When Verizon launched the Droid, I was a bit puzzled. They came up with a brand name for a phone, which was built by Motorola. And picked a brand from the past, for which they have to pay royalties to George Lucas...
Today, I see the genius in that campaign. They are now launching more Droids, built by different device manufacturers (from HTC, for example). Reading this article, it even seems that - in the US - consumers know what Droid is, but have no idea what Android is... Part of the success of the brand is actually that it existed in the past, and it is linked to a geek phenomenon (one I will never understand, I might be the only geek in world who does not like sci-fi). I am not sure they would have been so successful, had they invented a new brand.
Why is it genius? Because the carriers are progressively being made irrelevant by device manufacturers. You buy an iPhone, not a phone from AT&T (actually, you even wish you could have it on a different carrier...). You buy a BlackBerry. You buy a Windows Mobile (really, are you sure?). You do not buy anything which is carrier specific.
Instead, now you want a Droid. A device from Verizon. Actually, not one device, a set of devices. By different manufacturers, which disappear in the marketing campaign. Yes, there is Motorola somewhere on the billboard, and also Google. But it is The Verizon Phone. The Droid.
There are a lot of Android phones, and some are way better than the original Droid. But the number of Droids sold is unbelievable. If Android is where it is, it is because of Verizon and the Droid (and the need for an answer to the iPhone, and the AT&T network sucking). The marketing campaign was an outstanding success. A carrier making the device manufacturer irrelevant.
Bottom line: the carriers have tried in the past to remove the manufacturers from the equation and have failed. The brands that count today are the device ones. With the Droid, Verizon has been able to turn the table around.
Apple would call this move "magical". Or "genius". I agree.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
MeeGo? It could actually make it
In my last post, where I was commenting about Microsoft and their sequence of failures on mobile, I wrote:
Well, if you look at the list above, MeeGo passes #1 and #2 right away.
I have installed MeeGo on a laptop and the OS is really cool (including the pre-installed option to sync with Funambol just above Google ;-) Therefore, they pass #3 as well.
Does it mean they are going to make it?
There is more to an OS to be successful. You need device manufacturers, developers and users. You need all of them to be there. Users bring developers, developers bring users, device manufacturers come if there is traction: if they know there are developers and there will be users.
Who brings the device manufacturers? Intel. They are pushing MeeGo like crazy.
Who brings the users? Nokia. They have a brand in mobile that is not going to disappear that fast (despite what people say). If Nokia has a sexy phone with MeeGo, users will buy it.
Who brings the developers? The Linux Foundation. They are a trusted party in open source. The fact MeeGo is the equivalent of the root of Linux is a big factor.
If you consider all this, you can see a positive spiral developing. With device manufacturers launching MeeGo products because of Intel. With users jumping in because of Nokia. And developers joining in, seeing the traction plus the Linux Foundation stamp.
Yep, I think MeeGo can actually make it.
if you want other companies to manufacture devices with your OS (the Windows mobile vs. the Apple model) today you need:Someone in the comments asked me: "what about MeeGo?"
- to charge zero dollars for your OS
- to make your OS open source and allow your ODMs some freedom to differentiate
- to have a cool OS
Well, if you look at the list above, MeeGo passes #1 and #2 right away.
I have installed MeeGo on a laptop and the OS is really cool (including the pre-installed option to sync with Funambol just above Google ;-) Therefore, they pass #3 as well.
Does it mean they are going to make it?
There is more to an OS to be successful. You need device manufacturers, developers and users. You need all of them to be there. Users bring developers, developers bring users, device manufacturers come if there is traction: if they know there are developers and there will be users.
Who brings the device manufacturers? Intel. They are pushing MeeGo like crazy.
Who brings the users? Nokia. They have a brand in mobile that is not going to disappear that fast (despite what people say). If Nokia has a sexy phone with MeeGo, users will buy it.
Who brings the developers? The Linux Foundation. They are a trusted party in open source. The fact MeeGo is the equivalent of the root of Linux is a big factor.
If you consider all this, you can see a positive spiral developing. With device manufacturers launching MeeGo products because of Intel. With users jumping in because of Nokia. And developers joining in, seeing the traction plus the Linux Foundation stamp.
Yep, I think MeeGo can actually make it.
Monday, July 05, 2010
Microsoft: a mobile story
When I started Funambol, Microsoft was the dominant force in IT. I was early, as usual, and everyone told me: "Wait until Microsoft gets in. They will wipe out this market as they have done with every other market". I had my doubts, the big one linked to open source in mobile. I was convinced it was the only way to go, and - if that was going to happen - Microsoft in mobile would be screwed.
Fast forward to today. Microsoft launched the Kin devices and killed them after 48 days. A world record. An astonishing acceptance of failure. Nonetheless, a huge failure.
Yeah, yeah, I hear you saying that the reason is Verizon charging too much for the data plan. I agree. I put it in writing the day they launched the Kin: "it is not going to make it, the data plan is too expensive. If you are targeting rich kids, they will get an iPhone instead". I was right. You were right. However, there is more.
It has to do with Microsoft and their story in mobile. Let's compare them with Google.
Google bought a potentially great company called Android in 2005 (for little money, I believe). The founder, Andy Rubin, was previously a founder and CEO of Danger. Google turned Android to open source and they are the fastest growing OS in mobile, a force to be reckon with. And not only on mobile devices, we are talking connected devices here, the future of information technology (tablets, pads, cars, TVs, alarm clocks, picture frames, microwaves...). They have a chance to dominate this space, one Apple will never be able to conquer (although they will still make a ton of money with their vertical solutions).
Microsoft bought a great company called Danger in 2008 for $500M (ehm, yes, the same company). A company that had a very good product in the Sidekick and demonstrated its success. They were early in the market but had a very loyal fan base. A little jewel of a company, full of smart people. It led to the Kin... No changes, no open source, same old Microsoft story. The Kin is now dead, making the entire investment worth zero (they are folding the former Danger into Windows Mobile -> good luck with that ;-)
See the difference? Yep, me too.
It is not all open source, obviously. There is more to that. But I am convinced of a couple of things: if you want other companies to manufacture devices with your OS (the Windows mobile vs. the Apple model) today you need:
Bottom line: if you keep hitting your head against the wall, maybe you will understand it just hurts, eventually. I do not think the Kin failure is hurting them enough. I do not think the Windows Mobile 1-6 hurt them enough. I guess we will need the Windows Mobile 7 failure to convince them. But the risk is that it will be too late.
Fast forward to today. Microsoft launched the Kin devices and killed them after 48 days. A world record. An astonishing acceptance of failure. Nonetheless, a huge failure.
Yeah, yeah, I hear you saying that the reason is Verizon charging too much for the data plan. I agree. I put it in writing the day they launched the Kin: "it is not going to make it, the data plan is too expensive. If you are targeting rich kids, they will get an iPhone instead". I was right. You were right. However, there is more.
It has to do with Microsoft and their story in mobile. Let's compare them with Google.
Google bought a potentially great company called Android in 2005 (for little money, I believe). The founder, Andy Rubin, was previously a founder and CEO of Danger. Google turned Android to open source and they are the fastest growing OS in mobile, a force to be reckon with. And not only on mobile devices, we are talking connected devices here, the future of information technology (tablets, pads, cars, TVs, alarm clocks, picture frames, microwaves...). They have a chance to dominate this space, one Apple will never be able to conquer (although they will still make a ton of money with their vertical solutions).
Microsoft bought a great company called Danger in 2008 for $500M (ehm, yes, the same company). A company that had a very good product in the Sidekick and demonstrated its success. They were early in the market but had a very loyal fan base. A little jewel of a company, full of smart people. It led to the Kin... No changes, no open source, same old Microsoft story. The Kin is now dead, making the entire investment worth zero (they are folding the former Danger into Windows Mobile -> good luck with that ;-)
See the difference? Yep, me too.
It is not all open source, obviously. There is more to that. But I am convinced of a couple of things: if you want other companies to manufacture devices with your OS (the Windows mobile vs. the Apple model) today you need:
- to charge zero dollars for your OS
- to make your OS open source and allow your ODMs some freedom to differentiate
- to have a cool OS
Bottom line: if you keep hitting your head against the wall, maybe you will understand it just hurts, eventually. I do not think the Kin failure is hurting them enough. I do not think the Windows Mobile 1-6 hurt them enough. I guess we will need the Windows Mobile 7 failure to convince them. But the risk is that it will be too late.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Why I believe the iPhone Verizon story
In a Morgan Keegan report I read today, they claim they have counted 312 stories about the iPhone coming to Verizon along the years. It is true, every other week someone is saying the iPhone is coming to Verizon. And it never has.
This time, though, I think it is really going to happen. And in Q1 2011, as reported recently.
There are many reasons for it.
First, Apple is seeing the fruits of supporting multiple carriers in the same country. They started doing it in Italy, for the first time (see, the BelPaese is still #1 in mobile, apparently ;-) where both Vodafone and Telecom Italia offered the iPhone. Then it moved to other countries. In all cases, having multiple carriers increased Apple sales. It makes sense for Apple to pursue the same strategy in the US as well.
Second, the AT&T network sucks. As much as they are trying to make it better, it still sucks. In particular, if you live in the Bay Area, LA, NY. Just where everyone that has an iPhone wants to live :-) Verizon has a much better network and they will sell a lot more iPhones just for it. Even current iPhone AT&T users will switch, believe me: the consumer allegiance is with Apple, not with the carrier. Apple made AT&T a pipe (warning to the rest of the pack, make sure you avoid pipefication… there are tools out there that allow you to fight).
Third, Apple really wants to bring the fight to Android. If there is a mistake they made, it was not launching the iPhone at Verizon, therefore forcing Verizon to find a hero phone they could launch against the iPhone. They picked the Droid (it could have been Palm…) and now Android is big and challenging iOS big time. I think a piece of it was due to CDMA vs. GSM, and the need to manufacture a single different phone just for the US. Apple just thought it was not worth the effort (and needed a big push from AT&T at launch). They probably miscalculated it a bit. But once the iPhone is at Verizon, Apple expects to crush the Droid (although I am not that sure it will really happen). Definitely, it is going to be the battle to watch.
Lastly, AT&T is preparing a big hero phone launch for the BlackBerry 9600 this fall. They already have a hero phone… They would not need to push the new BlackBerry, unless they knew the were losing their hero phone in a quarter.
That said, expect the iPhone at Verizon in Q1 2011.
This time, though, I think it is really going to happen. And in Q1 2011, as reported recently.
There are many reasons for it.
First, Apple is seeing the fruits of supporting multiple carriers in the same country. They started doing it in Italy, for the first time (see, the BelPaese is still #1 in mobile, apparently ;-) where both Vodafone and Telecom Italia offered the iPhone. Then it moved to other countries. In all cases, having multiple carriers increased Apple sales. It makes sense for Apple to pursue the same strategy in the US as well.
Second, the AT&T network sucks. As much as they are trying to make it better, it still sucks. In particular, if you live in the Bay Area, LA, NY. Just where everyone that has an iPhone wants to live :-) Verizon has a much better network and they will sell a lot more iPhones just for it. Even current iPhone AT&T users will switch, believe me: the consumer allegiance is with Apple, not with the carrier. Apple made AT&T a pipe (warning to the rest of the pack, make sure you avoid pipefication… there are tools out there that allow you to fight).
Third, Apple really wants to bring the fight to Android. If there is a mistake they made, it was not launching the iPhone at Verizon, therefore forcing Verizon to find a hero phone they could launch against the iPhone. They picked the Droid (it could have been Palm…) and now Android is big and challenging iOS big time. I think a piece of it was due to CDMA vs. GSM, and the need to manufacture a single different phone just for the US. Apple just thought it was not worth the effort (and needed a big push from AT&T at launch). They probably miscalculated it a bit. But once the iPhone is at Verizon, Apple expects to crush the Droid (although I am not that sure it will really happen). Definitely, it is going to be the battle to watch.
Lastly, AT&T is preparing a big hero phone launch for the BlackBerry 9600 this fall. They already have a hero phone… They would not need to push the new BlackBerry, unless they knew the were losing their hero phone in a quarter.
That said, expect the iPhone at Verizon in Q1 2011.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The future of RIM
These are tough days for RIM. The maker of BlackBerry reported slightly disappointing numbers and the next day the stock went down 10%. As if they were about to disappear, mirroring what happened to Palm. When they are actually doing quite well…
The market is worried about iPhone and Android. If you ask people with an iPhone or Android which phone will they buy next, they will tell you "the same device". We are talking 90% of people. The ones in line to buy an iPhone 4 were almost all old iPhone users, loyal to their device. It is not the same for a BlackBerry: if you ask their owners, they majority will tell you they are ready to switch to an iPhone or an Android.
There are good reasons to be worried. But I am still optimistic.
Sure, BlackBerry is losing ground in the US. But it is gaining it very fast in the rest of the world. Earlier, all pundits were hammering RIM for being too reliant on Verizon. Now that they are growing elsewhere, they are hammering RIM because they are losing ground at Verizon (to the Droids, I believe). Doh...
BlackBerries are perceived as the best messaging devices. Period.
However, there is way more than messaging in the Mobile Internet. There are apps, maps, search, and more. Most of all, the devices are becoming an extension of your entire life, one that starts at home and moves with you to work.
Here, RIM is behind. Way behind.
Messaging is still big, do not get me wrong. Email in the enterprise, and social networks for consumers. BlackBerry Messaging is a huge success, one that RIM should push a lot more.
However, the rest is where RIM needs to catch up. Consumers want to have a social address book, take pictures and see them on their computer later (and push them to Facebook or Flickr or Picasa), import Google calendar and share it with friends, and so on. Messaging is a piece of the puzzle, PIM is the second, rich media the third. If you rule on #1 and you are nobody in #2 and #3, you are toast in this market. Believe me, this is a market I know very well.
Most people focus on the lack of a BlackBerry with a decent touchscreen being the main issue. I disagree. It is an issue. A big one (if you check my first reaction on the BB Storm, you know how badly I thought of it). But the apps, the PIM + rich media services integrated with the cloud are where they are losing mind share. Not only with consumers, also with developers (and they are key now, remember?).
Will BB OS 6 solve all this? I hope so. It has to come with a decent device, nothing special (do not tell me the iPhone 4 looks special, the look of the device is now secondary), with some pizazz and - most of all - an integrated consumer experience on PIM and rich media. That means cutting the cord with the PC (BlackBerry Desktop should be taught in usability classes as the example of what to avoid at all cost...), creating a cloud service that seamlessly syncs all your data among your devices, plus a web view of your data. Something like MobileMe, MOTOBLUR, Nokia Ovi, Google everything. Possibly better.
The problem with RIM is also perception: most of the people believe they only sell to the enterprise. Wrong. 70% of their devices are now bought by consumers, using BIS (BlackBerry Internet Service) instead of BES (BlackBerry Enterprise Server). BIS gives you nothing, only messaging. Sometimes, even that is bad, like the Gmail integration: I am seeing in my Gmail Inbox on my BB all my Buzz messages (the one I send out)… Beside that, no PIM sync, no rich media. Nada.
Changing the perception of the world means having a cool looking device (consumerish, not enterprisish), attached to a cool cloud service. Something people can see, something RIM can market on TV, something that says WOW that's cool. That goes through PIM and rich media support, all in the cloud.
Cool. That is what RIM is missing. They need it badly, or the stock will keep diving (perception is everything in this world, sadly).
The market is worried about iPhone and Android. If you ask people with an iPhone or Android which phone will they buy next, they will tell you "the same device". We are talking 90% of people. The ones in line to buy an iPhone 4 were almost all old iPhone users, loyal to their device. It is not the same for a BlackBerry: if you ask their owners, they majority will tell you they are ready to switch to an iPhone or an Android.
There are good reasons to be worried. But I am still optimistic.
Sure, BlackBerry is losing ground in the US. But it is gaining it very fast in the rest of the world. Earlier, all pundits were hammering RIM for being too reliant on Verizon. Now that they are growing elsewhere, they are hammering RIM because they are losing ground at Verizon (to the Droids, I believe). Doh...
BlackBerries are perceived as the best messaging devices. Period.
However, there is way more than messaging in the Mobile Internet. There are apps, maps, search, and more. Most of all, the devices are becoming an extension of your entire life, one that starts at home and moves with you to work.
Here, RIM is behind. Way behind.
Messaging is still big, do not get me wrong. Email in the enterprise, and social networks for consumers. BlackBerry Messaging is a huge success, one that RIM should push a lot more.
However, the rest is where RIM needs to catch up. Consumers want to have a social address book, take pictures and see them on their computer later (and push them to Facebook or Flickr or Picasa), import Google calendar and share it with friends, and so on. Messaging is a piece of the puzzle, PIM is the second, rich media the third. If you rule on #1 and you are nobody in #2 and #3, you are toast in this market. Believe me, this is a market I know very well.
Most people focus on the lack of a BlackBerry with a decent touchscreen being the main issue. I disagree. It is an issue. A big one (if you check my first reaction on the BB Storm, you know how badly I thought of it). But the apps, the PIM + rich media services integrated with the cloud are where they are losing mind share. Not only with consumers, also with developers (and they are key now, remember?).
Will BB OS 6 solve all this? I hope so. It has to come with a decent device, nothing special (do not tell me the iPhone 4 looks special, the look of the device is now secondary), with some pizazz and - most of all - an integrated consumer experience on PIM and rich media. That means cutting the cord with the PC (BlackBerry Desktop should be taught in usability classes as the example of what to avoid at all cost...), creating a cloud service that seamlessly syncs all your data among your devices, plus a web view of your data. Something like MobileMe, MOTOBLUR, Nokia Ovi, Google everything. Possibly better.
The problem with RIM is also perception: most of the people believe they only sell to the enterprise. Wrong. 70% of their devices are now bought by consumers, using BIS (BlackBerry Internet Service) instead of BES (BlackBerry Enterprise Server). BIS gives you nothing, only messaging. Sometimes, even that is bad, like the Gmail integration: I am seeing in my Gmail Inbox on my BB all my Buzz messages (the one I send out)… Beside that, no PIM sync, no rich media. Nada.
Changing the perception of the world means having a cool looking device (consumerish, not enterprisish), attached to a cool cloud service. Something people can see, something RIM can market on TV, something that says WOW that's cool. That goes through PIM and rich media support, all in the cloud.
Cool. That is what RIM is missing. They need it badly, or the stock will keep diving (perception is everything in this world, sadly).
Monday, June 07, 2010
Apple FaceTime and Big Brother
I watched the Apple keynote today, including the hilarious moment where the demo collapsed, working on the old iPhone but not on the new one (see, it happened to Google and then to Apple, they are in a fight!).
The main announcement was pretty obvious: a video chat application called FaceTime (BTW, I got 100% of my sure and likely predictions, zero surprises). I believe I was still in Italy when 3 launched their videophone, and I have moved to Silicon Valley eleven years ago... Can't say it is magical or innovative, in particular because it works only on wi-fi (the 3 videophone worked on the cellular network...), although the two cameras support looks cool. And their video is a gem of marketing (despite having a hard time believing the room where I saw my daughter on the ultrasound machine had wi-fi :-)).
What is new about FaceTime?
Simple: there is no friends list. None.
You look at your address book and boom, all your friends who own an iPhone 4 have the videochat feature automatically enabled. No need to log in, no need to see a list of your friends. Easy (see bye bye to Skype).
How do they do it? Well, you can only guess. Let me try (hoping to be wrong and that there is a lot more opt-in to do). NOTE: I added the mapping on the email address, because I now think it is actually what they are going to do, since they already have that information in their servers via iTunes (it is your login).
They have you connected to their servers all the time, because of push (at least). They suck out your cellphone number (or email) and put it in their server, mapping it to your current IP (did I give Apple permission to suck out my cellphone/email number??). They look into your address book and find everyone you have in there which has a cellphone/email they have in their list (mmmhhh, did I give Apple permission to map my phone number/email into your address book??). When you click for a FaceTime, they open a peer-to-peer connection from your phone to their phone over IP (wi-fi only for now).
If this is the case, it is borderline. Actually, a bit bigbrotherish. Apple collecting all cellphone numbers/email of all iPhone users (which they already do for email, since it is your login name on iTunes). Mapping them at will on your address book... I guess if this works for Apple, it is going to work for Google as well (they can do exactly the same thing on Android).
Big Brother at work. Are you willing to trade some privacy over features? Probably yes: just a small percentage of the population is scared about it.
Still, open source and open cloud look a lot safer to me.
The main announcement was pretty obvious: a video chat application called FaceTime (BTW, I got 100% of my sure and likely predictions, zero surprises). I believe I was still in Italy when 3 launched their videophone, and I have moved to Silicon Valley eleven years ago... Can't say it is magical or innovative, in particular because it works only on wi-fi (the 3 videophone worked on the cellular network...), although the two cameras support looks cool. And their video is a gem of marketing (despite having a hard time believing the room where I saw my daughter on the ultrasound machine had wi-fi :-)).
What is new about FaceTime?
Simple: there is no friends list. None.
You look at your address book and boom, all your friends who own an iPhone 4 have the videochat feature automatically enabled. No need to log in, no need to see a list of your friends. Easy (see bye bye to Skype).
How do they do it? Well, you can only guess. Let me try (hoping to be wrong and that there is a lot more opt-in to do). NOTE: I added the mapping on the email address, because I now think it is actually what they are going to do, since they already have that information in their servers via iTunes (it is your login).
They have you connected to their servers all the time, because of push (at least). They suck out your cellphone number (or email) and put it in their server, mapping it to your current IP (did I give Apple permission to suck out my cellphone/email number??). They look into your address book and find everyone you have in there which has a cellphone/email they have in their list (mmmhhh, did I give Apple permission to map my phone number/email into your address book??). When you click for a FaceTime, they open a peer-to-peer connection from your phone to their phone over IP (wi-fi only for now).
If this is the case, it is borderline. Actually, a bit bigbrotherish. Apple collecting all cellphone numbers/email of all iPhone users (which they already do for email, since it is your login name on iTunes). Mapping them at will on your address book... I guess if this works for Apple, it is going to work for Google as well (they can do exactly the same thing on Android).
Big Brother at work. Are you willing to trade some privacy over features? Probably yes: just a small percentage of the population is scared about it.
Still, open source and open cloud look a lot safer to me.
Friday, June 04, 2010
My predictions for Apple WWDC 2010
It is that time of the year, when I feel compelled to predict what Steve Jobs will announce on stage (Monday at 10 am). I have a pretty decent batting average, so far.
One thing for sure: the new iPhone. I believe it is going to look pretty much like the device found in a beer garden near to our office, with a camera in the front (although it would be time for Apple to start introducing new colors, as they did for the iPod). I am not expecting many surprises on the HW or basic SW front (it will all about services and the cloud). Actually, I believe the reason why the iPad does not have a camera is just to have something interesting and new on the iPhone 4 hardware. Without it, I do not think you would be able to pick one single reason to buy the new iPhone... Anyway, with the front camera comes a new video chat application, and - I believe - some other video related apps (about time ;-)
Likely: some new and cool ads, linked to the iAds story. And tools for developers to build applications generating ads dollars (it is a developer conference, after all). Apple going after the only revenue generator for Google (which is big news, in my opinion. Great battle ahead). Also, the search bar adding Bing (but not removing Google).
Possible: a complete new mobile cloud sync story. Something that starts with MobileMe being freemium, to a music service tight to your device, to a direct cloud integration into Apple TV (with streaming). In a way, I have a feeling Apple might finally decide that iTunes on your PC won't be the center of your life anymore. I do not think Jobs believes in the PC being the hub, as he did in the past (while Microsoft still believes in it...). He is moving into the world of connected devices. Devices that are synced to the cloud directly. That means moving iTunes in the cloud, and finally cut the damn cord that attaches all your devices to your PC. It is time. It all started with HotSync on Palm and it is all moving to the cloud. Cut the cord, Steve!! (yep, I am writing it with a smile on my face).
Unlikely (but still possible): the iPad for Verizon. Also, some new Apple apps on the iPhone. In particular, I am expecting them to be working on removing their ties to Google, such as Maps and YouTube. But I am not sure if they are ready yet.
Very unlikely: the iPhone for Verizon.
That's it, let's see if there is a surprise somewhere ;-)
One thing for sure: the new iPhone. I believe it is going to look pretty much like the device found in a beer garden near to our office, with a camera in the front (although it would be time for Apple to start introducing new colors, as they did for the iPod). I am not expecting many surprises on the HW or basic SW front (it will all about services and the cloud). Actually, I believe the reason why the iPad does not have a camera is just to have something interesting and new on the iPhone 4 hardware. Without it, I do not think you would be able to pick one single reason to buy the new iPhone... Anyway, with the front camera comes a new video chat application, and - I believe - some other video related apps (about time ;-)
Likely: some new and cool ads, linked to the iAds story. And tools for developers to build applications generating ads dollars (it is a developer conference, after all). Apple going after the only revenue generator for Google (which is big news, in my opinion. Great battle ahead). Also, the search bar adding Bing (but not removing Google).
Possible: a complete new mobile cloud sync story. Something that starts with MobileMe being freemium, to a music service tight to your device, to a direct cloud integration into Apple TV (with streaming). In a way, I have a feeling Apple might finally decide that iTunes on your PC won't be the center of your life anymore. I do not think Jobs believes in the PC being the hub, as he did in the past (while Microsoft still believes in it...). He is moving into the world of connected devices. Devices that are synced to the cloud directly. That means moving iTunes in the cloud, and finally cut the damn cord that attaches all your devices to your PC. It is time. It all started with HotSync on Palm and it is all moving to the cloud. Cut the cord, Steve!! (yep, I am writing it with a smile on my face).
Unlikely (but still possible): the iPad for Verizon. Also, some new Apple apps on the iPhone. In particular, I am expecting them to be working on removing their ties to Google, such as Maps and YouTube. But I am not sure if they are ready yet.
Very unlikely: the iPhone for Verizon.
That's it, let's see if there is a surprise somewhere ;-)
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Versatility is not the panacea
Today I bumped into a video showing the new Dell Streak, or as Dell calls it "the versatile 5-inch Android tablet".
I am very sorry for the Dell employee in the video. I am sure it is not his fault. But I had a hard time not laughing when he put the brick close to his ears to take a phone call. I mean, that thing is HUGE...
Some days, I find myself wondering if all these years of mobile device sales have not taught us anything. Look around you, look at the devices that sell well. They all make you look cool. Anything portable is a fashion item, something that walks with you, that tells everyone around you something about you. You are cool because you have an iPhone. Because you have an iPad. Because you have a Nexus One (kinda cool, with a vibe of geek). Or the Droid (and you wear all black). And so on.
You can't tell me you would not laugh at a guy holding a 5-inch versatile Android tablet close to his ear. Even someone trying to do it with an iPad would make me laugh. probably hard.
Who in the world would do it?
This is the problem with versatile. You can do everything. Like a swiss knife. You have a 5 inch tablet and you can use it to chop vegetables (I saw Stephen Colbert do it with the iPad, it works). Or play ping pong. Or even make a call.
Guess what? It does not make sense.
The race for the perfect device is on. You have a full spectrum of sizes, from the dumbphone to the full tablet. Every size can have its perfect uses and eat some of the ones above and below. With a smartphone, you want to talk. You might want to watch a movie, but it is going to look better with a device slightly bigger. To read a book, you want a book-size device (not 5 inches, more). To listen to music, who cares, a pen would do it. If you have to type a large document, you better have a keyboard. To browse, something in the middle is ok, and maybe you can compromise and do it on a smartphone, in an emergency. And so on, and so on.
However, just do not try to push it too hard. Versatile is just the wrong goal. Doing more with a device I do not even need is a bad idea. A tablet I can use to make calls? Why? Stick to Skype and video chats, do not give me a phone number on a device which is not made to call.
You know, I want to look cool...
I am very sorry for the Dell employee in the video. I am sure it is not his fault. But I had a hard time not laughing when he put the brick close to his ears to take a phone call. I mean, that thing is HUGE...
Some days, I find myself wondering if all these years of mobile device sales have not taught us anything. Look around you, look at the devices that sell well. They all make you look cool. Anything portable is a fashion item, something that walks with you, that tells everyone around you something about you. You are cool because you have an iPhone. Because you have an iPad. Because you have a Nexus One (kinda cool, with a vibe of geek). Or the Droid (and you wear all black). And so on.
You can't tell me you would not laugh at a guy holding a 5-inch versatile Android tablet close to his ear. Even someone trying to do it with an iPad would make me laugh. probably hard.
Who in the world would do it?
This is the problem with versatile. You can do everything. Like a swiss knife. You have a 5 inch tablet and you can use it to chop vegetables (I saw Stephen Colbert do it with the iPad, it works). Or play ping pong. Or even make a call.
Guess what? It does not make sense.
The race for the perfect device is on. You have a full spectrum of sizes, from the dumbphone to the full tablet. Every size can have its perfect uses and eat some of the ones above and below. With a smartphone, you want to talk. You might want to watch a movie, but it is going to look better with a device slightly bigger. To read a book, you want a book-size device (not 5 inches, more). To listen to music, who cares, a pen would do it. If you have to type a large document, you better have a keyboard. To browse, something in the middle is ok, and maybe you can compromise and do it on a smartphone, in an emergency. And so on, and so on.
However, just do not try to push it too hard. Versatile is just the wrong goal. Doing more with a device I do not even need is a bad idea. A tablet I can use to make calls? Why? Stick to Skype and video chats, do not give me a phone number on a device which is not made to call.
You know, I want to look cool...
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Apple MobileMe will be free(mium)
I wrote about freemium at the beginning of the year. Quoting myself (very bad thing to do, I know):
Google itself has been pushing its cloud even more. They made it a bit too tightly coupled with Android, in my opinion, but I can understand why they are going that way. They are going for an open platform with open source, but tightly coupled with a cloud service. In a way, it is an horizontal-vertical play, if there is such a thing. Go horizontal and open source on the device (a step forward from the Microsoft model), but vertical on the cloud integration (a step forward from the Apple model).
It seems to work. You have a lively community of developers, but most of the Android phones come pre-bundled with the Google cloud services. You get your address book, your calendar, your pictures automagically synced on the Google cloud. It is sticky. It is easy to use (so much that it is transparent). And it is freemium (2GB of storage are free, then you start to pay). What not to love?
What about Apple? Well, they chose a different route. They chose to charge you $99 per year for the MobileMe service. I hear it is going reasonably well, but nothing to be bragging about (in fact, they never brag about it on stage, and that is a sign for things that do not work too well at Apple). They had technical issues at the beginning, but I do not think that is the problem.
The issue is the $99/year.
People want sync, they want to backup their data to get them back in case they lose their phone, but they are not going to pay for it right away (I still believe you can charge upfront in the enterprise, but consumers are only for freemium today). Same for picture sync (Flickr) or networking (LinkedIn) or many other freemium models. Get them hooked and they will pay, eventually. They will recognize the value. Maybe not 100%, but a good percentage. Enough to justify a business model.
Apple missed the mark (to use a Facebook term ;-) They were greedy and thought they could make money right away. They are probably not making enough. And they are not making their service sticky enough. While Google is attacking them and eating in their plate, with a freemium cloud service strategy (which, eventually, might even be only supported by ads).
Since I am good at predicting what Apple announces at its conference (am I?), I have one for you: Apple will make MobileMe freemium at WWDC on June 7th. They will have a free service for everyone, and a premium service for those that want to pay for more storage or more features (such as Find my iPhone).
They should have read Hal's paper for mobile operators "Using Free-nomics to Avoid Pipe-ification" six months ago...
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?In the last five months, the market has moved superfast. No surprise here: mobile is the hottest thing around and sync is the killer app when it comes to connected devices. Everyone jumped into this market, from MOTOBLUR to Nokia Ovi to Microsoft My Phone. Lots of activity, lots of opportunities.
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).
Google itself has been pushing its cloud even more. They made it a bit too tightly coupled with Android, in my opinion, but I can understand why they are going that way. They are going for an open platform with open source, but tightly coupled with a cloud service. In a way, it is an horizontal-vertical play, if there is such a thing. Go horizontal and open source on the device (a step forward from the Microsoft model), but vertical on the cloud integration (a step forward from the Apple model).
It seems to work. You have a lively community of developers, but most of the Android phones come pre-bundled with the Google cloud services. You get your address book, your calendar, your pictures automagically synced on the Google cloud. It is sticky. It is easy to use (so much that it is transparent). And it is freemium (2GB of storage are free, then you start to pay). What not to love?
What about Apple? Well, they chose a different route. They chose to charge you $99 per year for the MobileMe service. I hear it is going reasonably well, but nothing to be bragging about (in fact, they never brag about it on stage, and that is a sign for things that do not work too well at Apple). They had technical issues at the beginning, but I do not think that is the problem.
The issue is the $99/year.
People want sync, they want to backup their data to get them back in case they lose their phone, but they are not going to pay for it right away (I still believe you can charge upfront in the enterprise, but consumers are only for freemium today). Same for picture sync (Flickr) or networking (LinkedIn) or many other freemium models. Get them hooked and they will pay, eventually. They will recognize the value. Maybe not 100%, but a good percentage. Enough to justify a business model.
Apple missed the mark (to use a Facebook term ;-) They were greedy and thought they could make money right away. They are probably not making enough. And they are not making their service sticky enough. While Google is attacking them and eating in their plate, with a freemium cloud service strategy (which, eventually, might even be only supported by ads).
Since I am good at predicting what Apple announces at its conference (am I?), I have one for you: Apple will make MobileMe freemium at WWDC on June 7th. They will have a free service for everyone, and a premium service for those that want to pay for more storage or more features (such as Find my iPhone).
They should have read Hal's paper for mobile operators "Using Free-nomics to Avoid Pipe-ification" six months ago...
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The Google Chrome OS and Android conundrum
If you went to the Google I/O conference - or just listened to the live webcast - you probably left with the impression that Google has a pretty good idea on how to conquer the world. From desktop, to mobile, to TV. Even despite the horrible Google TV demo (see, it happens to everyone, not just me ;-)
One thing though was not clear: the future of Chrome OS and Android. How they will co-exist, how they will work together, how they will eventually merge (if they will).
The Google people had no convincing answers. None.
You hear about how Android is going to dominate mobile, then they show you an Android tablet and you think "iPad killer", then it comes an Android Google TV and you think "my TV does not move, Android is not just an OS for mobile!". Quick leap of faith to a world where mobile takes over the desktop (e.g. the desktop becomes a non-mobile mobile device, like your TV) and you could easily conclude: Android is the OS that could dominate our future, the OS for our new world of connected devices.
If you go back to the history of Android - as far as I know - the original idea was exactly that: to build an OS for connected devices. Smartphones came later, as an implementation of the idea. Android is just fulfilling its original destiny. It is open as in open source, it has a commercial entity behind (a rather big one...) and an ecosystem of developers (very excited ones, since they get a phone at every Google conference). It seems a done deal.
Then they start talking about Chrome OS. The OS for the web. The OS in a browser. BTW, the same browser we have in Android. But now it has a separate marketplace, called Web Store for Apps. Not the Android apps, the other ones, the web apps, the one that also run on Android. Because it has a browser.
And it is just for netbooks (a dead category) and tablets (where we also have an Android version).
Wait? Am I confused? Yes. And I am not the only one...
Their answer: "Android and Chrome OS will likely converge one day". The better one will win, it is a Darwinian process...
The conundrum is clear: Chrome OS brings the web to your device. It is the ultimate platform to expand the current Google business model. If everything becomes a browser, including your TV, Google has 90% of the advertising in the world. Chrome OS is the chosen one.
Unfortunately, Android is taking off like a rocket... It is a platform where their current advertising model does not work very well. It does in Google Maps. And maybe in Search (maybe). But the apps have a completely different ad model. The in-app advertising is a new science, one that nobody has mastered yet. Maybe AdMob, if they ever manage to close the acquisition (I am starting to have serious doubts it will happen, sadly for Omar and his team It closed today!). In any case, it is a new market altogether, one that Apple is attacking full-force with iAds. One where transactional advertising is likely to be less important than branding (and Google has zero branding advertising business).
See the conundrum?
Chrome OS fits perfectly with the Google business model. Android does not. But it is winning, and you can't stop something that is winning. At the same time, you can't easily make a choice of killing the chosen one.
So you keep them both and wait until one dies (hoping it is Android).
When Android wins, you scramble to adapt your business model and kill the other one in a graceful way: "Chrome OS merges in Android, the Web Store for Apps becomes part of the Android Marketplace" and so on. I take bets on this one.
One thing though was not clear: the future of Chrome OS and Android. How they will co-exist, how they will work together, how they will eventually merge (if they will).
The Google people had no convincing answers. None.
You hear about how Android is going to dominate mobile, then they show you an Android tablet and you think "iPad killer", then it comes an Android Google TV and you think "my TV does not move, Android is not just an OS for mobile!". Quick leap of faith to a world where mobile takes over the desktop (e.g. the desktop becomes a non-mobile mobile device, like your TV) and you could easily conclude: Android is the OS that could dominate our future, the OS for our new world of connected devices.
If you go back to the history of Android - as far as I know - the original idea was exactly that: to build an OS for connected devices. Smartphones came later, as an implementation of the idea. Android is just fulfilling its original destiny. It is open as in open source, it has a commercial entity behind (a rather big one...) and an ecosystem of developers (very excited ones, since they get a phone at every Google conference). It seems a done deal.
Then they start talking about Chrome OS. The OS for the web. The OS in a browser. BTW, the same browser we have in Android. But now it has a separate marketplace, called Web Store for Apps. Not the Android apps, the other ones, the web apps, the one that also run on Android. Because it has a browser.
And it is just for netbooks (a dead category) and tablets (where we also have an Android version).
Wait? Am I confused? Yes. And I am not the only one...
Their answer: "Android and Chrome OS will likely converge one day". The better one will win, it is a Darwinian process...
The conundrum is clear: Chrome OS brings the web to your device. It is the ultimate platform to expand the current Google business model. If everything becomes a browser, including your TV, Google has 90% of the advertising in the world. Chrome OS is the chosen one.
Unfortunately, Android is taking off like a rocket... It is a platform where their current advertising model does not work very well. It does in Google Maps. And maybe in Search (maybe). But the apps have a completely different ad model. The in-app advertising is a new science, one that nobody has mastered yet. Maybe AdMob, if they ever manage to close the acquisition (
See the conundrum?
Chrome OS fits perfectly with the Google business model. Android does not. But it is winning, and you can't stop something that is winning. At the same time, you can't easily make a choice of killing the chosen one.
So you keep them both and wait until one dies (hoping it is Android).
When Android wins, you scramble to adapt your business model and kill the other one in a graceful way: "Chrome OS merges in Android, the Web Store for Apps becomes part of the Android Marketplace" and so on. I take bets on this one.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Is Android the new Microsoft for Apple?
There is one thing humans are good at: pattern analysis on a blink (a-la-Gladwell). Looking at one company after seeing 1,000 gives you some ideas on how that particular one would develop (that is the common VC argument). History repeats itself, after all. It is not rocket science, but it has been empirically proven. If you do proper pattern analysis, you get it right most of the times (works with the stock market too).
One quick look at the following picture and a pattern develops in front of my eyes.
The picture says that Android now sells in the US better than the iPhone. I have a hard time believing it by looking around me, but NPD has been quite reliable in the past, so we have to assume they are right.
Quick look at the mobile market today: there is an Apple operating system which is closed and no device manufacturer can put its hand on (it is only shipped by Apple). There is another operating system that is available to any device manufacturer who wants it (at low cost), and it can be put on a small, medium, large device (in fact, any connected device would do it).
Any pattern recognition? I bet. That's the PC business. One Apple operating system which was closed, and one Microsoft operating system that hardware manufacturer could adopt and ship at "low" cost (for the time). Apple was better and now they have 4% of the PC OS market share.
I feel history might be repeating itself. The major difference is that now the operating system must be open source (or you are out), and be zero in the BOM (sorry Microsoft), and that the amount of devices is actually ample.
Actually, the race to connected devices might be the key here. Apple can chase Android on smartphones or pads, but Android is getting on millions of "other" devices (set-top-boxes, home appliances, cars, and so on). Devices Apple does not care about. Devices which will run in the billions in a few years: they will give Android an enormous installed base, which could lead to a lock-in.
Lock-in... I think I have seen that before too.
One quick look at the following picture and a pattern develops in front of my eyes.
The picture says that Android now sells in the US better than the iPhone. I have a hard time believing it by looking around me, but NPD has been quite reliable in the past, so we have to assume they are right.
Quick look at the mobile market today: there is an Apple operating system which is closed and no device manufacturer can put its hand on (it is only shipped by Apple). There is another operating system that is available to any device manufacturer who wants it (at low cost), and it can be put on a small, medium, large device (in fact, any connected device would do it).
Any pattern recognition? I bet. That's the PC business. One Apple operating system which was closed, and one Microsoft operating system that hardware manufacturer could adopt and ship at "low" cost (for the time). Apple was better and now they have 4% of the PC OS market share.
I feel history might be repeating itself. The major difference is that now the operating system must be open source (or you are out), and be zero in the BOM (sorry Microsoft), and that the amount of devices is actually ample.
Actually, the race to connected devices might be the key here. Apple can chase Android on smartphones or pads, but Android is getting on millions of "other" devices (set-top-boxes, home appliances, cars, and so on). Devices Apple does not care about. Devices which will run in the billions in a few years: they will give Android an enormous installed base, which could lead to a lock-in.
Lock-in... I think I have seen that before too.
Friday, May 07, 2010
The iPad: personal or family device?
I know everyone is tired of hearing about the iPad. But it is a fact that Apple sold one million devices in a very short time. Very short. It is the fastest device to gross a billion dollars. It is a phenomenon that goes beyond high tech. It is an incredible story.
However, I feel the interesting part of the story is yet to come.
The iPad is intrinsically a personal device. It is an iPod on steroids. Something built for a single person, for personal use.
However, ask most people who bought it (mostly male in the 35-45 age group) and they will all tell you the same thing: "I brought it home, my wife took it away from me, then the kids saw it and I haven't had a chance to play with it since" (notice the word - play - ;-)
All of a sudden, the iPad has become the family device. One that requires turns. Used by multiple people.
That morphs it into a shared device, like the TV. Remember the fight for the remote? I want to watch baseball and my daughter wants to see Martha Speaks? Yep, same thing.
The iPad does not have support for multi-accounts, as the Mac or PCs. It was built for personal use. It is now used, instead, as a family device. Multi-accounts driven by sets of different apps. In some families, I guess they might be splitting home windows (you have only four, though…).
Do I really think the iPad is a family device? Nope.
Do I believe Apple will add multi-account support to it? Nope.
The iPad is and will remain a personal device, as your iPod or your iPhone. I already know people that bought two, three or four. One for each member of the family.
Everyone in the family will get an iPad, eventually. Apple is more than happy to have you not fight on the remote. So nice of them.
However, I feel the interesting part of the story is yet to come.
The iPad is intrinsically a personal device. It is an iPod on steroids. Something built for a single person, for personal use.
However, ask most people who bought it (mostly male in the 35-45 age group) and they will all tell you the same thing: "I brought it home, my wife took it away from me, then the kids saw it and I haven't had a chance to play with it since" (notice the word - play - ;-)
All of a sudden, the iPad has become the family device. One that requires turns. Used by multiple people.
That morphs it into a shared device, like the TV. Remember the fight for the remote? I want to watch baseball and my daughter wants to see Martha Speaks? Yep, same thing.
The iPad does not have support for multi-accounts, as the Mac or PCs. It was built for personal use. It is now used, instead, as a family device. Multi-accounts driven by sets of different apps. In some families, I guess they might be splitting home windows (you have only four, though…).
Do I really think the iPad is a family device? Nope.
Do I believe Apple will add multi-account support to it? Nope.
The iPad is and will remain a personal device, as your iPod or your iPhone. I already know people that bought two, three or four. One for each member of the family.
Everyone in the family will get an iPad, eventually. Apple is more than happy to have you not fight on the remote. So nice of them.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Why HP should open source WebOS
As you might remember, I am a big fan of Palm. One thing you might not know, is that I am a big fan of HP as well. I spent time at the HP Labs as an invited scientist in 1995, and the HP Way always stuck with me.
Therefore, you might understand my happiness when I heard about HP buying Palm. I was quite worried about the future of Palm, and now they have someone with deep pockets behind them. They are not going away. They are staying and have a great chance to succeed.
Where is the big value of Palm?
Easy, it is WebOS, with its tight cloud service connection (Synergy and the continuous sync in the background). The best implementation of an OS I have seen around. Better than iPhone and Android, in my personal opinion. Just a tad slow on the Palm hardware, but that is easy to fix for HP.
My suggestion on WebOS is easy: open source it. Fast. If there is one thing I believe Palm did wrong, it was following the Apple model. Keep it closed and you die, unless you are ahead of everyone and big. Palm is none of the above.
Look at what is happening in the browser world. Internet Explorer market share is collapsing. Firefox and Chrome are catching up extremely fast. Give it a couple of years, and the open source browser will dominate.
On mobile, it is even more important. Developers count. They are everything for a platform. As you cannot sell a mobile phone without cloud services today, you cannot be successful without developers. What drives sales are applications. And they are built by developers. And developers pick platforms that are open source (unless you are ahead of everyone and big, such as Apple).
Symbian got it. Nokia got it. Intel got it. Google got it.
Apple does not have to do it (unless someone catches up badly with them, but I do not see it happening that soon), Microsoft should but they do not get it (guys, believe me, the operating system market does not tolerate a closed OS you have to pay for, you will have to get it one day). HP must.
If they get it, WebOS might become a force in the market. I expect HP to put it on netbooks, and a lot of connected devices. Make it open source and you get a winner. Keep it closed and you have yet another missed opportunity.
Therefore, you might understand my happiness when I heard about HP buying Palm. I was quite worried about the future of Palm, and now they have someone with deep pockets behind them. They are not going away. They are staying and have a great chance to succeed.
Where is the big value of Palm?
Easy, it is WebOS, with its tight cloud service connection (Synergy and the continuous sync in the background). The best implementation of an OS I have seen around. Better than iPhone and Android, in my personal opinion. Just a tad slow on the Palm hardware, but that is easy to fix for HP.
My suggestion on WebOS is easy: open source it. Fast. If there is one thing I believe Palm did wrong, it was following the Apple model. Keep it closed and you die, unless you are ahead of everyone and big. Palm is none of the above.
Look at what is happening in the browser world. Internet Explorer market share is collapsing. Firefox and Chrome are catching up extremely fast. Give it a couple of years, and the open source browser will dominate.
On mobile, it is even more important. Developers count. They are everything for a platform. As you cannot sell a mobile phone without cloud services today, you cannot be successful without developers. What drives sales are applications. And they are built by developers. And developers pick platforms that are open source (unless you are ahead of everyone and big, such as Apple).
Symbian got it. Nokia got it. Intel got it. Google got it.
Apple does not have to do it (unless someone catches up badly with them, but I do not see it happening that soon), Microsoft should but they do not get it (guys, believe me, the operating system market does not tolerate a closed OS you have to pay for, you will have to get it one day). HP must.
If they get it, WebOS might become a force in the market. I expect HP to put it on netbooks, and a lot of connected devices. Make it open source and you get a winner. Keep it closed and you have yet another missed opportunity.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Google, where is the calendar API in Android?
We are in the middle of a lot of debates these days: is Apple the new Microsoft? Is Microsoft following Apple with Windows Mobile 7? Should HP open source WebOS (more on another post, my answer is yes)? Is Google Android open or closed?
I have been bashing Apple for months (years?) because of the lack of Calendar API on the iPhone. It was a very large visible sign of closeness on their part. A lot of apps need to create an event on the calendar (thing anything medical, where you need a reminder) and the lack of API access was hard to comprehend.
Now Apple finally opened the calendar API with iPhone OS 4. Curiously, though, if you download and install the emulator, the API is not there yet. But one can only be optimistic: they have documented it, presented on stage, it is going to show up one day... That day, we'll start developing for it...
I was quite happy we finally had a chance to build the calendar sync on the iPhone and iPad, when I received a note from one of our developers. The email explained we had problems building calendar sync for Android. They added that the reason was that there is no public calendar API on Android.
Whaaat? No calendar API on Android?? Are you kidding me????
Unfortunately, developers do not lie, so it is true (had I heard it from a marketing person, it would have been quite different ;-) There is no public calendar API on Android. Unbelievable.
Wait, but Android is open source, right? You could download the calendar client, compile it, put it on the emulator (which does not ship with it), add the data provider and you would be good to go. No need for public APIs when you have access to the source code.
Right?
Wrong...
You can do all that, and it works pretty well when you just read the calendar. However, as soon as you try to write to it, creating a new calendar, Google gets upset. At the next sync with Google Calendar on the cloud, any calendar that is not on the Google servers gets wiped out on the device. Not nice. Not nice.
Any other option? Yes, one is to create a calendar in Google and write to it on the device, ultimately doing double sync (one in Google Calendar, one in your Funambol server). It is like double dipping, though, and the likely effect is spreading duplicates instead of germs. Bad idea (but we are going to explore it).
On top of it, I have no idea what happens with devices that ship with a modified UI, such as MOTOBLUR or the HTC Sense UI. I guess the behavior might be different: yep, I know, I said once that fragmentation is innovation, maybe I was wrong :-))
Overall, I am a bit shocked. An operating system that is meant to be open and one of the most basic APIs is closed... Is Android open or closed? You pick ;-)
I have been bashing Apple for months (years?) because of the lack of Calendar API on the iPhone. It was a very large visible sign of closeness on their part. A lot of apps need to create an event on the calendar (thing anything medical, where you need a reminder) and the lack of API access was hard to comprehend.
Now Apple finally opened the calendar API with iPhone OS 4. Curiously, though, if you download and install the emulator, the API is not there yet. But one can only be optimistic: they have documented it, presented on stage, it is going to show up one day... That day, we'll start developing for it...
I was quite happy we finally had a chance to build the calendar sync on the iPhone and iPad, when I received a note from one of our developers. The email explained we had problems building calendar sync for Android. They added that the reason was that there is no public calendar API on Android.
Whaaat? No calendar API on Android?? Are you kidding me????
Unfortunately, developers do not lie, so it is true (had I heard it from a marketing person, it would have been quite different ;-) There is no public calendar API on Android. Unbelievable.
Wait, but Android is open source, right? You could download the calendar client, compile it, put it on the emulator (which does not ship with it), add the data provider and you would be good to go. No need for public APIs when you have access to the source code.
Right?
Wrong...
You can do all that, and it works pretty well when you just read the calendar. However, as soon as you try to write to it, creating a new calendar, Google gets upset. At the next sync with Google Calendar on the cloud, any calendar that is not on the Google servers gets wiped out on the device. Not nice. Not nice.
Any other option? Yes, one is to create a calendar in Google and write to it on the device, ultimately doing double sync (one in Google Calendar, one in your Funambol server). It is like double dipping, though, and the likely effect is spreading duplicates instead of germs. Bad idea (but we are going to explore it).
On top of it, I have no idea what happens with devices that ship with a modified UI, such as MOTOBLUR or the HTC Sense UI. I guess the behavior might be different: yep, I know, I said once that fragmentation is innovation, maybe I was wrong :-))
Overall, I am a bit shocked. An operating system that is meant to be open and one of the most basic APIs is closed... Is Android open or closed? You pick ;-)
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Tether your iPad, do not bother buying the 3G version
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...
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...
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)