Finally, you can put AGPL sofware in Google Code

A LOOOOOOONG time ago (March 31st, 2008), I wrote a post on this blog attacking Google for not allowing any AGPL code into Google Code. First, they said AGPL was not OSI-approved. Fair point, so Funambol got AGPL to be OSI-approved. Still, they did not accept any AGPL code, for reasons I could only describe as evil. I felt then, and I still feel now, that Google will never like AGPL, which is the license that allows us to take open source in the new cloud era. I started barking up that tree back in 2006...

On September 10 2010, about three years later, Google finally gave in. Chris DiBona wrote a post titled "License Evolution and Hosting Projects on Code.Google.Com". Quick quote:

[..] this new way of doing things is a better fit to our goal of supporting open source software developers. The longer form of the reason why is that we never really liked turning away projects that were under real, compatible licenses like the zlib or other permissive licenses, nor did we really like turning away projects under licenses that serve a truly new function, like the AGPL.

Oh, wow, two in a row. Not only AGPL is finally allowed into Google Code, but Google admitted that it serves a function ;-)

Well, to celebrate we should probably consider moving Funambol into Google Code.

It is a sweet day, even if it took so long. Or maybe because of it.

Now you can snoop on your kids

Device Management has been a category going from hot (at the beginning of the millennium) to cold (a few years ago). Now, it is hot again. I know because we sell that product and it is flying off the shelves...

Why now?

Let me guess.

First of all, if the problem was significant when we had a lot of feature phones, with the advent of connected devices it is becoming huge. A carrier must be able to control what is coming into its network. Now more than ever, because the amount of devices is exploding (from phones, to e-book readers, to cameras, to cars and so on).

However, this would not explain the explosion. I think there is more. And it has to do with Android and its open source roots.

See, before Android, it was impossible to find a device you could actually remotely manage (e.g. wiping it out, killing it, managing the configuration, ...), unless you were the carrier. No OS would allow you to go so deep in the phone to touch basic features (no WM, no iPhone, no Palm, and so on). You would need the carrier and the device manufacturer involvement. That means: small market.

With Android, the game has changed. You can do it. Even as a developer that does not talk to the carrier or the device manufacturer. You can build an Android client and manage devices remotely. You can build a cloud service and manage a device, going around the carrier.

There is another piece of the puzzle falling into place: 4G. People think of 4G as "more bandwidth", so what's with device management? Well, the difference in 4G is that the device is always connected with an IP address. There is no case where the phone is on and the device does not have an IP. None. It is built in the protocol (we are working on WiMax with Clearwire). Therefore, you are guaranteed that you can monitor the device at any time, as long as it is on. It is not the same for 3G.

This is huge. We are starting to see consumer device management as a new category. It is relatively easy (starting with our Android DM client, for example) to put together a parental control service. I know plenty of parents who would love to be able to stop their kids data plan when it goes above the cap. Or to know where they are if the phone is on (and where they went). I know, I know, snooping on your kids is not the way to make them grow and feel independent. Still, most parents believe they need it ;-)

Being able to go around the carrier also means DM in the enterprise. When we sold our product to Computer Associates years ago, I do not think the market was ready for enterprise deployments. Now it is. It is ready for management of devices, whatever they are (phones, cars, laptops and more). Because you do not need a carrier of a manufacturer. You just do it yourself on Android.

Connected devices and open source are opening the door to a lot of new business plans. From M2M communications to device management to synchronization and more. We have waited a bit (a lot ;-) but it is here. And it is going to get bigger and bigger.

Where are the enterprise developers going in mobile?

Funambol Community Edition is used as a mobile platform inside enterprises, to sync a lot of data on mobile devices from corporate data sources (Email servers, Groupware, ERP, CRM, you name it). We have over 27,000 Funambol servers online around the word, every day. Lots of people, lots of developers. Not to brag, just to set the stage about what comes next, trying to claim I know what I am talking about (which is not always the case ;-)

For months, I had a question in my mind: where are the enterprise developers going in mobile? I mean, if you need to build a mobile app for an existing enterprise solution, which platform would you choose? Which device?

The answer, few years ago, was simple: Windows Mobile. Any app I knew in the enterprise was built on it. Rugged devices were all WinMo. Microsoft had a solid grip on the enterprise. Yes, BlackBerry has always been also big, but it is the choice mainly for managers. Not something that would give you enough reach to build a corporate app. So, WinMo was it.

Then the iPhone came. It started to trickle in the enterprise. But it was a consumer device. With a consumer model. Not enough security. Initially, not even a way to have email on it from an Exchange server. No ways to install apps ad-hoc. Enterprise developers kept doing what they were doing: they stayed with WinMo.

Then Android came. Similar consumer orientation of the iPhone, but a bit less. The first devices had a keyboard, something that was perceived as enterprise-ish. The business model looking like the old Microsoft (providing the OS) plus HW vendors. Something already seen, something easy to understand. Where Google is Microsoft. That was the beginning of 2009. Not ages ago...

Lastly, Microsoft killed WinMo in favor of a consumer OS (at MWC in February, this year). Not backward compatible. Giving up entirely on the enterprise. Just when developers started getting more comfortable about Android, while still slightly doubtful about the iPhone (do not ask me why, maybe it is just the Apple brand. Everyone in this industry knows that Steve Jobs does not give a damn about the enterprise. Enterprise developers know it, and they do not want to go for it).

Imagine the panic as a WinMo developer. Knowing you have to throw everything away and start from scratch. On a platform with zero traction (no Windows Mobile 7 device in the market...). A pure consumer platform. What would you do? If you have to start from scratch, why not looking around for a new platform, one that has already devices and traction, one that looks more enterprise-ish?

Yes, the answer to my question is Android.

Android is exploding, shipping more devices than iOS. We have passed the tipping point. If enterprise developers were thinking Android around the end of 2009, in Spring 2010 they received a confirmation from Microsoft. And now that Android is exploding, there is no turning back.

I can see it from the downloads of the Funambol Android client and SDK. The growth is spectacular, Android is winning over the enterprise developers. And there is probably very little Microsoft can do to get them back. Since Windows Mobile 7 is purely a consumer platform. I guess they do not even care... They gave it up to Android on a silver plate. Bad mistake, in my opinion.

Android is going to be the dominating mobile enterprise platform of the future. It happened so fast...

Beta testers are Guinea Pigs

This morning a read an interesting blog post from Brian Gartner on the demise of Google Wave. He makes a few points, summarized below for those tired of clicking on links (a growing population: Flipboard is a sign that hypertext might be getting old):

1. Google culture comes from the recent trend of kids education: everyone gets rewarded, even when they fail
2. Therefore, they killed Google Wave (which has been a a failure of phenomenal proportions) also saying that they are cool for killing it when they realized it was not taking off. This, with no respect to the users that actually were using it
3. Google should do a lot more testing internally before shipping anything, instead of using users as testers
4. The conclusion is that Google’s corporate culture puts a higher premium on the needs of their engineers than their responsibility to users

I have to say these days it is actually trendy to kill stuff and get praised for it (see Microsoft killing Kin 48 days after birth...). And that I am really fed up with the idea that every kid always wins, since life is quite different...

That said, I disagree with the conclusion. We are living in times where the market moves too fast. You can't spend a year to test things internally and then release them to the public. You have to do it with HW, you can avoid it with software. If you do, you are left behind.

All software start-ups I know are doing it: build a stable first release, test it with friends and family, open it up to the world as beta. The users are doing the real testing.

If you want to compete with start-ups (you should if you are big, because they move fast), you have to iterate quickly, test and throw away what does not work. Fast.

Should you be worried about "the users", in case you have to shut down the system?

Yes, you do not want to piss off anyone. You need to put in place ways for them to recover their data and maybe run the service themselves (which Google is doing, creating tools to "liberate" their data and putting the Wave software in open source).

However, those who jump on a beta service know very well what they are getting: a beta product that might never see the light of day. Remember, these are free services...

Beta testers are a self-selected bunch. My mom would never start using Google Wave in beta. I would. But I know the game, and I would not be (too much) pissed if there is a bug or the system gets killed.

It is very different with HW. Those four or five kids who bought the Kin should be really upset (at themselves, what were they thinking? ;-)

In software, beta testers are Guinea Pigs. No reward for them. That's ok, they are not kids.

The BlackBerry Torch wants to please everyone

I took a look at the specs and pictures of the new BlackBerry Torch, just announced in an Apple-like event (not really, but good try anyway).

The first impression? The BlackBerry Torch wants to please everyone:

• Are you an old BlackBerry user? Here's your keyboard and four buttons.
• Are you a more recent BlackBerry user, used to the wheel? Here's your wheel.
• Are you an iPhone/Android user or someone that wants a touch screen? Here's your touchscreen.

Four input devices are a lot... The number suggests feature creep or need to please everyone, which is rarely a recipe for success.

Granted, this is a device which many consider the last chance for RIM to catch up to Apple and Google. Therefore, they needed to please the vast majority of users out there.

However, I have the feeling they might have missed the mark.

Maybe because of the low resolution screen (480×360 LCD, really, is it still 2005?) and low  performance 624MHz CPU (hey, this was supposed the device where you catch up... not the one where you show how far behind you are...), but I can't see the mass market going for the Torch. I can't see people that wanted to buy an iPhone or Android change their mind and choose BlackBerry instead. They won't.

I see BlackBerry users thinking twice before leaving RIM. I see old BlackBerry enterprise users that have bought an iPhone or an Android considering to jump back, because they seriously miss the keyboard and the Torch is a decent compromise. Not consumers though, just enterprise users... Even for them, however, when you have something "cool", it is hard to go back to something "uncool". You need a lot of self-esteem to do it. And few have it (sorry, world of low-esteem people :-))

Bottom line: if the goal of RIM was to stop hemorrhaging users to other platforms and maintain a growing market in the emerging world (where owning a BlackBerry means being a "Manager", therefore someone who makes money, therefore cool), I believe they have a winner. If they were looking at expanding and catching up with the rest of the pack (which is what their investors wanted), I do not believe they made it.

Sadly. I do not think the BlackBerry Torch will please everyone.

The Droid brand by Verizon is genius

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.

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:

if you want other companies to manufacture devices with your OS (the Windows mobile vs. the Apple model) today you need:

1. to charge zero dollars for your OS
2. to make your OS open source and allow your ODMs some freedom to differentiate
3. to have a cool OS

Someone in the comments asked me: "what about MeeGo?"

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.

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:

1. to charge zero dollars for your OS
2. to make your OS open source and allow your ODMs some freedom to differentiate
3. to have a cool OS

Microsoft is not doing #1 (although they could and should, in my opinion) and are ages away from #2 (although everyone else, including Nokia and Intel with Meego, are doing it). They are focusing on #3 and I believe they could make it there (actually, they did it: the Kin had 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.

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.

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).

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.

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 ;-)

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...

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):

In my space, Apple charges $99 per year for MobileMe. There is a lot of room to cut that price (and it works only for the iPhone, so good luck if someone in the family has a different device). At the other end of the spectrum, Google charges zero for Google Sync (albeit it is quite a bad product, sometimes free can be of a depressing quality...). How do you move between these two extremes if you are a carrier? Per-month, per-year, free, advertising or freemium?

I say, for now, stick to per-user per-month on the high end of the market, and check freemium for the masses (they are coming).

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ;-)

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...