork? What prevents the original code to have 50 variations?
Nothing prevents it. It happens. But it happens less often than you might think.
First of all, most of the forks die. If there is a company behind a project, they die faster. Not because the fork is bad. It is just that the volume of development is so significant, the original developers stay with the main branch and the brand is attached to the original code (open source commercial projects protect the brand through trademark, so there is very little a fork can do to claim they are the original).
Forks ultimately die because they do not get enough traction, the developers get depressed, the fork gets stale. It is a vicious negative spiral.
If a few fork survive, the result - in most cases - is innovation. "Fragmentation is innovation", as Sean Moss-Pultz once said. I know many people out there believe the opposite, but think about it: if a fork includes smart ideas, and the open source license requires the code to be visible to the public, would you not expect the original project to embed them over time? Yes, me too.
Sometimes, the original project gets stale, there is no innovation, developers get bored, and they fork. Therefore, innovating. The developers of the original project wake up, improve their code, absorb some of the changes in the forks, and regain control. The result: a better product. More innovation. Nothing bad, something actually very good.
Now, let's look at Android. Any real forks out there? Yes, one from China Mobile. It might get actually successful, and I am sure the Google people are pissed at it. But it could generate a lot of good ideas, that they can embed in their project (assuming the not-invented-here mentality does not pervade the Google campus ;-) Overall, I do not believe it will be a major problem for Google.
It is China Mobile that has a problem: they need to keep the new OS compatible to the Android main branch. If they don't, all apps that are developed for Android will not work on their phone. The final result in my opinion? They won't make it. It is too difficult. They will create a China-only operating system, used by Chinese people, with apps developed by Chinese developers for the domestic market only. A missed opportunity for developers (although that market is big...). A sign of China refusing globalization and fighting Google and the US as a whole. A losing proposition, but nothing that would kill Android in the rest of the world, actually only hurting Chinese developers trying to export their good stuff.
So, is there a real problem with Android? Yes, but it is internal. The real fragmentation, so far, has been created by Google itself. They have released way too many operating system version, too fast. 1.x is not compatible with 2.x, in most cases. So much that our community client was built on 1.x, but for our commercial product we chose only 2.x. The effort of supporting two different clients was too much (hint: if you have an Android 2.x, check the Android Market for Funambol. It is an amazing client).
Was Google wrong at releasing so fast so often? I believe not. I believe they have been right. At the beginning of the cycle, you need to move fast, catching up with the competition. When the product is mature (they are almost there), you can start to slow down. In a year, nobody will remember Android 1.x or the G1 (a.k.a. the garage door opener).
Now it is time for Android to slow down. The next two Android releases, Froyo and Gingerbread (yep, what were you expecting after Cupcakes, Donuts, and Eclairs?), are going to be way more backward compatible than the initial ones. I am very sure about it. Most likely, they will change very little of the core or SDK, moving their apps on the Market (Maps, Gmail, Talk, Voice, Goggles, Gesture Search and so on) and making sure they work across all versions.
Google can afford external fragmentation (which is innovation), but not internal fragmentation (which is suicide). They know it.
Nothing prevents it. It happens. But it happens less often than you might think.
First of all, most of the forks die. If there is a company behind a project, they die faster. Not because the fork is bad. It is just that the volume of development is so significant, the original developers stay with the main branch and the brand is attached to the original code (open source commercial projects protect the brand through trademark, so there is very little a fork can do to claim they are the original).
Forks ultimately die because they do not get enough traction, the developers get depressed, the fork gets stale. It is a vicious negative spiral.
If a few fork survive, the result - in most cases - is innovation. "Fragmentation is innovation", as Sean Moss-Pultz once said. I know many people out there believe the opposite, but think about it: if a fork includes smart ideas, and the open source license requires the code to be visible to the public, would you not expect the original project to embed them over time? Yes, me too.
Sometimes, the original project gets stale, there is no innovation, developers get bored, and they fork. Therefore, innovating. The developers of the original project wake up, improve their code, absorb some of the changes in the forks, and regain control. The result: a better product. More innovation. Nothing bad, something actually very good.
Now, let's look at Android. Any real forks out there? Yes, one from China Mobile. It might get actually successful, and I am sure the Google people are pissed at it. But it could generate a lot of good ideas, that they can embed in their project (assuming the not-invented-here mentality does not pervade the Google campus ;-) Overall, I do not believe it will be a major problem for Google.
It is China Mobile that has a problem: they need to keep the new OS compatible to the Android main branch. If they don't, all apps that are developed for Android will not work on their phone. The final result in my opinion? They won't make it. It is too difficult. They will create a China-only operating system, used by Chinese people, with apps developed by Chinese developers for the domestic market only. A missed opportunity for developers (although that market is big...). A sign of China refusing globalization and fighting Google and the US as a whole. A losing proposition, but nothing that would kill Android in the rest of the world, actually only hurting Chinese developers trying to export their good stuff.
So, is there a real problem with Android? Yes, but it is internal. The real fragmentation, so far, has been created by Google itself. They have released way too many operating system version, too fast. 1.x is not compatible with 2.x, in most cases. So much that our community client was built on 1.x, but for our commercial product we chose only 2.x. The effort of supporting two different clients was too much (hint: if you have an Android 2.x, check the Android Market for Funambol. It is an amazing client).
Was Google wrong at releasing so fast so often? I believe not. I believe they have been right. At the beginning of the cycle, you need to move fast, catching up with the competition. When the product is mature (they are almost there), you can start to slow down. In a year, nobody will remember Android 1.x or the G1 (a.k.a. the garage door opener).
Now it is time for Android to slow down. The next two Android releases, Froyo and Gingerbread (yep, what were you expecting after Cupcakes, Donuts, and Eclairs?), are going to be way more backward compatible than the initial ones. I am very sure about it. Most likely, they will change very little of the core or SDK, moving their apps on the Market (Maps, Gmail, Talk, Voice, Goggles, Gesture Search and so on) and making sure they work across all versions.
Google can afford external fragmentation (which is innovation), but not internal fragmentation (which is suicide). They know it.
Friday, March 19, 2010
A tour of Windows 7 Phone
Last night, once again in Italy (there must be something good there, if the best mobile hackers live In Italy: I bet it is the food), someone cracked yet another mobile operating system. This time is the new kid on the block, Windows 7 Phone.
I would not have cared for a Windows 6.x crack, but the new Windows 7 is the real deal, when it comes to Microsoft attempting to survive: if desktop becomes mobile (see the iPad), Microsoft 90% lead on operating systems is gone. Gone. They will be remembered as the pioneers of the PC era. Like people remember who built the Mini operating systems... Gone the desktop, gone their monopoly. Microsoft knows it well, and they went all the way, throwing in the trash 6 versions of Windows Mobile (six: didn't people always say Microsoft needed three versions to get good? Not this time, apparently).
Windows 7 Phone Series came out at the Mobile World Congress. They released an emulator for developers, but with no feature enabled. Last night, Dan managed to enable all the features of the emulator and boom, now we have access to the whole phone. Actually, he pulled the file from his site afterward, worrying about Microsoft, but he did it when he woke up (good hackers work at night, reach their objective, spread the word and they go to sleep). And as you know, when you sleep in Italy, we are awake on this side of the globe...
Short story: I put my hands on the ROM (hey, I am an Italian hacker after all, sorry Microsoft) and played with it a bit.
The home page looks like this:
It is very nice. Very smooth. Very non-Microsoft (ooops). Impressive and user-friendly. The start page is customizable, and you can put your favorite apps on it. Very different from the iPhone grid of icons (copied by Android). Different is cool, these days.
If you click on the little right arrow on the top, you get the apps screen.
A lot of applications, as you can see. Office is there in force, with Word/Excel/Powerpoint. And OneNote. There is a converter (cute). And the calendar app is pretty nice.
Obviously, a lot of emphasis is in cloud syncing and social networks. Here is the messaging setup page:
Facebook is there. Yahoo! is there. All Microsoft is there. Wait... Is there one big portal missing? Gasp, where in the world is Google?? Just when I wrote that Microsoft was the beneficiary of Apple fighting with Google. C'mon guys, be nice. Add Google. Be friends.
What else? Well, the Settings app shows a Backup and Find My Phone feature. Both are part of the MyPhone offering, allowing over-the-air backup and to find your phone when you do not know where it is. More, there is over-the-air update of the operating system (wow, just a few years too late, but glad to see it anyhow). You can't sell a phone without a cloud service these days.
Ok, almost done. What else is cool?
One for the geeks: the Task Manager!!!
There you have it, a tour of Windows 7 Phone. Impressive mobile OS. Different from anything we have seen coming out from Microsoft. Even different from the iPhone. And Android.
They are late, late, late, late, late. But I still feel they have a chance. They definitely have developers. And developers now make the difference between making it or breaking it in mobile (right, Palm?).
If they only would understand the business model of selling a closed source operating system is gone... They could be a monopoly.
I would not have cared for a Windows 6.x crack, but the new Windows 7 is the real deal, when it comes to Microsoft attempting to survive: if desktop becomes mobile (see the iPad), Microsoft 90% lead on operating systems is gone. Gone. They will be remembered as the pioneers of the PC era. Like people remember who built the Mini operating systems... Gone the desktop, gone their monopoly. Microsoft knows it well, and they went all the way, throwing in the trash 6 versions of Windows Mobile (six: didn't people always say Microsoft needed three versions to get good? Not this time, apparently).
Windows 7 Phone Series came out at the Mobile World Congress. They released an emulator for developers, but with no feature enabled. Last night, Dan managed to enable all the features of the emulator and boom, now we have access to the whole phone. Actually, he pulled the file from his site afterward, worrying about Microsoft, but he did it when he woke up (good hackers work at night, reach their objective, spread the word and they go to sleep). And as you know, when you sleep in Italy, we are awake on this side of the globe...
Short story: I put my hands on the ROM (hey, I am an Italian hacker after all, sorry Microsoft) and played with it a bit.
The home page looks like this:
It is very nice. Very smooth. Very non-Microsoft (ooops). Impressive and user-friendly. The start page is customizable, and you can put your favorite apps on it. Very different from the iPhone grid of icons (copied by Android). Different is cool, these days.
If you click on the little right arrow on the top, you get the apps screen.
A lot of applications, as you can see. Office is there in force, with Word/Excel/Powerpoint. And OneNote. There is a converter (cute). And the calendar app is pretty nice.
Obviously, a lot of emphasis is in cloud syncing and social networks. Here is the messaging setup page:
Facebook is there. Yahoo! is there. All Microsoft is there. Wait... Is there one big portal missing? Gasp, where in the world is Google?? Just when I wrote that Microsoft was the beneficiary of Apple fighting with Google. C'mon guys, be nice. Add Google. Be friends.
What else? Well, the Settings app shows a Backup and Find My Phone feature. Both are part of the MyPhone offering, allowing over-the-air backup and to find your phone when you do not know where it is. More, there is over-the-air update of the operating system (wow, just a few years too late, but glad to see it anyhow). You can't sell a phone without a cloud service these days.
Ok, almost done. What else is cool?
One for the geeks: the Task Manager!!!
There you have it, a tour of Windows 7 Phone. Impressive mobile OS. Different from anything we have seen coming out from Microsoft. Even different from the iPhone. And Android.
They are late, late, late, late, late. But I still feel they have a chance. They definitely have developers. And developers now make the difference between making it or breaking it in mobile (right, Palm?).
If they only would understand the business model of selling a closed source operating system is gone... They could be a monopoly.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Google and Apple fight, Microsoft gains
A couple of years ago, when the market was tanking, a friend asked me which stocks I would buy in mobile. I answered "Apple and Google, they are the only two companies with a clue in this space". I am not sure if I would have made money on the stock (I am an open source guy, money is bad :-) but they definitely delivered on the product side.
Not only they delivered it. They did it together.
Think about the launch of the iPhone. There was Google all over the place. The best maps implementation in the world, even better than on a desktop (let me repeat myself, better than the desktop, with pinch and zoom, any hint on the future of computing?). The YouTube app, first time we really managed to watch videos in mobile (via Google). Gmail integrated. A Goophone...
Google has been a big driver for the iPhone. Eric Schmidt was at the iPhone launch. He was on Apple's board. They were working together.
Then something happened: Google decided to push Android. They launched a device so ugly Steve Jobs probably is still laughing. Then it got better. And better. The Nexus One is the closest thing to an iPhone out there. I am sure Jobs noticed it...
Eric Schmidt left the Apple board. Soon thereafter, Google stole AdMob from Apple (they let expire a 45 days no-shop, and three days later Google announced the acquisition for $750M...).
Lastly, a month ago Google pushed an update of the Android OS that made it look like an iPhone, with pinch and zoom. A declaration of war.
And war it is. This month, Apple has sued HTC, the company which makes the Google Phone. A proxy to attack Google. It is out in the open. And it is going to be nasty.
What is next?
Well, you do not want to piss off Steve Jobs... He has recently said that "do not be evil" is bullshit (his words, not mine). And that "we did not enter the search business, they entered the phone business". He is pissed. Really pissed.
Few guesses:
Is it bad for Apple? Of course. Google is the king of search, and their maps app is fantastic. YouTube remains number one. If you strip out Google stuff, the Apple fan might protest (as they are protesting for the lack of Flash, good luck with that). At the end, users might decide Apple is too close and move elsewhere.
Anybody gaining? Microsoft. This is the chance they were waiting for. With Yahoo, they now have with Bing almost 30% of the search engine market. If they get on the iPad and on the iPhone, they might catch Google in a couple of years.
On top of it, they are launching Windows 7 Phone at the end of the year. Everything I have seen so far is very nice (excluding the fact that Windows 6.x apps will need to be completely rewritten...).
Microsoft is very very late in mobile but when #1 and #2 are fighting, you have a chance to gain back. They have been friend with Apple in the past, when Apple needed them and viceversa. Now they could get back in the game, big time.
Do not discount Microsoft. Never.
Should you buy some Microsoft stock?
Not only they delivered it. They did it together.
Think about the launch of the iPhone. There was Google all over the place. The best maps implementation in the world, even better than on a desktop (let me repeat myself, better than the desktop, with pinch and zoom, any hint on the future of computing?). The YouTube app, first time we really managed to watch videos in mobile (via Google). Gmail integrated. A Goophone...
Google has been a big driver for the iPhone. Eric Schmidt was at the iPhone launch. He was on Apple's board. They were working together.
Then something happened: Google decided to push Android. They launched a device so ugly Steve Jobs probably is still laughing. Then it got better. And better. The Nexus One is the closest thing to an iPhone out there. I am sure Jobs noticed it...
Eric Schmidt left the Apple board. Soon thereafter, Google stole AdMob from Apple (they let expire a 45 days no-shop, and three days later Google announced the acquisition for $750M...).
Lastly, a month ago Google pushed an update of the Android OS that made it look like an iPhone, with pinch and zoom. A declaration of war.
And war it is. This month, Apple has sued HTC, the company which makes the Google Phone. A proxy to attack Google. It is out in the open. And it is going to be nasty.
What is next?
Well, you do not want to piss off Steve Jobs... He has recently said that "do not be evil" is bullshit (his words, not mine). And that "we did not enter the search business, they entered the phone business". He is pissed. Really pissed.
Few guesses:
- the iPad might have Microsoft Bing as a default search engine (I am not suggesting they will strip off Google completely, they will nicely put it as a second choice)
- that might happen on the iPhone 4.0 as well
- the maps application might be removed and transformed into one Microsoft-like
- the video application might be removed and transformed into one Apple-like (coming from iTunes)
Is it bad for Apple? Of course. Google is the king of search, and their maps app is fantastic. YouTube remains number one. If you strip out Google stuff, the Apple fan might protest (as they are protesting for the lack of Flash, good luck with that). At the end, users might decide Apple is too close and move elsewhere.
Anybody gaining? Microsoft. This is the chance they were waiting for. With Yahoo, they now have with Bing almost 30% of the search engine market. If they get on the iPad and on the iPhone, they might catch Google in a couple of years.
On top of it, they are launching Windows 7 Phone at the end of the year. Everything I have seen so far is very nice (excluding the fact that Windows 6.x apps will need to be completely rewritten...).
Microsoft is very very late in mobile but when #1 and #2 are fighting, you have a chance to gain back. They have been friend with Apple in the past, when Apple needed them and viceversa. Now they could get back in the game, big time.
Do not discount Microsoft. Never.
Should you buy some Microsoft stock?
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
A freemium model for mobile
It is interesting to watch buzzwords appear and disappear. Many live just for a few months. Usually, when they are gone, they never come back. Sometimes, however, it happens.
Freemium is one of those buzzwords. It is the model of giving away something for free, get people to use your service (hence, making the free version quite interesting) and then upsell a minority of people on additional features. A combo of the words free and premium.
It is the model used by Flickr, for example. You can use the service for free, but they will start hiding your old pictures if you do not pay, once you have a lot of pictures. Similar for LinkedIn and others.
Users like it. If the value you deliver for free is good, they use it happily. And there is nothing better than free. If at a certain point the value you deliver can be even better and is worth paying, people are happy to pay. They do not feel like you are robbing them, or nickle-and-diming. They are genuinely happy to pay (at least, that works for myself, I like free but I do not mind to pay for a good service, like Flickr for example).
The other model, of course, is advertising. But it is intrusive, in most cases. And you need to give up your personal info to an advertiser, which many do not like (I do not, sorry, I will keep using Adblock, I do not care if it hurts the content provider, it is my life you are playing with...).
Now, freemium was very hot a few years ago. Then it became very cold ("you cannot create a large company with freemium models"). Now it is back. LinkedIn is making a lot of money, and it will IPO soon (my prediction). Some interesting variations include having people pay for virtual goods (nobody beats Zynga in it, Farmville and Fishville are delivering hundreds of millions to them).
Guess what? You can build a large company based on a freemium model.
One place where freemium could work very well is mobile, in my opinion. I do not believe the pay-per-app model can create many large companies (or even one). What the AppStore is delivering are $0.99 apps, and nobody can make money with it, excluding a guy in a basement who is fine with making a decent salary. However, if your apps are free and you can charge along the way (freemium), that is a different story. Your adoption rate will be 1,000 times higher, and you just have to find a minority willing to pay a premium (note that only Apple supports this model, Android does not - yet).
Many believe the people who pay for Farmville are just dumb. I don't. If you buy a Wii game, you pay $50. And nobody thinks your are dumb. If you spend a lot of time in Farmville getting entertained (ok, that might be dumb, I get it), it seems very reasonable to me that you spend $50 for it, even if it is one dollar a week. And if you have 400 million people that could play, then it is easy to see how your revenues can be in the hundreds of millions.
Mobile is just an extension of your desktop life, with the slight difference that you have your mobile device with you every single moment of your day. Forcing people to pay, maybe on a per-month fee, it is a good dream. You can definitely do it in the enterprise, with SMBs and prosumers. But when you go to the large crowd, it is going to be harder and harder. Still, the market is enormous...
In my space, Apple charges $99 per year for MobileMe. There is a lot of room to cut that price (and it works only for the iPhone, so good luck if someone in the family has a different device). At the other end of the spectrum, Google charges zero for Google Sync (albeit it is quite a bad product, sometimes free can be of a depressing quality...). How do you move between these two extremes if you are a carrier? Per-month, per-year, free, advertising or freemium?
I say, for now, stick to per-user per-month on the high end of the market, and check freemium for the masses (they are coming).
Long post just to market Hal's last paper for mobile operators "Using Free-nomics to Avoid Pipe-ification". It is free as in freemium, since he expects you to pay one day, I guess. Check it out, it is worth it.
Freemium is one of those buzzwords. It is the model of giving away something for free, get people to use your service (hence, making the free version quite interesting) and then upsell a minority of people on additional features. A combo of the words free and premium.
It is the model used by Flickr, for example. You can use the service for free, but they will start hiding your old pictures if you do not pay, once you have a lot of pictures. Similar for LinkedIn and others.
Users like it. If the value you deliver for free is good, they use it happily. And there is nothing better than free. If at a certain point the value you deliver can be even better and is worth paying, people are happy to pay. They do not feel like you are robbing them, or nickle-and-diming. They are genuinely happy to pay (at least, that works for myself, I like free but I do not mind to pay for a good service, like Flickr for example).
The other model, of course, is advertising. But it is intrusive, in most cases. And you need to give up your personal info to an advertiser, which many do not like (I do not, sorry, I will keep using Adblock, I do not care if it hurts the content provider, it is my life you are playing with...).
Now, freemium was very hot a few years ago. Then it became very cold ("you cannot create a large company with freemium models"). Now it is back. LinkedIn is making a lot of money, and it will IPO soon (my prediction). Some interesting variations include having people pay for virtual goods (nobody beats Zynga in it, Farmville and Fishville are delivering hundreds of millions to them).
Guess what? You can build a large company based on a freemium model.
One place where freemium could work very well is mobile, in my opinion. I do not believe the pay-per-app model can create many large companies (or even one). What the AppStore is delivering are $0.99 apps, and nobody can make money with it, excluding a guy in a basement who is fine with making a decent salary. However, if your apps are free and you can charge along the way (freemium), that is a different story. Your adoption rate will be 1,000 times higher, and you just have to find a minority willing to pay a premium (note that only Apple supports this model, Android does not - yet).
Many believe the people who pay for Farmville are just dumb. I don't. If you buy a Wii game, you pay $50. And nobody thinks your are dumb. If you spend a lot of time in Farmville getting entertained (ok, that might be dumb, I get it), it seems very reasonable to me that you spend $50 for it, even if it is one dollar a week. And if you have 400 million people that could play, then it is easy to see how your revenues can be in the hundreds of millions.
Mobile is just an extension of your desktop life, with the slight difference that you have your mobile device with you every single moment of your day. Forcing people to pay, maybe on a per-month fee, it is a good dream. You can definitely do it in the enterprise, with SMBs and prosumers. But when you go to the large crowd, it is going to be harder and harder. Still, the market is enormous...
In my space, Apple charges $99 per year for MobileMe. There is a lot of room to cut that price (and it works only for the iPhone, so good luck if someone in the family has a different device). At the other end of the spectrum, Google charges zero for Google Sync (albeit it is quite a bad product, sometimes free can be of a depressing quality...). How do you move between these two extremes if you are a carrier? Per-month, per-year, free, advertising or freemium?
I say, for now, stick to per-user per-month on the high end of the market, and check freemium for the masses (they are coming).
Long post just to market Hal's last paper for mobile operators "Using Free-nomics to Avoid Pipe-ification". It is free as in freemium, since he expects you to pay one day, I guess. Check it out, it is worth it.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
What if the carriers want the network to be crap?
I do not know when and where, but a few days ago I read a note that said "what if Google starts allowing phone calls among Android devices?". Yep, phone calls over IP, completely around the carriers. No voice dollars to the operators. Same as Skype on your PC, but your PC is actually mobile and you can move it close to your ear (try that with an iPad).
What if?
Well, no voice revenues anymore. That might hurt an operator, in particular in the US where the data plans are unlimited. And hurt a lot.
What prevents this scenario to become real?
The network. The bandwidth is not there yet. The network is overloaded. If you try a VOIP call on a mobile device, even with 3G, the quality is horrible. It is like trying Skype on a modem (I did, do not try, it is not good).
Now a thought: what can the carrier do to prevent this scenario? Simple, they can just keep the network as it is today: not-good-enough. They can make it better but still not good enough, because the amount of data load will increase naturally.
Think about it: they have to invest gazillions to improve the network and the only benefit of it might be having Google wipe them out. Does it make sense to you? Would they do it just because the users are asking for it? Can the market push it?
I really hope so. I would hate to see the networks crippled just for carriers to prevent the inevitable.
However, I actually see a good reason for the carriers to prefer the network to be crap.
And that is not a good thing.
What if?
Well, no voice revenues anymore. That might hurt an operator, in particular in the US where the data plans are unlimited. And hurt a lot.
What prevents this scenario to become real?
The network. The bandwidth is not there yet. The network is overloaded. If you try a VOIP call on a mobile device, even with 3G, the quality is horrible. It is like trying Skype on a modem (I did, do not try, it is not good).
Now a thought: what can the carrier do to prevent this scenario? Simple, they can just keep the network as it is today: not-good-enough. They can make it better but still not good enough, because the amount of data load will increase naturally.
Think about it: they have to invest gazillions to improve the network and the only benefit of it might be having Google wipe them out. Does it make sense to you? Would they do it just because the users are asking for it? Can the market push it?
I really hope so. I would hate to see the networks crippled just for carriers to prevent the inevitable.
However, I actually see a good reason for the carriers to prefer the network to be crap.
And that is not a good thing.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Better lucky than smart
I have always considered myself a lucky individual. I have a great family, good health, real friends, a fantastic job and every physical item I actually need. I could always get more, but I do not care about it. I do not see the point of wanting more when I have all I need. I just feel, almost every day, that I am a lucky lucky bastard. And that I did very little to deserve it.
Last week in Barcelona at the Mobile World Congress, I felt exactly the same way. I felt I got even too lucky. This time, in my work life.
I have been talking for years about a few items: open source in mobile (easy to guess from the title of my blog) and server-based mobile computing (now known as mobile cloud services), with a focus on mobile cloud sync.
For years, I have seen the disbelief in the eye of every carrier I talked to. No, mobile and open source won't work together. Where is the IP? And why would we ever want to open our networks? It is all closed and it works so well for us. For years. Years!
There were days I told my wife this mobile open source thingy might take ages to really happen. That I might have started a company too soon and I will be remembered as the one who originally believed in mobile open source, only to get the timing wrong. When I was fundraising for Series A at Funambol in 2005, I was repeating to VCs a word I heard from Andrew Aitken, one of my advisors: "open source in mobile is inevitable". Inevitable. I believed it then, I always believed it. However, it could have taken 20 years to happen…
Instead, it took way less.
At the Mobile World Congress, the talk of the show was Android. There were Android phones everywhere. It is mobile open source. The big announcement on Monday? Intel and Nokia, two of the largest players in mobile (who is bigger than Intel on chips or Nokia on devices?), announced MeeGo. A mobile open source initiative (and you can tell by the weird name, right amigo?). Then Symbian rushed out Symbian^3… Guess what? Mobile open source.
Stop for a second. The talk of the show was mobile open source?? The talk of the #1 mobile show of the year?????
Guess what, I got lucky. Mobile open source just happened. And I did very little to deserve it.
The second theme was the cloud. The mobile cloud. Devices connected to the network, syncing data among themselves and the cloud. Check Eric Schmidt talk at the show below. It is a turning point for the industry. It is a must-watch for anyone in mobile. He is preaching the convergence of computing + connectivity + cloud. It all happens thanks to the cloud. Replication, he says. Mobile applications are sharing intensive, sharing replication, he adds. I call it syncing, but it is exactly the same thing.
Who else talked about mobile cloud syncing? RIM, the maker of Blackberry. An entire presentation devoted to explain their new mobile cloud syncing product for SMBs (Blackberry Enterprise Server Express). And what about that spectacular presentation of Windows 7 Phone OS (really? That is all you could come up to beat the Zune brand? How do you call a Windows Phone phone? Windows Phone Squared? C'mon…). Look at the video below. It is all about cloud interaction, your friends, messaging. They do not even mention you can call people!!! This is how you sell a phone now. The cloud sells it.
Guess what, I got lucky. Mobile cloud services just happened. And I did very little to deserve it.
Anything else? Well, only some talks about how to make the network faster and more efficient, without killing it because of all the above. But this is just a technicality in the big scheme of things. Networks will be faster and will support the load. There is no other way. Engineers will make it happen. Cash will be there to support it.
I have to say the first two days of the show I was speechless. Andrew joked with me on Facebook that there is no way I was not talking… He knows me well, apparently. However, I was actually without voice. Mostly due to a cold, but also because I could not believe what was happening around me.
Everything I said and preached for years just happened. And I did very little to deserve it.
Unbelievable.
As they say: better lucky than smart.
Last week in Barcelona at the Mobile World Congress, I felt exactly the same way. I felt I got even too lucky. This time, in my work life.
I have been talking for years about a few items: open source in mobile (easy to guess from the title of my blog) and server-based mobile computing (now known as mobile cloud services), with a focus on mobile cloud sync.
For years, I have seen the disbelief in the eye of every carrier I talked to. No, mobile and open source won't work together. Where is the IP? And why would we ever want to open our networks? It is all closed and it works so well for us. For years. Years!
There were days I told my wife this mobile open source thingy might take ages to really happen. That I might have started a company too soon and I will be remembered as the one who originally believed in mobile open source, only to get the timing wrong. When I was fundraising for Series A at Funambol in 2005, I was repeating to VCs a word I heard from Andrew Aitken, one of my advisors: "open source in mobile is inevitable". Inevitable. I believed it then, I always believed it. However, it could have taken 20 years to happen…
Instead, it took way less.
At the Mobile World Congress, the talk of the show was Android. There were Android phones everywhere. It is mobile open source. The big announcement on Monday? Intel and Nokia, two of the largest players in mobile (who is bigger than Intel on chips or Nokia on devices?), announced MeeGo. A mobile open source initiative (and you can tell by the weird name, right amigo?). Then Symbian rushed out Symbian^3… Guess what? Mobile open source.
Stop for a second. The talk of the show was mobile open source?? The talk of the #1 mobile show of the year?????
Guess what, I got lucky. Mobile open source just happened. And I did very little to deserve it.
The second theme was the cloud. The mobile cloud. Devices connected to the network, syncing data among themselves and the cloud. Check Eric Schmidt talk at the show below. It is a turning point for the industry. It is a must-watch for anyone in mobile. He is preaching the convergence of computing + connectivity + cloud. It all happens thanks to the cloud. Replication, he says. Mobile applications are sharing intensive, sharing replication, he adds. I call it syncing, but it is exactly the same thing.
Who else talked about mobile cloud syncing? RIM, the maker of Blackberry. An entire presentation devoted to explain their new mobile cloud syncing product for SMBs (Blackberry Enterprise Server Express). And what about that spectacular presentation of Windows 7 Phone OS (really? That is all you could come up to beat the Zune brand? How do you call a Windows Phone phone? Windows Phone Squared? C'mon…). Look at the video below. It is all about cloud interaction, your friends, messaging. They do not even mention you can call people!!! This is how you sell a phone now. The cloud sells it.
Guess what, I got lucky. Mobile cloud services just happened. And I did very little to deserve it.
Anything else? Well, only some talks about how to make the network faster and more efficient, without killing it because of all the above. But this is just a technicality in the big scheme of things. Networks will be faster and will support the load. There is no other way. Engineers will make it happen. Cash will be there to support it.
I have to say the first two days of the show I was speechless. Andrew joked with me on Facebook that there is no way I was not talking… He knows me well, apparently. However, I was actually without voice. Mostly due to a cold, but also because I could not believe what was happening around me.
Everything I said and preached for years just happened. And I did very little to deserve it.
Unbelievable.
As they say: better lucky than smart.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Tethering and the iPad
Ok, I admit it. The iPad is often in my thoughts. Despite not being a mass market product, which usually is what interests me. What can I do? Anyway… I received an email from an Italian friend today, asking about tethering the iPad (see, it is not just me ;-)
My feeling is that people will simply not buy the 3G model, because the iPad is best used inside (try walking with it in your hands on the street, and watch out for that pole). Therefore, I expect most people to buy the wi-fi model. However, there are moments where 3G would be really useful. Still, adding $20 per month on a data-only plan is insane, if you already have a smartphone and you are paying a monthly data plan for it. Few will do it (and the 3G model is also more expensive…).
What are the other options?
One is that the carrier bundles your smartphone and iPad plan together. If the iPad plan is just $5 per month on top of your smartphone plan, many could go for it. At $10, I doubt it (I am cheap but I am not the only one out there).
The other option is tethering. The device has wi-fi, your smartphone has wi-fi and 3G: you just need to put your smartphone in tethering mode, creating a 3G connection to the carrier network and a wi-fi connection to your iPad. I do it all the time with my iPhone and my Mac. It is very fast, very convenient, in particular when there is no wi-fi around and I have to give a demo at a customer site (where there is often no open wi-fi available).
The problem? AT&T does not allow me to do it. I have to go around it, jailbreak the iPhone, add PDANet and hope not to be caught (if you are AT&T and you are reading this, I am obviously joking. I would never do such a thing).
In Europe, tethering is ok. It is quite expensive, but the carriers allow you to do it. It makes sense. If you are paying for a data plan, and it is metered, why limit you? More data means more revenues, so just go for it. I am told 3 in Italy charges 30 euros per month for 4GB (with voice and SMS included). It is a reasonable deal (although I would keep live video off-limits).
What's the difference between US and Europe? Metered plans.
In the US, we only have all-you-can-eat plans. They are good for users, who do not have to think about data consumption. Data size is not a natural measure. Time is (I know how long 15 minutes are). How big is a MB? Ask common users if they believe their graduation thesis (which took 6 months to write) is larger in size than a 5 minutes video on YouTube of a dog on a skateboard: the dog is not going to win, trust me. Nobody gets that video is so much larger than text. Why would they? All-you-can eat is so much easier to understand, and users do not worry when they click. Unfortunately, they get on drugs and it is hard to quit when you are addicted...
The problem is that the network gets overloaded fast. Ask people in San Francisco and New York with an iPhone. My friends are turning 3G off because it rarely works and sucks way more battery. That is bad bad bad.
So, what about time-based plans? I connect for 15 minutes, I pay for 15 minutes. Sounds easy to understand… Well, they might work for laptops and dongles, but when you have a smartphone always connected (e.g. to receive a stream of Facebook or email), you are screwed. It is always on. It would cost you a fortune.
Any other option? Well, in the desktop world, you pay for DSL based on speed, rather than time or bandwidth consumption. Can this be applied to mobile? I believe so. And I feel it would be the best option. However, for now, nobody is considering it. In my opinion, they should. What you have at home is unlimited connection, always on, you just pay more for convenience. Give me 2G for a very low price, 2.5 for a bit more, 3G quite expensive, 3.5G even more and so on. Maybe it is a bit early and the carriers have no way to bill this, but why not?
That said, tethering is still the best option for the iPad. One device has 3G (your smartphone, which needs it more and it is always on), all your other devices talk to it when they have to (when a high-speed wi-fi hotspot is around, you would always go for it, for speed reasons at least). One bill.
Personally, I believe Steve Jobs knows all this and he is forcing the carriers to adapt. The 3G plan for the iPad is just a joke. He is going to laugh at those that buy the 3G iPad, then laugh at the carriers trying to stop the wi-fi iPads owners to tether. Eventually, the users will win and Steve Jobs will add another nail in the carrier's coffin.
For now, if I have to suck up and get a metered access to have tethering capabilities in the US, I am ready to do it. If I can bet (and I like doing that...), I bet for this to happen in the US fairly soon. The networks are overloaded, the iPad runs on AT&T. AT&T has a crappy network. They have to stop it. They have to add metered plans. It is going to happen soon. In the meantime, they will try to catch the few that overload their network (AT&T, as I wrote before, it is not me ;-)
At the end, though, speed-based tariffs will win. But it will be a choppy road to get there.
My feeling is that people will simply not buy the 3G model, because the iPad is best used inside (try walking with it in your hands on the street, and watch out for that pole). Therefore, I expect most people to buy the wi-fi model. However, there are moments where 3G would be really useful. Still, adding $20 per month on a data-only plan is insane, if you already have a smartphone and you are paying a monthly data plan for it. Few will do it (and the 3G model is also more expensive…).
What are the other options?
One is that the carrier bundles your smartphone and iPad plan together. If the iPad plan is just $5 per month on top of your smartphone plan, many could go for it. At $10, I doubt it (I am cheap but I am not the only one out there).
The other option is tethering. The device has wi-fi, your smartphone has wi-fi and 3G: you just need to put your smartphone in tethering mode, creating a 3G connection to the carrier network and a wi-fi connection to your iPad. I do it all the time with my iPhone and my Mac. It is very fast, very convenient, in particular when there is no wi-fi around and I have to give a demo at a customer site (where there is often no open wi-fi available).
The problem? AT&T does not allow me to do it. I have to go around it, jailbreak the iPhone, add PDANet and hope not to be caught (if you are AT&T and you are reading this, I am obviously joking. I would never do such a thing).
In Europe, tethering is ok. It is quite expensive, but the carriers allow you to do it. It makes sense. If you are paying for a data plan, and it is metered, why limit you? More data means more revenues, so just go for it. I am told 3 in Italy charges 30 euros per month for 4GB (with voice and SMS included). It is a reasonable deal (although I would keep live video off-limits).
What's the difference between US and Europe? Metered plans.
In the US, we only have all-you-can-eat plans. They are good for users, who do not have to think about data consumption. Data size is not a natural measure. Time is (I know how long 15 minutes are). How big is a MB? Ask common users if they believe their graduation thesis (which took 6 months to write) is larger in size than a 5 minutes video on YouTube of a dog on a skateboard: the dog is not going to win, trust me. Nobody gets that video is so much larger than text. Why would they? All-you-can eat is so much easier to understand, and users do not worry when they click. Unfortunately, they get on drugs and it is hard to quit when you are addicted...
The problem is that the network gets overloaded fast. Ask people in San Francisco and New York with an iPhone. My friends are turning 3G off because it rarely works and sucks way more battery. That is bad bad bad.
So, what about time-based plans? I connect for 15 minutes, I pay for 15 minutes. Sounds easy to understand… Well, they might work for laptops and dongles, but when you have a smartphone always connected (e.g. to receive a stream of Facebook or email), you are screwed. It is always on. It would cost you a fortune.
Any other option? Well, in the desktop world, you pay for DSL based on speed, rather than time or bandwidth consumption. Can this be applied to mobile? I believe so. And I feel it would be the best option. However, for now, nobody is considering it. In my opinion, they should. What you have at home is unlimited connection, always on, you just pay more for convenience. Give me 2G for a very low price, 2.5 for a bit more, 3G quite expensive, 3.5G even more and so on. Maybe it is a bit early and the carriers have no way to bill this, but why not?
That said, tethering is still the best option for the iPad. One device has 3G (your smartphone, which needs it more and it is always on), all your other devices talk to it when they have to (when a high-speed wi-fi hotspot is around, you would always go for it, for speed reasons at least). One bill.
Personally, I believe Steve Jobs knows all this and he is forcing the carriers to adapt. The 3G plan for the iPad is just a joke. He is going to laugh at those that buy the 3G iPad, then laugh at the carriers trying to stop the wi-fi iPads owners to tether. Eventually, the users will win and Steve Jobs will add another nail in the carrier's coffin.
For now, if I have to suck up and get a metered access to have tethering capabilities in the US, I am ready to do it. If I can bet (and I like doing that...), I bet for this to happen in the US fairly soon. The networks are overloaded, the iPad runs on AT&T. AT&T has a crappy network. They have to stop it. They have to add metered plans. It is going to happen soon. In the meantime, they will try to catch the few that overload their network (AT&T, as I wrote before, it is not me ;-)
At the end, though, speed-based tariffs will win. But it will be a choppy road to get there.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
iPad and a new life for synchronization
This morning I was reading the Seybold's take on Applications for the iPad. It is an interesting article.
Seybold's take is that developers will have to build specific applications for the iPad, rather than having their iPhone apps run on it, or just modify them for a bigger screen.
I tend to agree.
He added:
And finally he concluded:
With the cost of network and the need for carriers to limit heavy usage by people, in the near timeframe (before 4G is here but who knows for how long) tablet will not be welcomed in the cellular network. I mean, you could have them connect to 3G, but it would cost you a fortune. Therefore, you won't do it.
You could tether them to your always connected smartphone, but the carriers won't allow you. How difficult is to think about an iPhone sharing wifi with an iPad? Not difficult, it is just not good for the carriers on the dollar side, so they will make it really not attractive for you (or just prevent it, as Apple and AT&T are doing today).
The result, Seybold says, is that tablet will be on-line with wi-fi, then off-line, then again on-line: like a Kindle (I am still betting on Apple providing some free 3G access only to download content from iTunes, in the future). And like a Kindle, they will store data on the device, to be accessed off-line.
Like a Kindle, the key for the tablet market will be synchronization. Data to be synced will go from books to videos, from address book to calendar, from pictures to music. And a lot more.
Just when you thought the world was going all network computing, synchronization is still king :-)
Seybold's take is that developers will have to build specific applications for the iPad, rather than having their iPhone apps run on it, or just modify them for a bigger screen.
I tend to agree.
He added:
For starters, many iPad users will not opt for a full wide-area wireless broadband subscription. Instead, they will use it for communications when near a Wi-Fi hotspot or subscribe to an occasional-use wide-area broadband plan. Applications that assume full wireless connectivity anytime the iPad is on will not be as well received as applications that are developed for occasional use. Many iPhone apps are constantly updating the information they provide, but iPad applications that require a constant or almost-constant connection will not be as functional.Hard to disagree. As I wrote before, I am betting that non-3G iPad will beat 3G iPad, 80% to 20%.
And finally he concluded:
Because the iPad will not be an always-on, always-connected device, applications will have to recognize that fact and compensate for this difference between the two platforms.Pop. A light bulb on my head.
With the cost of network and the need for carriers to limit heavy usage by people, in the near timeframe (before 4G is here but who knows for how long) tablet will not be welcomed in the cellular network. I mean, you could have them connect to 3G, but it would cost you a fortune. Therefore, you won't do it.
You could tether them to your always connected smartphone, but the carriers won't allow you. How difficult is to think about an iPhone sharing wifi with an iPad? Not difficult, it is just not good for the carriers on the dollar side, so they will make it really not attractive for you (or just prevent it, as Apple and AT&T are doing today).
The result, Seybold says, is that tablet will be on-line with wi-fi, then off-line, then again on-line: like a Kindle (I am still betting on Apple providing some free 3G access only to download content from iTunes, in the future). And like a Kindle, they will store data on the device, to be accessed off-line.
Like a Kindle, the key for the tablet market will be synchronization. Data to be synced will go from books to videos, from address book to calendar, from pictures to music. And a lot more.
Just when you thought the world was going all network computing, synchronization is still king :-)
Saturday, February 06, 2010
My Nexus One almost became an iPhone today
I woke up this morning and my Nexus One told me "I am ready for an upgrade". One click, a reboot, and I had a new phone.
Google (or T-Mobile, who knows and who cares) pushed down an OS upgrade. All of a sudden, the phone is capable of pinch and zoom, the feature that made the iPhone famous. It is a new phone.
I know we are used to this market moving fast, but let me stop for a second and reflect on what is happening. Three years ago, I was used to phones that would live with a bug for their entire life. No bug fixing. Never. You had a problem, too bad. Buy another phone.
Then came the iPhone. Apple introduced a new concept for mobile. OS upgrades via the Internet (and a cable). It started with bug fixing and then they began pushing features.
Desktop OS had bug fixing for years, and they still do. However, you do not get features. In mobile, you do (for free).
Palm improved the process with over-the-air OS upgrades, similar to Android. No cable. It is like magic. Your phone transform itself. No need to click, download, plug. A few seconds later, the phone is new.
It will spread to desktop, simply because the OS are converging and the speed of the mobile market will take desktop with it. The iPad is the new desktop and it will have OS upgrades. So will Chrome.
Tomorrow, if Google and Apple get together, my Nexus One could really transform in an iPhone. A question will pop up, a click, and boom.
For now, the Nexus One is still far from the iPhone. Amazing technology, too many buttons. A geek phone built by geeks for geeks. Fantastic integration with Google stuff, in particular Google Voice, great camera, spectacular navigation. Still, too complicated to use, not intuitive, very hard to type on.
Pinch and zoom made it closer to the iPhone. One more software upgrade and it could pass it. It is not a dream, it is a possibility.
The mobile and desktop devices are becoming plain tablets, looking the same. What matters is the inside. And the inside changes while you are sleeping.
Get ready for a world of interchangeable devices.
Google (or T-Mobile, who knows and who cares) pushed down an OS upgrade. All of a sudden, the phone is capable of pinch and zoom, the feature that made the iPhone famous. It is a new phone.
I know we are used to this market moving fast, but let me stop for a second and reflect on what is happening. Three years ago, I was used to phones that would live with a bug for their entire life. No bug fixing. Never. You had a problem, too bad. Buy another phone.
Then came the iPhone. Apple introduced a new concept for mobile. OS upgrades via the Internet (and a cable). It started with bug fixing and then they began pushing features.
Desktop OS had bug fixing for years, and they still do. However, you do not get features. In mobile, you do (for free).
Palm improved the process with over-the-air OS upgrades, similar to Android. No cable. It is like magic. Your phone transform itself. No need to click, download, plug. A few seconds later, the phone is new.
It will spread to desktop, simply because the OS are converging and the speed of the mobile market will take desktop with it. The iPad is the new desktop and it will have OS upgrades. So will Chrome.
Tomorrow, if Google and Apple get together, my Nexus One could really transform in an iPhone. A question will pop up, a click, and boom.
For now, the Nexus One is still far from the iPhone. Amazing technology, too many buttons. A geek phone built by geeks for geeks. Fantastic integration with Google stuff, in particular Google Voice, great camera, spectacular navigation. Still, too complicated to use, not intuitive, very hard to type on.
Pinch and zoom made it closer to the iPhone. One more software upgrade and it could pass it. It is not a dream, it is a possibility.
The mobile and desktop devices are becoming plain tablets, looking the same. What matters is the inside. And the inside changes while you are sleeping.
Get ready for a world of interchangeable devices.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
iPad scorecard and some thoughts
The iPad is finally out. If I look at my predictions of six months ago, I think I scored pretty high. I should start investing in the stock market or play the lotto ;-)
Things I got right:
I thought "Kindle-killer" was the easiest one. Look at the New York Times demo they gave. Astonishing. The newspaper is so good looking, you want to throw away the paper for good. When they show the picture in the middle of the page becoming a video, you realize the Harry Potter newspaper is not far. This is the future of newspapers. The best of both worlds: a full page with articles, with the articles being alive.
Instead, they positioned it as "the best way to experience the web, email and photos". Books and newspapers are not mentioned in the tag line, not even video. Email is. Email??? Email???????? Email is dead, it is a relic in the enterprise. Social networks are the future of messaging. That is what kids do. Email is not a consumer feature anymore. The iPad is for consumers, right?
More: they talked about iWorks. Who do you think would work on a spreadsheet sitting on the couch? Anyone in the enterprise? Holding the device with one hand? Why? Why???
There is always a why. Steve Jobs knows the market better than anyone. Definitely better than me.
However, there have been times when I was right and he was wrong. When he positioned the web as the ultimate SDK for the iPhone, for example. I said "no way, developers won't go for it, not now, it is too early". He announced an SDK a few months later... A super U-turn. And the SDK is what made the iPhone the success it is. The App Store is what makes the difference today with other OSs. The super U-turn made the difference.
Or maybe he was not wrong. He knew it, but they were not ready with an SDK. He was just pretending there was no need because they could not deliver it.
What is clear is that he did not position the iPad against the Kindle. Probably because he believes that is just a niche. He positioned it against the netbooks. At the top of the netbooks price range, as Apple usually does.
Netbooks are not bought by you and me (unless you are a geek who needs two laptops). They are bought by people that have a desktop and need something to move around their data. Or that do not even have a desktop.
In that category:
The iPad is a new paradigm of human-computer interaction. The desktop is gone. The folders are gone. The documents live inside the app. The device transforms itself in the object it becomes. It is a non-object. It is what you want it to be. One touch on an icon, it is a calculator. No folders, no files, just numbers as if you were holding a calculator. One touch and it is a notepad. One touch and it is a picture frame. It is the future of computing.
The iPad is the replacement of the home desktop computer.
Look at your parents staring at a computer. They can't do double-click. They will never master it. They do not like the mouse. Look at how they never really understood the folder metaphor. They are scared in front of the machine. Clicking with panic. Always at a distance. No love. Just need.
Now give them an iPad. No panic. No fears. They will touch everything. It is so easy. So fast. With my fingers! And when I am wrong, just one click at the one button and it is back home. Safely. A pleasure to use.
The rest is left for us geeks. The concept of operating systems, folders, Unix, everything we learned. Forget IT Managers for the home, it is going away (now we'll need network managers :-)
Bottom line: whatever pundits say, the iPad is going to be the start of a revolution. I have a feeling it won't sell in large quantities, but it is going to fill a niche after another. Those that want interactive books in color, then gadget freaks, then kids, then moms, then grandparents. Year after year, Apple will improve the device and make sure all the niches will be served.
The iPad is the future of computing for the masses, as the iPhone has pushed the mobile computing model to what it is today. Thanks to the iPhone, 66% of phones sold by Verizon last quarter were smartphones (not even one iPhone). The iPhone showed the world what people could do with a small tablet with one button, connected to the mobile network outside the home. The iPad is going to do the same, inside your house.
Trust me, I am good at playing the lotto.
Things I got right:
- the name iPad. I had some doubts, but they actually picked the name I suspected in August. Too bad for the jokes, they might just add some color to its success (or lack thereof)
- built on the iPhone OS vs. Mac OS
- one button device
- price point "around $599, maybe even less". It starts at $499, which surprised many
- wi-fi and 3G, but with wi-fi more prevalent and 3G as an afterthought. Let's check back in a year and see how many bought the 3G models: I bet wi-fi will beat 3G by 80% vs. 20%
- lack of webcamera. I can't believe it. It prevents me to
give it to my mom, who is the perfect buyer for the device (but she can't live without videochat). I am so shocked that I think they will add it shortly (check the image on the right from the actual iPad, the address book app supports taking pictures...). Maybe even in the first release in March. A "one more thing" delayed joke - the holder on the portrait side. If this is a video device, I just do not understand why I can't watch videos when the device is charging. I don't get it. May I repeat it: I don't get it. Still, it would not be a good reason not to buy the device
I thought "Kindle-killer" was the easiest one. Look at the New York Times demo they gave. Astonishing. The newspaper is so good looking, you want to throw away the paper for good. When they show the picture in the middle of the page becoming a video, you realize the Harry Potter newspaper is not far. This is the future of newspapers. The best of both worlds: a full page with articles, with the articles being alive.
Instead, they positioned it as "the best way to experience the web, email and photos". Books and newspapers are not mentioned in the tag line, not even video. Email is. Email??? Email???????? Email is dead, it is a relic in the enterprise. Social networks are the future of messaging. That is what kids do. Email is not a consumer feature anymore. The iPad is for consumers, right?
More: they talked about iWorks. Who do you think would work on a spreadsheet sitting on the couch? Anyone in the enterprise? Holding the device with one hand? Why? Why???
There is always a why. Steve Jobs knows the market better than anyone. Definitely better than me.
However, there have been times when I was right and he was wrong. When he positioned the web as the ultimate SDK for the iPhone, for example. I said "no way, developers won't go for it, not now, it is too early". He announced an SDK a few months later... A super U-turn. And the SDK is what made the iPhone the success it is. The App Store is what makes the difference today with other OSs. The super U-turn made the difference.
Or maybe he was not wrong. He knew it, but they were not ready with an SDK. He was just pretending there was no need because they could not deliver it.
What is clear is that he did not position the iPad against the Kindle. Probably because he believes that is just a niche. He positioned it against the netbooks. At the top of the netbooks price range, as Apple usually does.
Netbooks are not bought by you and me (unless you are a geek who needs two laptops). They are bought by people that have a desktop and need something to move around their data. Or that do not even have a desktop.
In that category:
- my daughter (7 years old). She loves my iPhone. She will prefer an iPad over a netbook a million times. She is the perfect user for it. It does everything she likes (browsing, watching pictures, gaming). And she does not have to sit on a chair to use it, which kids rarely like
- my mom (more than 60 years old). She loves my iPhone. Same as above, only that she cares about browsing, watching pictures, email and video Skype. The lack of the camera kills it, but as I wrote above, it is going away in no-time.
- my wife (less than 40 years old). She has a laptop and she would not give it up (it is a Mac, btw). However, what she does on that device is browsing, email, social networks, pictures and music, plus video Skype. She also reads books and the New Yorker. She has only one spreadsheet, which would be easily managed by the iPad. She won't buy one, until her laptop breaks. But when it does, she will be ready. She even bought a thing recently to be able to use her laptop on the couch. If you have that thing around in the house, it means you are also ready for the iPad
The iPad is a new paradigm of human-computer interaction. The desktop is gone. The folders are gone. The documents live inside the app. The device transforms itself in the object it becomes. It is a non-object. It is what you want it to be. One touch on an icon, it is a calculator. No folders, no files, just numbers as if you were holding a calculator. One touch and it is a notepad. One touch and it is a picture frame. It is the future of computing.
The iPad is the replacement of the home desktop computer.
Look at your parents staring at a computer. They can't do double-click. They will never master it. They do not like the mouse. Look at how they never really understood the folder metaphor. They are scared in front of the machine. Clicking with panic. Always at a distance. No love. Just need.
Now give them an iPad. No panic. No fears. They will touch everything. It is so easy. So fast. With my fingers! And when I am wrong, just one click at the one button and it is back home. Safely. A pleasure to use.
The rest is left for us geeks. The concept of operating systems, folders, Unix, everything we learned. Forget IT Managers for the home, it is going away (now we'll need network managers :-)
Bottom line: whatever pundits say, the iPad is going to be the start of a revolution. I have a feeling it won't sell in large quantities, but it is going to fill a niche after another. Those that want interactive books in color, then gadget freaks, then kids, then moms, then grandparents. Year after year, Apple will improve the device and make sure all the niches will be served.
The iPad is the future of computing for the masses, as the iPhone has pushed the mobile computing model to what it is today. Thanks to the iPhone, 66% of phones sold by Verizon last quarter were smartphones (not even one iPhone). The iPhone showed the world what people could do with a small tablet with one button, connected to the mobile network outside the home. The iPad is going to do the same, inside your house.
Trust me, I am good at playing the lotto.
Monday, January 25, 2010
My final prediction on the Apple slate
In August, I wrote a post with some predictions on the Apple slate or tablet. Now that it is finally about to be unveiled (on Wednesday), I wanted to add a few final thoughts.
First of all, I still believe what I wrote on that post:
I feel they will position it as an add-on device, not as a laptop replacement. I am expecting 10" and a price point around $599, maybe even less. I just do not see how they can go to market with something at a $1,000 price, honestly. But I have been wrong before.
I think it will have a holder/charger as the iPhone, but on the wide side (because you want to watch something when it is on the charger: try to do it on an iPhone turning your head...).
I believe it will have both wi-fi and 3G. However, 3G will be available only to access iTunes. Therefore, you won't need a data plan. It will be free and the carriers will take a cut of the downloads (books, music, video, apps) and, therefore, they might even subsidize it. You will be able to sync video and stuff on the device when you have wi-fi coverage, so you will be able to watch it on the go. I just do not see how they can ask people to buy another data plan, even if it is added on an existing smartphone plan. I do not believe they will.
I am convinced they will announce Verizon as a partner, probably also selling the iPhone. The AT&T dumb-pipe-in-the-making process will be completed.
Lastly, I am not sure they will call it iPad as I originally thought. The idea of the retired Conan O'Brien joking about the max version of it (maxi-pad) has made me totally change perspective. iSlate sounds like a good name at this point...
Whatever they show, it is going to be the start of a new revolution. Yet another must-have device, one I will be in line to buy in March when it will be available.
And with all these predictions, I have a good probability to get one right :-)
First of all, I still believe what I wrote on that post:
- I still think it will mainly be an e-book reader, doubling as a video player, gaming machine, browsing tool and more. But the reason to buy it will be to read books, newspapers and magazines
- I still think it will have a camera for videochats (therefore, it will be on the front, not on the back)
- I still believe it will be built on the iPhone OS, vs. a full Mac OS X. Actually, I now believe it is going to be built on the iPhone OS 4, and they will unveil the new OS version on Wednesday for developers. While you port your iPhone app to OS 4, just make sure to take into consideration a bigger screen. That's it.
I feel they will position it as an add-on device, not as a laptop replacement. I am expecting 10" and a price point around $599, maybe even less. I just do not see how they can go to market with something at a $1,000 price, honestly. But I have been wrong before.
I think it will have a holder/charger as the iPhone, but on the wide side (because you want to watch something when it is on the charger: try to do it on an iPhone turning your head...).
I believe it will have both wi-fi and 3G. However, 3G will be available only to access iTunes. Therefore, you won't need a data plan. It will be free and the carriers will take a cut of the downloads (books, music, video, apps) and, therefore, they might even subsidize it. You will be able to sync video and stuff on the device when you have wi-fi coverage, so you will be able to watch it on the go. I just do not see how they can ask people to buy another data plan, even if it is added on an existing smartphone plan. I do not believe they will.
I am convinced they will announce Verizon as a partner, probably also selling the iPhone. The AT&T dumb-pipe-in-the-making process will be completed.
Lastly, I am not sure they will call it iPad as I originally thought. The idea of the retired Conan O'Brien joking about the max version of it (maxi-pad) has made me totally change perspective. iSlate sounds like a good name at this point...
Whatever they show, it is going to be the start of a new revolution. Yet another must-have device, one I will be in line to buy in March when it will be available.
And with all these predictions, I have a good probability to get one right :-)
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Chumby and the Internet of Things
While everyone is talking about cloud computing (including me, because mobile cloud services is going to be one of the main topic of 2010), another phenomenon is becoming more visible, every day. We are about to enter the Internet of Things era.
Every device out there will get an IP address. And it will be able to dialog with the rest of the world.
When I say device, I mean everything. From a refrigerator, to a camera, to an alarm clock, to a light bulb, to a car, to a garage door and so on.
I have heard about this concept from my friends at WideTag, a company I have been advising for a while (they have only one problem: they are too smart). They have built an open protocol (OpenSpime) to allow devices to communicate among themselves. You need something specialized to scale to trillions of devices...
It appears simple at the first look (why is it different from having a bunch of computer connected to the net?). However, it is going to change our life dramatically.
Having everything connected is a bliss. I bought a Chumby last week. It is an alarm clock. With a touchscreen and wi-fi connectivity. Built on open source (you can easily get root access in the Linux box), with a thriving community of developers building widgets for it. Therefore, it doubles as an Internet radio, an online picture frame, a weather station, it plays your Google Voice messages and a lot more.
I started developing a widget to show pictures from our Funambol server. So that you can take a picture on your phone and it shows up on your Chumby (or your mom's Chumby), without pressing a button. I wrote it in ActionScript 2, because the widget are based on Flash. With FlashDevelop and some example code, it took me no more than an hour...
Boom, I have pictures rolling on my Chumby. Data synchronized across the world. I take a picture on my phone in Europe, it gets automatically synced on the cloud, and it shows up on the other side of the world in my kitchen.
I brought the device home to do some more development (I want to put my Funambol calendar on it, so I can wake up and see what I have to do that day, just to ruin it right away ;-) and I left it on the counter in the kitchen.
In ten minutes, my daughter was playing with it. She found the widget for the Artillery game and she took over... Once she was done, my wife looked at it. She briefly mentioned it was an ugly device but she got over it quickly. The EDIS feed (Emergency Digital Information Services) shows alerts for bad weather in California. Since it is raining outside, she got hooked. Couple it with the weather forecast, her email, some classical music in the background and I got a "can you make it a gift for me for last Christmas?". Yep, she really liked her Christmas gift, so much that she wants to exchange it for a Chumby...
I was at CES in Vegas a few weeks back. They were showing microwaves with Android, refrigerators with Android, weight scale with Android. All devices interconnected, talking one to another. All syncing data among themselves (yep, I have a feeling Funambol will play a role in the Internet of Things era ;-)
It is going to be an amazing world. The only issue will be dodging so much information and unplug, just to read a book. Oopss, wait, we'll do it on an e-book reader... Get ready, if this was a world of billion of mobile phones, in ten years we will have a trillion. Now you just need a community of people to join together to make it actually work.
Every device out there will get an IP address. And it will be able to dialog with the rest of the world.
When I say device, I mean everything. From a refrigerator, to a camera, to an alarm clock, to a light bulb, to a car, to a garage door and so on.
I have heard about this concept from my friends at WideTag, a company I have been advising for a while (they have only one problem: they are too smart). They have built an open protocol (OpenSpime) to allow devices to communicate among themselves. You need something specialized to scale to trillions of devices...
It appears simple at the first look (why is it different from having a bunch of computer connected to the net?). However, it is going to change our life dramatically.
Having everything connected is a bliss. I bought a Chumby last week. It is an alarm clock. With a touchscreen and wi-fi connectivity. Built on open source (you can easily get root access in the Linux box), with a thriving community of developers building widgets for it. Therefore, it doubles as an Internet radio, an online picture frame, a weather station, it plays your Google Voice messages and a lot more.
I started developing a widget to show pictures from our Funambol server. So that you can take a picture on your phone and it shows up on your Chumby (or your mom's Chumby), without pressing a button. I wrote it in ActionScript 2, because the widget are based on Flash. With FlashDevelop and some example code, it took me no more than an hour...
Boom, I have pictures rolling on my Chumby. Data synchronized across the world. I take a picture on my phone in Europe, it gets automatically synced on the cloud, and it shows up on the other side of the world in my kitchen.
I brought the device home to do some more development (I want to put my Funambol calendar on it, so I can wake up and see what I have to do that day, just to ruin it right away ;-) and I left it on the counter in the kitchen.
In ten minutes, my daughter was playing with it. She found the widget for the Artillery game and she took over... Once she was done, my wife looked at it. She briefly mentioned it was an ugly device but she got over it quickly. The EDIS feed (Emergency Digital Information Services) shows alerts for bad weather in California. Since it is raining outside, she got hooked. Couple it with the weather forecast, her email, some classical music in the background and I got a "can you make it a gift for me for last Christmas?". Yep, she really liked her Christmas gift, so much that she wants to exchange it for a Chumby...
I was at CES in Vegas a few weeks back. They were showing microwaves with Android, refrigerators with Android, weight scale with Android. All devices interconnected, talking one to another. All syncing data among themselves (yep, I have a feeling Funambol will play a role in the Internet of Things era ;-)
It is going to be an amazing world. The only issue will be dodging so much information and unplug, just to read a book. Oopss, wait, we'll do it on an e-book reader... Get ready, if this was a world of billion of mobile phones, in ten years we will have a trillion. Now you just need a community of people to join together to make it actually work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)