I have been thinking a lot about mobility inside the house, lately. It is a novel concept, if you think about it. In your house, devices were not supposed to move. You had a landline phone, a desktop PC and a TV, plus a VCR/DVR and so on. All static.
The fist moving part was probably the wireless phone. Initially, a wireless version of your landline phone, then your actual mobile phone, becoming the main way for you to communicate with the world - even at home.
Then you bought a laptop. Mostly a desktop replacement, so you can use it while moving around (starting with coffee places). But you wanted to use it around the house as well, or - at least - you did not want to plug an ethernet cable every time. Therefore, you added a wi-fi router, close to your Internet router. If you are like most people I know, your router was in the home office, close to your desktop. For some, the wi-fi coverage of the initial wireless network did not travel too far. Too bad the signal was weak near the TV or the toilet, you could live with it.
Then came the iPad (and all its sisters). A weak signal near the TV means a weak signal on the couch. The main repository for the iPad. The place where you really want to use it (while your laptop is in your home office). Otherwise, why did you get one? Same for the kitchen, because that recipe on the iPad looks so yummy. Or your bedroom, because nothing beats watching a stupid YouTube video on the iPad before going to bed. And what about the restroom? Hey, you can hold this thing with one hand, like a magazine, but it contains a full newspaper... You definitely need great wi-fi coverage there as well.
And so it happened: your home is now fully connected. There is no spot in the house where wi-fi is weak. It is strong in the office, the living room, the kitchen, the bedroom, the restroom.
Think about it: your home is now fully connected, because of your tablet. And you are not alone, this is a trend that will bring all homes fully connected. For Thanksgiving, Toys"R"Us was selling an Android tablet for $139.99. Everybody is getting one. Even just to have it and tweet about the game on the couch.
If the connectivity is good on the couch, it is good for the TV. Your Wii gets connected, even if you bought it as standalone. And now you can use it to watch Netflix movies. Your TV gets connected.
Then it spills to the bedroom, where your alarm clock gets connected. Picture frames appear around the house, all showing pictures taken a few minutes before. Appliances in the kitchen have connectivity: your gas appliance knows it is going to be freezing cold tonight and turns on a bit earlier. Your sprinklers know it is going to rain in the afternoon so why bother even starting?
It is the connected home, the Internet of Things moving its first steps. It all started with a stupid tablet that most people buy, not sure what to do with it. It provided the connectivity for everything else to get on.
Amazing.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Windows Mobile 7? No thanks, I am a developer
As you might remember, I have been quite positive on Windows Mobile 7, from the user perspective. It looks like a well designed UI. I haven't had the opportunity to actually play with a device for an extended period of time, but it looks good - at least from the outside.
Clearly, Windows Mobile 7 is a big gamble for Microsoft. They had an enterprise-ready operating system and they trashed it, in favor of a consumer one. While doing it, they also trashed all Windows Mobile 6 applications, which are not compatible to Windows Mobile 7. That forced developers to start from scratch while waiting for the new OS to appear.
The vacuum has been filled by Android, which has attracted the largest share of developers for the enterprise. The rest are building for iPhone.
Now that Windows Mobile 7 is actually available, what are developers doing? Will they build consumer apps for it? What about the enterprise ones?
My first checks are not positive. At all.
The Funambol Community Manager posted in his blog yesterday and summarized what he does not like about Windows Mobile 7:
Lack of OSS licenses limits development, but you can go around it. Forcing people to develop in C# is a huge requirement, which will trim down the amount of developers (although Apple was able to convince a lot of people to code Obejctive-C, so you never know).
The last one, though, is the killer. Just take Funambol and our community as an example. We are ready to go and we would love to build a sync client to bring Windows Mobile 7 in the family. However, we simply cannot do it. There is no PIM API in Windows Mobile 7. There is no way a developer can access contacts or calendar data.
If you recall, I bitched about Apple not providing APIs. Eventually they did. I bitched about Apple initially providing only contacts, and not calendar. Eventually they did (at version 4 of the OS...). I believe that was a mistake, but they could go away with it, because they were early.
Microsoft is late. They cannot get away with it. An operating system without developers is dead. If you cannot get the developers to build on it, you are doomed. They have lost the enterprise developers and they are not doing nearly enough to get the consumer developers.
Very risky move for a latecomer.
Clearly, Windows Mobile 7 is a big gamble for Microsoft. They had an enterprise-ready operating system and they trashed it, in favor of a consumer one. While doing it, they also trashed all Windows Mobile 6 applications, which are not compatible to Windows Mobile 7. That forced developers to start from scratch while waiting for the new OS to appear.
The vacuum has been filled by Android, which has attracted the largest share of developers for the enterprise. The rest are building for iPhone.
Now that Windows Mobile 7 is actually available, what are developers doing? Will they build consumer apps for it? What about the enterprise ones?
My first checks are not positive. At all.
The Funambol Community Manager posted in his blog yesterday and summarized what he does not like about Windows Mobile 7:
- No support for open source licenses
- Only C# supported
- Missing APIs
developers will sit and wait, not considering Windows Mobile 7 a serious OSs until a new release is outI can't agree more. He is a developer. He knows what he is talking about.
Lack of OSS licenses limits development, but you can go around it. Forcing people to develop in C# is a huge requirement, which will trim down the amount of developers (although Apple was able to convince a lot of people to code Obejctive-C, so you never know).
The last one, though, is the killer. Just take Funambol and our community as an example. We are ready to go and we would love to build a sync client to bring Windows Mobile 7 in the family. However, we simply cannot do it. There is no PIM API in Windows Mobile 7. There is no way a developer can access contacts or calendar data.
If you recall, I bitched about Apple not providing APIs. Eventually they did. I bitched about Apple initially providing only contacts, and not calendar. Eventually they did (at version 4 of the OS...). I believe that was a mistake, but they could go away with it, because they were early.
Microsoft is late. They cannot get away with it. An operating system without developers is dead. If you cannot get the developers to build on it, you are doomed. They have lost the enterprise developers and they are not doing nearly enough to get the consumer developers.
Very risky move for a latecomer.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Finally, Apple is making MobileMe free
I have been saying for a while that Apple will eventually open up MobileMe, making it free.
Synchronization of your personal data in the cloud is the stickiest service imaginable. Once a system has your spouse cell phone (which you do not know, trust me) and the picture of your kids, you are locked in. No chance to move out. They have you.
Look at Flickr, which does picture "sync". I have my entire life there. If they raise the price to $50/year, I will simply pay it. I just cannot conceive the idea of moving out. Too much effort, and too much risk. My pictures are my life. I do not want to mess with my life. I am ready to pay any reasonable price for it.
What I never understood was the price for MobileMe. $99/year is an hefty price. One that prevents the masses to join. One that limits Apple's ability to get sticky-er. A price paid only by few (geeks).
Synchronization does not work like that. It is impossible to find millions of people willing to pay for it. If you are a pure consumer, you just do not see the value in it. It is a nice-to-have, not a must-have. Until you start using it. At that point, you cannot live without it. It is your life on the cloud, moving across your devices. It is you.
Think about losing your phone, with no cloud service where you stored your data. Think about losing all the pictures you took (and you had no way to sync somewhere, or you were just too lazy, because you needed a cable or to click on an icon). Think about losing all your friends contact info. Yes, at that moment you realize the value of transparent synchronization, the value of having your data automatically stored somewhere, the value of getting everything back with one click.
But you would not pay for it, probably. It just sounds like an insurance.
However, once you are using a cloud sync system, you are in for good. It is just like having push email on your mobile phone. "Nah, I do not need it". Then you start using it and you would kill anyone who wants to take it away from you. The famous Crackberry.
No, no, it is not just for business people. It is you, the consumer. Let me take away your SMS, your Facebook. Let me take away your iPhone and move you back to a dumb phone. See... You will kill me.
Think about it. Once you start using synchronization, you are locked in. It is too good. You see your life moving across all your devices. You know someone is taking care to secure it for you. They do the backup you always forget. They will save your friends and your kids.
At that point, you are not going anywhere. And once that happens, there are so many ways to monetize it. From advertising (Facebook is making billions of dollars, you know...), to storage (think Dropbox), to paying for restore (this is a smart one, more once we have launched a few customers on it ;-) There are billions in cloud sync. Billions.
So, cloud sync is sticky. Few want to pay for it. But once they use it, they are locked in. Make it free, you will get everyone in the world to join. And you will make a boatload of money on the premium part of the freemium model.
I am sure Apple knows it. I am sure they realize it. There is a reason why they have built a huge cloud computing center in North Carolina. They want to store your life there. Starting with your music. iTunes on a desktop is going to be replaced by iTunes in the cloud. The cable is going for good. All your data will be synced to the cloud and back to your devices (did you notice that the new Apple TV is just a cloud device? Did you notice that the new MacBook Air does not have a CD? It is all going in the cloud, then synced and streamed back to your devices).
So, what was the missing link? MobileMe becoming free. I have been waiting for it for a long time. Today, the rumor became true. In the new iOS 4.2 builds, there is a message that says: "The maximum number of free accounts have been activated on this iPhone".
Here you have it. Not every aspect of MobileMe will be free. Just the part that will lock you in (let me bet: PIM sync, with a storage premium on rich media, for starters). They know how to make money on the rest, beginning with selling you content (music, books and movies). Maybe, they were just not ready, so they put a high price on MobileMe, to make sure they would have a limited set of "test" users. They now have the cloud computing capacity to make it happen. And they are going for it.
Facebook and Google, be worried, Apple is coming. It all starts with cloud sync.
Synchronization of your personal data in the cloud is the stickiest service imaginable. Once a system has your spouse cell phone (which you do not know, trust me) and the picture of your kids, you are locked in. No chance to move out. They have you.
Look at Flickr, which does picture "sync". I have my entire life there. If they raise the price to $50/year, I will simply pay it. I just cannot conceive the idea of moving out. Too much effort, and too much risk. My pictures are my life. I do not want to mess with my life. I am ready to pay any reasonable price for it.
What I never understood was the price for MobileMe. $99/year is an hefty price. One that prevents the masses to join. One that limits Apple's ability to get sticky-er. A price paid only by few (geeks).
Synchronization does not work like that. It is impossible to find millions of people willing to pay for it. If you are a pure consumer, you just do not see the value in it. It is a nice-to-have, not a must-have. Until you start using it. At that point, you cannot live without it. It is your life on the cloud, moving across your devices. It is you.
Think about losing your phone, with no cloud service where you stored your data. Think about losing all the pictures you took (and you had no way to sync somewhere, or you were just too lazy, because you needed a cable or to click on an icon). Think about losing all your friends contact info. Yes, at that moment you realize the value of transparent synchronization, the value of having your data automatically stored somewhere, the value of getting everything back with one click.
But you would not pay for it, probably. It just sounds like an insurance.
However, once you are using a cloud sync system, you are in for good. It is just like having push email on your mobile phone. "Nah, I do not need it". Then you start using it and you would kill anyone who wants to take it away from you. The famous Crackberry.
No, no, it is not just for business people. It is you, the consumer. Let me take away your SMS, your Facebook. Let me take away your iPhone and move you back to a dumb phone. See... You will kill me.
Think about it. Once you start using synchronization, you are locked in. It is too good. You see your life moving across all your devices. You know someone is taking care to secure it for you. They do the backup you always forget. They will save your friends and your kids.
At that point, you are not going anywhere. And once that happens, there are so many ways to monetize it. From advertising (Facebook is making billions of dollars, you know...), to storage (think Dropbox), to paying for restore (this is a smart one, more once we have launched a few customers on it ;-) There are billions in cloud sync. Billions.
So, cloud sync is sticky. Few want to pay for it. But once they use it, they are locked in. Make it free, you will get everyone in the world to join. And you will make a boatload of money on the premium part of the freemium model.
I am sure Apple knows it. I am sure they realize it. There is a reason why they have built a huge cloud computing center in North Carolina. They want to store your life there. Starting with your music. iTunes on a desktop is going to be replaced by iTunes in the cloud. The cable is going for good. All your data will be synced to the cloud and back to your devices (did you notice that the new Apple TV is just a cloud device? Did you notice that the new MacBook Air does not have a CD? It is all going in the cloud, then synced and streamed back to your devices).
So, what was the missing link? MobileMe becoming free. I have been waiting for it for a long time. Today, the rumor became true. In the new iOS 4.2 builds, there is a message that says: "The maximum number of free accounts have been activated on this iPhone".
Here you have it. Not every aspect of MobileMe will be free. Just the part that will lock you in (let me bet: PIM sync, with a storage premium on rich media, for starters). They know how to make money on the rest, beginning with selling you content (music, books and movies). Maybe, they were just not ready, so they put a high price on MobileMe, to make sure they would have a limited set of "test" users. They now have the cloud computing capacity to make it happen. And they are going for it.
Facebook and Google, be worried, Apple is coming. It all starts with cloud sync.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Facebook is attempting suicide by spam
I remember clearly the moment when I thought Facebook would be the future of messaging, replacing email. It was a few years back, I am not exactly sure when but I would guess 2008.
My wife told me she sent an email to a friend, and the friend did not answer. She waited a day or two, then she realized her friend was on Facebook as well. Therefore, she sent her a Facebook message and got an instant reply. Curious, she asked her friend why she did not reply to her email.
The answer?
"I did not receive it. It must have landed in my Spam folder."
Pop. A light went on in my brain (there must be some empty space there, I guess). It became obvious to me: that failed attempt represented my wife's last email to her friend. From that moment on, email was dead in their conversations. It was going to be only Facebook messaging.
Many people think of spam as something annoying they have to delete. In reality, the killer is not the spam you receive, is the messages you send which are flagged as spam. The false positives. They kill your faith in the system. They give everyone an excuse ("Sorry, I did not receive it". "Yes, you did, you liar!". "No, I swear I did not. It must be in my Spam folder!". "Yeah, right...").
The beauty of Facebook is that there was no spam. Nobody could send you a message, unless they were a friend. There was the risk of being spammed with requests for friendship, but who would do it, knowing it would automatically get a no? The simple way to avoid spam was to be sure your Facebook friends were actual friends. Not a difficult task.
Yep, this messaging system had a flaw: you were not able to receive messages from strangers.
But that flaw was its #1 strength.
Who cares Facebook messaging did not cover email? If I wanted spam, I would have continued using email. Facebook messaging was about the messages I really wanted to receive. Not the ones I hated.
Facebook new messaging system, announced this week, turns the table around. Completely. They are now allowing you to have a facebook.com email address. You can also import other email accounts in it. It is email + SMS + IM in one Inbox. Now strangers can send you messages in Facebook. They can spam you on Facebook.
The future of messaging, they say. The thing that will kill email, they say.
Maybe. Maybe it will kill email. But it could kill Facebook messaging as well. Facebook has decided to welcome spam in their system. The one thing that made their system great, because it was not there.
Facebook is attempting suicide by spam.
My wife told me she sent an email to a friend, and the friend did not answer. She waited a day or two, then she realized her friend was on Facebook as well. Therefore, she sent her a Facebook message and got an instant reply. Curious, she asked her friend why she did not reply to her email.
The answer?
"I did not receive it. It must have landed in my Spam folder."
Pop. A light went on in my brain (there must be some empty space there, I guess). It became obvious to me: that failed attempt represented my wife's last email to her friend. From that moment on, email was dead in their conversations. It was going to be only Facebook messaging.
Many people think of spam as something annoying they have to delete. In reality, the killer is not the spam you receive, is the messages you send which are flagged as spam. The false positives. They kill your faith in the system. They give everyone an excuse ("Sorry, I did not receive it". "Yes, you did, you liar!". "No, I swear I did not. It must be in my Spam folder!". "Yeah, right...").
The beauty of Facebook is that there was no spam. Nobody could send you a message, unless they were a friend. There was the risk of being spammed with requests for friendship, but who would do it, knowing it would automatically get a no? The simple way to avoid spam was to be sure your Facebook friends were actual friends. Not a difficult task.
Yep, this messaging system had a flaw: you were not able to receive messages from strangers.
But that flaw was its #1 strength.
Who cares Facebook messaging did not cover email? If I wanted spam, I would have continued using email. Facebook messaging was about the messages I really wanted to receive. Not the ones I hated.
Facebook new messaging system, announced this week, turns the table around. Completely. They are now allowing you to have a facebook.com email address. You can also import other email accounts in it. It is email + SMS + IM in one Inbox. Now strangers can send you messages in Facebook. They can spam you on Facebook.
The future of messaging, they say. The thing that will kill email, they say.
Maybe. Maybe it will kill email. But it could kill Facebook messaging as well. Facebook has decided to welcome spam in their system. The one thing that made their system great, because it was not there.
Facebook is attempting suicide by spam.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Finally I know why there is no Facebook iPad app
I have used an iPad since the day it was released. I went from avid users to casual user. Initially, I put the iPad in my bag every day, to eventually find out I never took it out. It now lives on my couch and it comes with me every time I fly somewhere. I love my iPad (and I think it loves me too).
The app I want to use more in my iPad is Facebook. I do not have time during the day to play with Facebook (sadly), but I do have time at night in front of the TV (hoping that someone will eventually discover that stupid multitasking is the cure for Alzheimer).
The problem?
There is no iPad Facebook app.
I know, I know, there is an iPhone Facebook app. You can download that one and use the tiny window with an enormous black frame, or stretch the tiny window to a full size with horrible UI degradation (in particular for pictures, and - you know - Facebook is the largest photo site in the world since 2008...).
For months, I wondered: why? Why? Why are you forcing me to a crappy experience or, worst, you want me to open the browser and access Facebook there? It is insane, the browser is not meant for it. I am not going to do it. The native Facebook iPhone app is the best Facebook experience, even compared to a desktop browser. It is what a mobile app is supposed to be. It is where mobile plus a touchscreen show why they are the future of computing.
Why there is no Facebook iPad app? One with the same usability of the iPhone app, but at full screen, with beautiful graphics, great photos, using the power of a larger screen? It would be the best Facebook experience ever.
TechCrunch reported a week ago that the official Facebook answer is: “The iPad isn’t mobile”. Ergo, use the browser as on a desktop and suck it up, you losers.
What? May I call BS?
Yes, I do. This morning I opened the iPhone Facebook app on my iPad and for the first time ever I noticed one thing: it does not have any advertising. I just do not know why I did not notice it before (maybe ADD due to stupid multitasking). There is no ads. None. Period. Facebook is making zero dollars zero on the iPhone app. They make all their ad money on desktop and the browser...
Here you have it. This makes sense. Facebook does not yet have a mobile ad machine. If they push a great iPad app and the tablets become the future of computing, they are screwed. They need first to find a way to stuck some ads in the mobile app, then they will do it. For now, they are just trying to force you to use the browser on the iPad, so they can push you all their ads.
Oh, BTW, I would pay for an iPad Facebook app with no ads, Zuck. You got me locked in. That is what I want to do on my couch. Just do not BS me, please.
The app I want to use more in my iPad is Facebook. I do not have time during the day to play with Facebook (sadly), but I do have time at night in front of the TV (hoping that someone will eventually discover that stupid multitasking is the cure for Alzheimer).
The problem?
There is no iPad Facebook app.
I know, I know, there is an iPhone Facebook app. You can download that one and use the tiny window with an enormous black frame, or stretch the tiny window to a full size with horrible UI degradation (in particular for pictures, and - you know - Facebook is the largest photo site in the world since 2008...).
For months, I wondered: why? Why? Why are you forcing me to a crappy experience or, worst, you want me to open the browser and access Facebook there? It is insane, the browser is not meant for it. I am not going to do it. The native Facebook iPhone app is the best Facebook experience, even compared to a desktop browser. It is what a mobile app is supposed to be. It is where mobile plus a touchscreen show why they are the future of computing.
Why there is no Facebook iPad app? One with the same usability of the iPhone app, but at full screen, with beautiful graphics, great photos, using the power of a larger screen? It would be the best Facebook experience ever.
TechCrunch reported a week ago that the official Facebook answer is: “The iPad isn’t mobile”. Ergo, use the browser as on a desktop and suck it up, you losers.
What? May I call BS?
Yes, I do. This morning I opened the iPhone Facebook app on my iPad and for the first time ever I noticed one thing: it does not have any advertising. I just do not know why I did not notice it before (maybe ADD due to stupid multitasking). There is no ads. None. Period. Facebook is making zero dollars zero on the iPhone app. They make all their ad money on desktop and the browser...
Here you have it. This makes sense. Facebook does not yet have a mobile ad machine. If they push a great iPad app and the tablets become the future of computing, they are screwed. They need first to find a way to stuck some ads in the mobile app, then they will do it. For now, they are just trying to force you to use the browser on the iPad, so they can push you all their ads.
Oh, BTW, I would pay for an iPad Facebook app with no ads, Zuck. You got me locked in. That is what I want to do on my couch. Just do not BS me, please.
Friday, November 05, 2010
The open cloud just got a bit more closed
Something interesting happened today in the open cloud world: Google shot at Facebook...
It is no surprise that Google does not like Facebook much, considering one in five Facebook employees came from Google and that Google is trying to catch up on the social war (no results so far, but I am told the man in charge is Vic Gundotra, so it is just a matter of time).
The war here is on a different turf, and it is close to home for me: the open cloud. Google has tried to portray itself as an open cloud, one that does not lock in your data (since my data is my data, and I want to take it with me wherever I go). The Data Liberation Front is at the forefront of the Google marketing. Their motto is "Users should be able to control the data they store in any of Google's products. Our team's goal is to make it easier to move data in and out". I like it. And I used it a couple of times. It is not just marketing. It is real stuff.
On the other side of the spectrum? Facebook. They built their entire business around collecting your data, and they definitely do not want you to take it with you. Or, worst, share it with other clouds. They have made some openings lately but it is probably not even close to what they could do.
What happened today? Google changed a tiny paragraph of the Terms of Service for the Contacts API:
How do you read this? Well, "if you suck data out of of cloud, you must allow us to suck data out of your cloud". Pretty simple.
If you are naive, the move from Google reads "we want an open cloud, we are open, you should be open too!". If you are cynical, it reads "we want to keep our data for ourselves, forget the BS about data liberation, we were joking... It works only if it does not harm our business, and Facebook is. Our cloud is as open as the other ones out there".
Pretty scary. The open cloud just got a bit more closed.
It is no surprise that Google does not like Facebook much, considering one in five Facebook employees came from Google and that Google is trying to catch up on the social war (no results so far, but I am told the man in charge is Vic Gundotra, so it is just a matter of time).
The war here is on a different turf, and it is close to home for me: the open cloud. Google has tried to portray itself as an open cloud, one that does not lock in your data (since my data is my data, and I want to take it with me wherever I go). The Data Liberation Front is at the forefront of the Google marketing. Their motto is "Users should be able to control the data they store in any of Google's products. Our team's goal is to make it easier to move data in and out". I like it. And I used it a couple of times. It is not just marketing. It is real stuff.
On the other side of the spectrum? Facebook. They built their entire business around collecting your data, and they definitely do not want you to take it with you. Or, worst, share it with other clouds. They have made some openings lately but it is probably not even close to what they could do.
What happened today? Google changed a tiny paragraph of the Terms of Service for the Contacts API:
5.8. Google supports data portability. By accessing Content through the Contacts Data API or Portable Contacts API for use in your service or application, you are agreeing to enable your users to export their contacts data to other services or applications of their choice in a way that’s substantially as fast and easy as exporting such data from Google Contacts, subject to applicable laws.Looks small, right? Just contacts, after all. It is one of the many data types out there... Well, it is THE data type. Friends are in the address book. Social starts in the address book. Calls, messages, everything starts there. Believe me, when it comes to synchronization, the address book is king.
How do you read this? Well, "if you suck data out of of cloud, you must allow us to suck data out of your cloud". Pretty simple.
If you are naive, the move from Google reads "we want an open cloud, we are open, you should be open too!". If you are cynical, it reads "we want to keep our data for ourselves, forget the BS about data liberation, we were joking... It works only if it does not harm our business, and Facebook is. Our cloud is as open as the other ones out there".
Pretty scary. The open cloud just got a bit more closed.
Monday, October 18, 2010
The end of the CD drive on laptops
Wednesday, Apple is holding an event called "Back to the Mac". People expect an announcement around a new version of the Mac operating system. Not hard to believe it is going to be called Lion, looking at the picture in the invitation card...
I am expecting Apple to also announce a new laptop. One that looks like my MacBook Air, with solid state disk and no CD drive.
I believe this moment will mark the end of the CD/DVD drive era on laptops. All Mac laptops, from now on, will look like the Air (which is a fantastic device, just a bit too pricey and slow, all things that are easy to solve today).
I have been living with a laptop without a CD drive for five years, at least. Starting with a Compaq Evo, then migrating to the MBA (as they call the Air). In all this time, I had two instances where I needed a CD drive... In both cases, someone around me had a CD drive and shared it for me on the network. The gain in weight is significant, and it means more room for battery (which is something you use a bit more often).
Apple has killed the floppy disk before, now it is time for the CD. You can put all that in an USB stick (yes, the new laptop will have more than one USB port). And if you really really need a CD/DVD drive for that emergency, you can get a USB one (but it is probably not going to pay for itself).
The world is moving to the cloud. Get ready for it. Shed some weight.
I am expecting Apple to also announce a new laptop. One that looks like my MacBook Air, with solid state disk and no CD drive.
I believe this moment will mark the end of the CD/DVD drive era on laptops. All Mac laptops, from now on, will look like the Air (which is a fantastic device, just a bit too pricey and slow, all things that are easy to solve today).
I have been living with a laptop without a CD drive for five years, at least. Starting with a Compaq Evo, then migrating to the MBA (as they call the Air). In all this time, I had two instances where I needed a CD drive... In both cases, someone around me had a CD drive and shared it for me on the network. The gain in weight is significant, and it means more room for battery (which is something you use a bit more often).
Apple has killed the floppy disk before, now it is time for the CD. You can put all that in an USB stick (yes, the new laptop will have more than one USB port). And if you really really need a CD/DVD drive for that emergency, you can get a USB one (but it is probably not going to pay for itself).
The world is moving to the cloud. Get ready for it. Shed some weight.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Is my iPad too big?
I have been an iPad user for over six months now. I went through all the phases: excitement (wow, this is cool), doubt (cool yes, but what am I going to do with it?), depression (really, it does not have a front camera?), acceptance (cool device, and useful, I am going to keep it and use it). I have left it in my bag for a few months, going back and forth from home to the office and to meetings in the Valley. Once I figured out I never took it out of the bag, I decided to leave it on the couch. Now it travels with me only when I take a plane.
Overall, I am quite happy with it. It is the perfect couch device. I rarely browse, I do some Twitter-Facebook-Linkedin (still wondering why the last two do not have an iPad application) and mostly email (95% reading, 5% writing). I have watched five YouTube videos - at most - and I have used FlipBoard for a while, although I am already bored with it (somehow, I end up reading only work-related stuff and it is not really what I want to do on the couch). It also comes with me to the bathroom, but only when I leave from the couch (I know, too much details, but I never walk to the couch just to grab the iPad before going to the restroom, and this is an interesting fact ;-)
When I travel, it is mostly a gaming machine. An amazing one, BTW. I play to kill time. I have watched a few movies, some rented, some found online (ehm...). I have read a few books. I have looked at the stars in the dark outside with my daughter using Star Walk (amazing app). I would not leave home to get on a plane without my iPad. It is the only thing that I take out of the bag on a plane. The laptop stays in the overhead bin these days, thankfully (in particular, if you fly economy or, worst, low-cost in Europe). I do love my iPad.
My family loves the iPad too, although for them it is just a gaming machine. WeRule is huge in my household. They cry when I leave for a trip and take away the device with me (and then they realize they should cry also because I am leaving).
Last week at CTIA I met for the first time the new Samsung Galaxy Tab(let). It runs Android 2.2. My first impression was extremely positive. I am not sure why, but I was expecting a slow tablet (maybe because Google said that 2.2 is not an OS for tablets, way to set expectations low I guess). Instead, it was very fast. The screen was great, the app I am used to (I also own a Nexus One) were there and looking even better. I downloaded the Funambol client and it worked right away. It just felt very natural, like the best of the iPad combined with the best of the Nexus One.
Once I put down the device, I was left with one major question: is my iPad too big?
It is an interesting question. I did not wonder whether the Galaxy Tab was too small, I wondered whether the iPad was too big. The iPad has a 10" display, the Galaxy 7". The difference is substantial. The Tab is almost half the weight of the iPad. It feels small, in a good way. And I never wondered if the iPad was too big, it felt just right before I tried the Galaxy.
It is fascinating to look at screen sizes and usability. The 4" screen is the way to go, for a pocketable device. I would not talk into anything bigger (the 5" Dell Streak makes you look ridiculous), take a picture (the camera on the tablets is only for video chats, in my opinion) or navigate a map while walking with anything bigger in my hands (a smartphone is just perfect). From 4" to 7", therefore, there seems to be a gap. Devices in the middle are too big to fit in a pocket and too small to deliver much more than a phone. At 7", apparently, the device seems big enough for my needs: email and browsing on a couch, gaming+movies+books on a plane. At 10", maybe it is even too much. I was surprised.
I was expecting a lot of tablets to challenge the iPad. I was expecting different UIs, USB ports and front cameras to be the big differentiators. And I was sure none had a chance. Instead, the challenge came from size. A smaller iPad is interesting in itself. It is different. And it definitely has a chance.
What's next from Apple? Let me guess: an iPad mini, at 7". They must be ready to ship it, I bet.
Overall, I am quite happy with it. It is the perfect couch device. I rarely browse, I do some Twitter-Facebook-Linkedin (still wondering why the last two do not have an iPad application) and mostly email (95% reading, 5% writing). I have watched five YouTube videos - at most - and I have used FlipBoard for a while, although I am already bored with it (somehow, I end up reading only work-related stuff and it is not really what I want to do on the couch). It also comes with me to the bathroom, but only when I leave from the couch (I know, too much details, but I never walk to the couch just to grab the iPad before going to the restroom, and this is an interesting fact ;-)
When I travel, it is mostly a gaming machine. An amazing one, BTW. I play to kill time. I have watched a few movies, some rented, some found online (ehm...). I have read a few books. I have looked at the stars in the dark outside with my daughter using Star Walk (amazing app). I would not leave home to get on a plane without my iPad. It is the only thing that I take out of the bag on a plane. The laptop stays in the overhead bin these days, thankfully (in particular, if you fly economy or, worst, low-cost in Europe). I do love my iPad.
My family loves the iPad too, although for them it is just a gaming machine. WeRule is huge in my household. They cry when I leave for a trip and take away the device with me (and then they realize they should cry also because I am leaving).
Last week at CTIA I met for the first time the new Samsung Galaxy Tab(let). It runs Android 2.2. My first impression was extremely positive. I am not sure why, but I was expecting a slow tablet (maybe because Google said that 2.2 is not an OS for tablets, way to set expectations low I guess). Instead, it was very fast. The screen was great, the app I am used to (I also own a Nexus One) were there and looking even better. I downloaded the Funambol client and it worked right away. It just felt very natural, like the best of the iPad combined with the best of the Nexus One.
Once I put down the device, I was left with one major question: is my iPad too big?
It is an interesting question. I did not wonder whether the Galaxy Tab was too small, I wondered whether the iPad was too big. The iPad has a 10" display, the Galaxy 7". The difference is substantial. The Tab is almost half the weight of the iPad. It feels small, in a good way. And I never wondered if the iPad was too big, it felt just right before I tried the Galaxy.
It is fascinating to look at screen sizes and usability. The 4" screen is the way to go, for a pocketable device. I would not talk into anything bigger (the 5" Dell Streak makes you look ridiculous), take a picture (the camera on the tablets is only for video chats, in my opinion) or navigate a map while walking with anything bigger in my hands (a smartphone is just perfect). From 4" to 7", therefore, there seems to be a gap. Devices in the middle are too big to fit in a pocket and too small to deliver much more than a phone. At 7", apparently, the device seems big enough for my needs: email and browsing on a couch, gaming+movies+books on a plane. At 10", maybe it is even too much. I was surprised.
I was expecting a lot of tablets to challenge the iPad. I was expecting different UIs, USB ports and front cameras to be the big differentiators. And I was sure none had a chance. Instead, the challenge came from size. A smaller iPad is interesting in itself. It is different. And it definitely has a chance.
What's next from Apple? Let me guess: an iPad mini, at 7". They must be ready to ship it, I bet.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
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:
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.
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.
Friday, August 27, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, August 13, 2010
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...
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...
Friday, August 06, 2010
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):
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.
- Google culture comes from the recent trend of kids education: everyone gets rewarded, even when they fail
- 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
- Google should do a lot more testing internally before shipping anything, instead of using users as testers
- The conclusion is that Google’s corporate culture puts a higher premium on the needs of their engineers than their responsibility to users
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.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
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:
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 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.
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.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
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.
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.
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 ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)