I've noticed a number of blogs and forum posts that keep citing Android market share as evidence that Android is catching up to the iPhone, or even surpassing it. This is misleading so I'd like to put it in a broader context.
Back in the 1960s, when U.S. manufacturing was thriving, business studies showed that doubling production allowed one to reduce per widget cost by around 10%. If you were able to sell twice as many widgets as your next closest competitor, chances are you could produce them more efficiently and enjoy higher profits. The implication is that in each market, there is only room for a few producers with sufficient volume to be the most efficient and profitable manufacturers.
In the case of Android smartphones however, we are comparing a "free" operating system adopted by many manufacturers and carriers, with a specific product from a single vendor that is actually for sale. Any market share comparison that is not related to scale, efficient production, profitability, or customer satisfaction is largely meaningless.
The iPhone is by far the best selling smartphone, has the highest production volume, has the most efficient supply chain, has the greatest share of industry profits (to fuel ongoing development), and enjoys the highest customer satisfaction and brand loyalty. No other single product comes close.
But it goes deeper than this. Many reviewers don't even realize what the product is. They still believe the iPhone or iPad is mostly a hardware product defined by its specifications. Apple has invested 10 times more R&D resources to create the iOS software and supporting eco system than its hardware. Apple didn't design the hardware to match some feature checklist, they designed it to make their software amaze and delight customers, to create an emotional connection that effects peoples lives. To compare the iPhone or iPad to other products primarily on their hardware specifications is not representative of the quality of experience users are likely to have with the product.
What happens if you lose your phone or tablet or wish to upgrade to a newer model? Will all your applications and data move seamlessly? What if you want to share data with others or between your tablet and phone? Can your tablet be upgraded to the latest OS? Will the software you want be available and work smoothly on your new tablet? What about malware? What if something goes wrong? Is there a store where you can take your tablet to get help? These are important considerations consumers see clearly, but the tech press largely ignores. Is the iPad a next generation mobile computing platform, or just the latest cool gadget you're going to replace in a couple years?
Why is it so hard for the tech press to see the iPhone or iPad objectively, and why do they keep promoting the next most promising rival as serious competition when there isn't any?
First, there's the familiar archetype of rooting for the underdog. Apple has become a giant corporation with little need for sympathy to spread their message. Most people already know of Apple's success, what they are less likely know is where Apple has failed or been challenged. Highlighting Apple's weakness is an interesting angle that draws more attention.
Second, disruptive innovations take years to develop and unfold. Not every Apple product or event can meet the hopes and expectations some users have imagined.
While this might explain some of it, in many tech blogs and forums there's an element of resistance around Apple's success. A belief that Apple's customers are somehow being deceived into choosing Apple products over others that are just as good. Or that Apple's tight control over their software eco-system is a threat to user freedom. Or that Apple's singular success concentrates too much power in too few hands. There's an underlying meme that the market needs a worthy competitor, even if that means propping up weaker alternatives.
It's worth noting that Apple has deliberately chosen to serve the less techno-savvy consumer market. By carefully controlling their software eco-system, Apple has made it easier to find and buy computing solutions with less risk of malware or expensive complications. The IBM PC was originally conceived as a less expensive business computer, and more specifically to stop the Apple II from gaining a foothold in the corporate world. The popularity and rapid evolution of the PC meant that consumers were subsidizing cheap business computing. With the emergence of the Post PC era, that subsidy is ending. Nobody likes having their subsidy taken away, including nerds. IT departments are now being told to support iPhone and iPad regardless of their previous support policies. They are losing control over their employees choice of technology.
But there's a deeper reason. As a developer, I've invested years of my life and livelihood in Apple's vision of computing. I left my day job in 1996 to become a Mac developer back when Apple was doomed. For nearly two decades, Mac users and developers have believed their computers were better, while PC advocates argued successfully that their computers were good enough and offered a better selection of business software. It wasn't until Apple switched to Intel processors capable of running Windows that mainstream business users began to take notice.
If you have 10 years of your life invested in Microsoft technologies, the idea that Apple is 5 years ahead of the industry and could dominate the next wave of personal computing is frightening. To admit that you have been out-thought, out-maneuvered, out-marketed, out-executed, and are no longer able to compete effectively is unthinkable, yet this is the very real possibility that the PC industry faces if it concedes portable music and gaming (iPod Touch), smartphones, tablets, and the ultra notebook category to Apple. It simply can't afford to do this without a fight. You have to believe there is a consortium of vendors that can challenge Apple. Otherwise your business and career are at risk.
These factors combined help explain why the tech press is reluctant to embrace Apple's Post PC era. With Apple doing so many things right, the best defense may be to sow market confusion until a worthy challenger can arise.
There is a way to challenge Apple, but most of the industry still doesn't see it. They think Apple is competing on hardware features and price, but they are wrong. What Apple has done is they have gotten serious about creating a portfolio of great software products that delight customers in ways they haven't seen, and then combined this with elegant mobile hardware. Apple is winning in music, photography, home video, phone, App store, mobile gaming, and video conferencing. The iPhone 4S and iOS 5 will add Cards, text messaging, and Siri voice interaction on top of that. You will not be able to challenge this portfolio with more megahertz, pixels, or bytes. Consumers are smarter than that.
When Tim Cook says "Apple loves music", the subtext is that Apple makes the best music players on the planet. If you love music, you should have an iPod, iPhone, or Mac (and once you've tried one, you won't look back).
Android may be strong in mobile web, GPS navigation, and Google app integration, but none of these have the emotional appeal of music. Amazon is starting to figure it out. If you love books and reading, you should have a Kindle. Microsoft is re-imagining windows for mobile, but it's less clear if they realize they need a portfolio of consumer applications with emotional appeal to challenge Apple's. Focussing on the enterprise won't be enough. The next generation of mobile business software is already starting to be written for iPad.
If you don't agree with Steve Jobs approach of serving consumers first, you are free to design a better alternative and let the market decide. For more background, see Thoughts on the "Post PC" Era.
Enjoy!
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Thoughts on the "Post PC" Era
In recent weeks I've seen several editorials and forums discussing the "Post PC" Era. Having lived through a similar transition to the PC era, I'd like to offer another perspective.
First, desktop PCs aren't going to disappear anytime soon. They have many wonderful advantages, but they'll gradually become less dominant in the supply chain for hardware and software.
20 years ago when I was at DEC, we used to have these arguments frequently. What's the difference between a PC and a workstation? The temptation was always to elaborate the hardware differences. Bigger CPUs, virtual memory, multi-tasking, and so forth, but these were all wrong. The difference is the software it runs and the user experience. Everything else is a temporary distraction.
In the early 1980s, Digital tried to build their own PCs but failed to understand the importance of 3rd party developers and creating a sustainable software eco-system. Not unlike some cell phone makers.
By the late 1980s, PC software was already dominating the software
industry. There were simply so many more developers writing clever,
gorgeous, affordable applications, that the established mainframe
and minicomputer software business couldn't keep up. If you wanted
the coolest, most cost effective information solutions, that meant getting a desktop PC.
By 1990, Digital realized it couldn't win by building its own PCs (running DOS or Windows), so it tried to bring the best of the PC world to VAX/VMS through X-Windows (aka DECWindows), and put VAX/VMS on a 64-bit RISC chip called Alpha. While these were impressive engineering accomplishments, it's much easier to grow an eco-system up than to grow down.
It didn't take long for the user experience (including the cost of the tools) on the PC to challenge what you could do on a workstation. I remember around 1995 DEC standardizing on Interleaf, a $20,000 word processor that ran on workstations for all their technical publications. I couldn't believe it. Hadn't these people heard of MS Word and PDF? What did they think was going to happen to Interleaf in 5 years? The business model of these systems simply couldn't keep up with the much more affordable Windows/Intel eco-system.
The similarity with today's Microsoft trying to squeeze Windows 8 into a tablet form factor is striking. If history is any guide, this will be extremely difficult. Not because the engineering can't be done, but because the user experience and business model will not be compelling compared to alternatives that were designed for Mobile from the ground up and have a 5-year head start. How will tablet makers feel about paying $40 to license Windows? How will Microsoft get $100 for Word or Excel when Apple charges $20 for Pages or Numbers? Can Microsoft afford to match Apple's business model?
The computer industry has gone through several similar transitions and it's challenging for the titans of one era to be nimble enough to innovate and thrive in the next era. Consider the following sequence:
While we describe each era in physical device terms, this is misleading because the real transition is the user experience and the software that runs on these devices. The iPhone and iPad provide mobile Internet and productivity apps, but they do much more: music, pictures, video, movies, GPS navigation, books, games, and a large App library. Nearly as important are the many ways they do less: very little malware, no visible drivers, no extension conflicts, no file system, no hard drive, minimal configuration, compact, lightweight, low power, and no fan.
Squeezing windows into a tablet form factor is unlikely to match the best in class mobile experience in each of these areas, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. There's a huge base of developers and business customers who would love to access their familiar Windows tools from a mobile platform. The difference is whether this can attract the mass consumer market.
So what does it mean to say we're in a Post PC era? The focus of innovation, growth, and profits has shifted along with the attention of the masses. Traditional PC software (and hardware) isn't going away, it's just no longer the most dominant thing driving the industry.
The PC emerged in part as an expression of personal freedom and will remain popular for managing and storing your own data; writing your own programs; and running software you own rather than submitting to the whims of the Cloud. PCs have great displays, file management, and input capabilities. Where the PC has suffered as a consumer product is:
How these trade-offs are managed will define the Post PC era.
Enjoy!
P.S. Many of these PC limitations are not addressed by Android tablets which are having a hard time gaining traction in the market.
First, desktop PCs aren't going to disappear anytime soon. They have many wonderful advantages, but they'll gradually become less dominant in the supply chain for hardware and software.
20 years ago when I was at DEC, we used to have these arguments frequently. What's the difference between a PC and a workstation? The temptation was always to elaborate the hardware differences. Bigger CPUs, virtual memory, multi-tasking, and so forth, but these were all wrong. The difference is the software it runs and the user experience. Everything else is a temporary distraction.
In the early 1980s, Digital tried to build their own PCs but failed to understand the importance of 3rd party developers and creating a sustainable software eco-system. Not unlike some cell phone makers.
By the late 1980s, PC software was already dominating the software
industry. There were simply so many more developers writing clever,
gorgeous, affordable applications, that the established mainframe
and minicomputer software business couldn't keep up. If you wanted
the coolest, most cost effective information solutions, that meant getting a desktop PC.
By 1990, Digital realized it couldn't win by building its own PCs (running DOS or Windows), so it tried to bring the best of the PC world to VAX/VMS through X-Windows (aka DECWindows), and put VAX/VMS on a 64-bit RISC chip called Alpha. While these were impressive engineering accomplishments, it's much easier to grow an eco-system up than to grow down.
It didn't take long for the user experience (including the cost of the tools) on the PC to challenge what you could do on a workstation. I remember around 1995 DEC standardizing on Interleaf, a $20,000 word processor that ran on workstations for all their technical publications. I couldn't believe it. Hadn't these people heard of MS Word and PDF? What did they think was going to happen to Interleaf in 5 years? The business model of these systems simply couldn't keep up with the much more affordable Windows/Intel eco-system.
The similarity with today's Microsoft trying to squeeze Windows 8 into a tablet form factor is striking. If history is any guide, this will be extremely difficult. Not because the engineering can't be done, but because the user experience and business model will not be compelling compared to alternatives that were designed for Mobile from the ground up and have a 5-year head start. How will tablet makers feel about paying $40 to license Windows? How will Microsoft get $100 for Word or Excel when Apple charges $20 for Pages or Numbers? Can Microsoft afford to match Apple's business model?
The computer industry has gone through several similar transitions and it's challenging for the titans of one era to be nimble enough to innovate and thrive in the next era. Consider the following sequence:
Mainframe-computer ->
Mini-computer ->
Desktop PC ->
Internet PC ->
Mobile Internet ->
(Multi-Touch + cellular)
While we describe each era in physical device terms, this is misleading because the real transition is the user experience and the software that runs on these devices. The iPhone and iPad provide mobile Internet and productivity apps, but they do much more: music, pictures, video, movies, GPS navigation, books, games, and a large App library. Nearly as important are the many ways they do less: very little malware, no visible drivers, no extension conflicts, no file system, no hard drive, minimal configuration, compact, lightweight, low power, and no fan.
Squeezing windows into a tablet form factor is unlikely to match the best in class mobile experience in each of these areas, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. There's a huge base of developers and business customers who would love to access their familiar Windows tools from a mobile platform. The difference is whether this can attract the mass consumer market.
So what does it mean to say we're in a Post PC era? The focus of innovation, growth, and profits has shifted along with the attention of the masses. Traditional PC software (and hardware) isn't going away, it's just no longer the most dominant thing driving the industry.
The PC emerged in part as an expression of personal freedom and will remain popular for managing and storing your own data; writing your own programs; and running software you own rather than submitting to the whims of the Cloud. PCs have great displays, file management, and input capabilities. Where the PC has suffered as a consumer product is:
Being too complex for what users need most of the time
The need to deal with malware
Ease of finding/installing/updating software
Lack of mobility
Ease of backup, restore, migration, and replacement
Ease of service when things go wrong
Value when just the basics are enough
How these trade-offs are managed will define the Post PC era.
Enjoy!
P.S. Many of these PC limitations are not addressed by Android tablets which are having a hard time gaining traction in the market.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Migrating from Palm Desktop to iPhone (or iPad)
I have a client who recently purchased a Verizon iPhone and wanted to migrate his Contacts, Calendar, Tasks, and Memos from Palm Desktop to his new iPhone. Contacts and Calendar migrated easily enough, but there's no built-in support for tasks and memos. In this post, I'll describe how I resolved this problem.
From Palm Desktop you can export your contacts in vCard format and import them into Apple's Address Book on your Mac. You can also export your calendar in vCal format and import it into Apple's iCal on your Mac. Address Book and iCal can be synced easily with iPhone or iPad.
The hard part was finding a solution for Tasks and Memos. Google searching turned up recommendations to use Outlook which can sync to the iPhone on Windows, or downloading a trial version of Missing Sync for Palm OS to export your Tasks into Apple's Mail.app, and your Memos into Mark/Space Notebook. Once your tasks are in Mail.app, you can sync with MobileMe and then use BusyToDo. Missing Sync also supports Bare Bones Yojimbo and Entourage, but these are incomplete solutions since Yojimbo is for iPad and read only at this time.
If you try this (as I did), make sure you backup both your Address Book and iCal data as described before attempting your first sync. On my first attempt, when I enabled MobileMe synching, it quickly duplicated every calendar entry. Yikes! I turned off synching and restored the calendar from the backup I had made earlier. If you sync your calendars, you have to be careful about local copies and what else might be lurking when you use Missing Sync. I decided to look for another solution.
When I searched the App Store for "Palm Memos", I was thrilled to find Notebooks and read the description of how to import memos from Palm Desktop. Nice!
Notebooks is actually a pretty interesting app for keeping notes compared to anything else I've seen. It has extensive synchronization features (DropBox, WebDAV, WiFi, iTunes,...) and works with many data formats including iWork, MS Word, PDF, html, etc. You can only edit plain text or "mark down" on your mobile device, but you can store and view most things you're likely to be interested in. It supports nested notebooks to any level, ToDos, and allows you to re-arrange your notes and books any way you want from your desktop or mobile device by synchronizing moves and deletions.
Notebooks recently added support for ToDos, and with some tweaking, I was able to capture the text of my clients ToDos, their category, and last modification date. Hopefully, Notebooks will add proper support for importing Palm Tasks. Here's what I did:
1. Exported my To Dos from Palm Desktop, format Tab and Return, name "ToDos.palm"
2. Opened my ToDos in AppleWorks as a spreadsheet
3. Cut column 4 and pasted over column 5 (without removing column 4)
4. Copied column 1 and pasted over column 2
If you press the "Columns" button while configuring your Palm export, you'll see the list of columns exported by Memos versus To Dos. I just mapped the To Dos columns to mimic Memos so I could import them into Notebooks. Using DropBox for synching, this worked well in my simple test run with a few dozen Tasks and Memos.
When I tried to transfer my clients hundreds of Memos and Tasks, the Memos failed to load part way through, and the resulting Tasks folder caused an error when I tried to sync using DropBox. It turns out there were problematic entries in the files I exported from Palm Desktop. Using Bare Bones Text Wrangler, I was able to study the progress or error messages and find the corresponding problem records in the exported Palm Desktop files (by line number or text snippet). Category names must not end in a space, and records must contain a valid title or body. After a few attempts at cleaning up the files and converting to UTF8 encoding, I got everything to transfer successfully.
Once the Tasks have been extracted by Notebooks, you can tell it to display each book as a task list to allow checking off individual tasks.
Finally I learned from the Developer of Notebooks for iPhone and iPad (Alfons Schmid) that he is working on a companion Mac version to create a complete and elegant solution. Currently every Memo or Task is represented on the Mac by a plain text file you can edit directly, and a ".plist" file containing various properties (which you can also edit). While not a perfect solution, it was good enough to ease the transition to iPhone and better than anything else I could find. With a Mac version of Notebooks, iPhone will finally be able to approach the elegance of the Palm Treo and Palm Desktop for keeping Tasks and Memos.
From Palm Desktop you can export your contacts in vCard format and import them into Apple's Address Book on your Mac. You can also export your calendar in vCal format and import it into Apple's iCal on your Mac. Address Book and iCal can be synced easily with iPhone or iPad.
The hard part was finding a solution for Tasks and Memos. Google searching turned up recommendations to use Outlook which can sync to the iPhone on Windows, or downloading a trial version of Missing Sync for Palm OS to export your Tasks into Apple's Mail.app, and your Memos into Mark/Space Notebook. Once your tasks are in Mail.app, you can sync with MobileMe and then use BusyToDo. Missing Sync also supports Bare Bones Yojimbo and Entourage, but these are incomplete solutions since Yojimbo is for iPad and read only at this time.
If you try this (as I did), make sure you backup both your Address Book and iCal data as described before attempting your first sync. On my first attempt, when I enabled MobileMe synching, it quickly duplicated every calendar entry. Yikes! I turned off synching and restored the calendar from the backup I had made earlier. If you sync your calendars, you have to be careful about local copies and what else might be lurking when you use Missing Sync. I decided to look for another solution.
When I searched the App Store for "Palm Memos", I was thrilled to find Notebooks and read the description of how to import memos from Palm Desktop. Nice!
Notebooks is actually a pretty interesting app for keeping notes compared to anything else I've seen. It has extensive synchronization features (DropBox, WebDAV, WiFi, iTunes,...) and works with many data formats including iWork, MS Word, PDF, html, etc. You can only edit plain text or "mark down" on your mobile device, but you can store and view most things you're likely to be interested in. It supports nested notebooks to any level, ToDos, and allows you to re-arrange your notes and books any way you want from your desktop or mobile device by synchronizing moves and deletions.
Notebooks recently added support for ToDos, and with some tweaking, I was able to capture the text of my clients ToDos, their category, and last modification date. Hopefully, Notebooks will add proper support for importing Palm Tasks. Here's what I did:
1. Exported my To Dos from Palm Desktop, format Tab and Return, name "ToDos.palm"
2. Opened my ToDos in AppleWorks as a spreadsheet
3. Cut column 4 and pasted over column 5 (without removing column 4)
4. Copied column 1 and pasted over column 2
If you press the "Columns" button while configuring your Palm export, you'll see the list of columns exported by Memos versus To Dos. I just mapped the To Dos columns to mimic Memos so I could import them into Notebooks. Using DropBox for synching, this worked well in my simple test run with a few dozen Tasks and Memos.
When I tried to transfer my clients hundreds of Memos and Tasks, the Memos failed to load part way through, and the resulting Tasks folder caused an error when I tried to sync using DropBox. It turns out there were problematic entries in the files I exported from Palm Desktop. Using Bare Bones Text Wrangler, I was able to study the progress or error messages and find the corresponding problem records in the exported Palm Desktop files (by line number or text snippet). Category names must not end in a space, and records must contain a valid title or body. After a few attempts at cleaning up the files and converting to UTF8 encoding, I got everything to transfer successfully.
Once the Tasks have been extracted by Notebooks, you can tell it to display each book as a task list to allow checking off individual tasks.
Finally I learned from the Developer of Notebooks for iPhone and iPad (Alfons Schmid) that he is working on a companion Mac version to create a complete and elegant solution. Currently every Memo or Task is represented on the Mac by a plain text file you can edit directly, and a ".plist" file containing various properties (which you can also edit). While not a perfect solution, it was good enough to ease the transition to iPhone and better than anything else I could find. With a Mac version of Notebooks, iPhone will finally be able to approach the elegance of the Palm Treo and Palm Desktop for keeping Tasks and Memos.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Which iPad to Get?
With the iPad 2 going sale this friday (11-Mar-2011), many people are thinking about which iPad to get and whether it is worth upgrading. I have an iPad 1 3G with 16 GB and am thinking about this as well.
3G or not?
3G gives you the freedom to access the Internet anywhere there is cell coverage. In the car, around town, shopping, or in a waiting room. To me, this is a big part of what makes iPad so useful. In addition to Internet access, the 3G model includes a GPS receiver and compass to support location-based services. While you may not rely on the Maps application, location-based features include getting local weather, theater listings, social networking and so forth. A lot of things become easier or even possible when the iPad knows where you are. The 3G model also synchronizes the clock to the cellular network avoiding possibly awkward clock drift of 10 minutes or more.
Put simply, the 3G model is the full iPad experience Apple envisioned. The WiFi only model is a necessary compromise to achieve the psychologically important $499 entry level price.
If cost is important, consider skipping the iPhone in favor of a prepaid feature phone. With the money you save, you can buy 2 iPads including mobile Internet. iPads can make and receive phone calls, handle Email, SMS, IM etc. From my perspective, the iPad with 3G offers a richer mobile computing experience than any smartphone at a fraction of the cost if you are willing to carry it with you.
I love the iPhone, but spending $2000 on voice and data is a big expense for many. With the iPad 3G, $15 month gives you the best of the mobile Internet with no contract.
16, 32, or 64 GB of Flash Memory?
Unless you have a large collection of music, photos, or video you need to carry with you, stick with 16 GB. 16 GB is plenty for most uses, and the technology is changing so fast you'll most likely want to upgrade in a couple years anyway to get a newer radio (LTE), faster processor, more memory, etc.
AT&T or Verizon?
Advantages of AT&T:
(1) If your cellular data needs are modest since you will mostly be using WiFi at home or work, AT&T is less expensive at $14.99/month for 250 MB. Apple had a hand in creating this plan and it really is $14.99 per month with no surprises. You can start or stop any time you like again with no surprises. Verizon's plan starts at $20/mo for 1GB, but beware of fees and taxes. If you plan to use Verizon, ask around to determine your actual monthly bill, including starting service, stopping service, and going over your monthly allotment.
(2) AT&T's data service can be faster under good conditions.
(3) If you travel outside the US, especially in Europe, GSM is widely available. Verizon's CDMA is not.
(4) GSM can handle simultaneous voice and data on the iPhone. Not an issue for iPad.
(5) Apple has more experience with AT&T so the product and service is more mature.
Advantages of using Verizon:
(1) Verizon has the largest network and better coverage in many areas (but not always). If you travel extensively around the US, Verizon has more coverage in more places including the Metro in Washington DC. If you mostly stay within a single geographic region, ask the locals how the respective coverage works for them.
(2) If you expect to use more than the minimal data plan, Verizon could be less expensive.
(3) Verizon's CDMA radio technology (from Qualcomm) is more efficient, so the GSM camp adopted it for their 3G. Verizon has better 3G frequencies in many areas, which means better coverage indoors.
(4) Verizon is not AT&T. If you already have an AT&T iPhone, you can gain some redundancy and additional coverage by adding Verizon.
(5) Verizon has many corporate customers (including the federal government), so your employer may already have a deal with them.
iPad 1 or iPad 2
I'm still ambivalent around this. The iPad 1 I have works really well and I love my ZeroChroma Vario case. It lets me rest the iPad almost anywhere and adjust it to just the right angle, or hold my iPad more comfortably. A refurbished iPad 1 with 3G is available directly from Apple for $479 ($150 savings) which is pushing down iPad 1 resale values.
The selection of cases for the iPad 2 is likely to be slim at first. While I like the idea of Apple's smart cover, I carry my iPad almost everywhere and appreciate having a shell to protect it from the minor dings of everyday use.
On the upside, the iPad 2 represents the leading edge of mobile computing and affords new applications I haven't even imagined yet. The combination of geo-tagged photos, video, gyroscope, and dual core processing will open many doors. Being able to mirror anything to an external display will be invaluable to some.
I'll probably wait a month or two to hear how the iPad 2 is received and then make a decision.
Enjoy!
3G or not?
3G gives you the freedom to access the Internet anywhere there is cell coverage. In the car, around town, shopping, or in a waiting room. To me, this is a big part of what makes iPad so useful. In addition to Internet access, the 3G model includes a GPS receiver and compass to support location-based services. While you may not rely on the Maps application, location-based features include getting local weather, theater listings, social networking and so forth. A lot of things become easier or even possible when the iPad knows where you are. The 3G model also synchronizes the clock to the cellular network avoiding possibly awkward clock drift of 10 minutes or more.
Put simply, the 3G model is the full iPad experience Apple envisioned. The WiFi only model is a necessary compromise to achieve the psychologically important $499 entry level price.
If cost is important, consider skipping the iPhone in favor of a prepaid feature phone. With the money you save, you can buy 2 iPads including mobile Internet. iPads can make and receive phone calls, handle Email, SMS, IM etc. From my perspective, the iPad with 3G offers a richer mobile computing experience than any smartphone at a fraction of the cost if you are willing to carry it with you.
I love the iPhone, but spending $2000 on voice and data is a big expense for many. With the iPad 3G, $15 month gives you the best of the mobile Internet with no contract.
16, 32, or 64 GB of Flash Memory?
Unless you have a large collection of music, photos, or video you need to carry with you, stick with 16 GB. 16 GB is plenty for most uses, and the technology is changing so fast you'll most likely want to upgrade in a couple years anyway to get a newer radio (LTE), faster processor, more memory, etc.
AT&T or Verizon?
Advantages of AT&T:
(1) If your cellular data needs are modest since you will mostly be using WiFi at home or work, AT&T is less expensive at $14.99/month for 250 MB. Apple had a hand in creating this plan and it really is $14.99 per month with no surprises. You can start or stop any time you like again with no surprises. Verizon's plan starts at $20/mo for 1GB, but beware of fees and taxes. If you plan to use Verizon, ask around to determine your actual monthly bill, including starting service, stopping service, and going over your monthly allotment.
(2) AT&T's data service can be faster under good conditions.
(3) If you travel outside the US, especially in Europe, GSM is widely available. Verizon's CDMA is not.
(4) GSM can handle simultaneous voice and data on the iPhone. Not an issue for iPad.
(5) Apple has more experience with AT&T so the product and service is more mature.
Advantages of using Verizon:
(1) Verizon has the largest network and better coverage in many areas (but not always). If you travel extensively around the US, Verizon has more coverage in more places including the Metro in Washington DC. If you mostly stay within a single geographic region, ask the locals how the respective coverage works for them.
(2) If you expect to use more than the minimal data plan, Verizon could be less expensive.
(3) Verizon's CDMA radio technology (from Qualcomm) is more efficient, so the GSM camp adopted it for their 3G. Verizon has better 3G frequencies in many areas, which means better coverage indoors.
(4) Verizon is not AT&T. If you already have an AT&T iPhone, you can gain some redundancy and additional coverage by adding Verizon.
(5) Verizon has many corporate customers (including the federal government), so your employer may already have a deal with them.
iPad 1 or iPad 2
I'm still ambivalent around this. The iPad 1 I have works really well and I love my ZeroChroma Vario case. It lets me rest the iPad almost anywhere and adjust it to just the right angle, or hold my iPad more comfortably. A refurbished iPad 1 with 3G is available directly from Apple for $479 ($150 savings) which is pushing down iPad 1 resale values.
The selection of cases for the iPad 2 is likely to be slim at first. While I like the idea of Apple's smart cover, I carry my iPad almost everywhere and appreciate having a shell to protect it from the minor dings of everyday use.
On the upside, the iPad 2 represents the leading edge of mobile computing and affords new applications I haven't even imagined yet. The combination of geo-tagged photos, video, gyroscope, and dual core processing will open many doors. Being able to mirror anything to an external display will be invaluable to some.
I'll probably wait a month or two to hear how the iPad 2 is received and then make a decision.
Enjoy!
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Replacing Apple Downloads with the Mac App Store
Apple is correct to recognize that the Mac App Store offers a way to create more value. But their letter to developers asserts:
This statement is subjective and depends on who "your apps" is referring to and what the user is looking for. The Mac App Store is open to self contained productivity and entertainment apps that may access the Internet. Based on Apple's published guidelines, the Mac App Store IS NOT open to system utilities, disk utilities, network utilities, software that attempts to enhance the user interface of existing system facilities, or most plug-ins including browser, Email, and Address Book plug-ins.
Why? Placing code or resources in any shared area or requesting privilege escalation is prohibited.
In order for Apple's assertion above to be broadly true, Apple would need to offer a "Mac Utility Store" or other venue for applications that cannot meet the Mac App Store restrictions. This would include many award winning tools like Disk Warrior, Super Duper!, Default Folder X, 1Password, and other system maintenance utilities and plug-ins. Ironically, many Macworld Editor's Choice Award winning products are not eligible to appear in the Mac App Store. To say the Mac App Store is the "best destination for users to discover, purchase, and download your apps" is understandable marketing speak, but it's not the whole story.
I understand the hype machine can only focus on one thing at a time, but I hope Apple will consider expanding the scope of their Mac App Store(s) to truly become the "best destination" to discover great software.
Respectfully Submitted,
- Peter Sichel
Sustainable Softworks
"Because we believe the Mac App Store will be the best destination for users to discover, purchase, and download your apps, we will no longer offer apps on the Mac OS X Downloads site."
This statement is subjective and depends on who "your apps" is referring to and what the user is looking for. The Mac App Store is open to self contained productivity and entertainment apps that may access the Internet. Based on Apple's published guidelines, the Mac App Store IS NOT open to system utilities, disk utilities, network utilities, software that attempts to enhance the user interface of existing system facilities, or most plug-ins including browser, Email, and Address Book plug-ins.
Why? Placing code or resources in any shared area or requesting privilege escalation is prohibited.
In order for Apple's assertion above to be broadly true, Apple would need to offer a "Mac Utility Store" or other venue for applications that cannot meet the Mac App Store restrictions. This would include many award winning tools like Disk Warrior, Super Duper!, Default Folder X, 1Password, and other system maintenance utilities and plug-ins. Ironically, many Macworld Editor's Choice Award winning products are not eligible to appear in the Mac App Store. To say the Mac App Store is the "best destination for users to discover, purchase, and download your apps" is understandable marketing speak, but it's not the whole story.
I understand the hype machine can only focus on one thing at a time, but I hope Apple will consider expanding the scope of their Mac App Store(s) to truly become the "best destination" to discover great software.
Respectfully Submitted,
- Peter Sichel
Sustainable Softworks
Network Neutrality Made Simple
Much of the debate around Network Neutrality has tended to obfuscate what is essential to regulate with what is controversial, so I'd like to spell it out simply.
(1) Wireless airwaves and landline right of ways belong to the public.
(2) Government has granted a small number of business organizations a license or charter to provide voice and data communication services to the public based on these public resources.
(3) Building and operating the nations communication networks gives these organizations certain powers which the public has an interest in regulating. The charter granted to these business organizations to provide voice and data communication services to the public prohibits any attempt to give themselves or anyone else an unfair competitive advantage over any other lawful communication service that runs on top of these network facilities. The public's interest in an open Internet that supports efficient innovation requires this.
Point 3 is the crux of Network Neutrality. Certain carriers have tried to obfuscate the issue by saying they need the ability to offer premium services and manage the network which Network Neutrality would somehow prohibit. I respectfully disagree. The issue is whether Internet data carriers can grant themselves an unfair competitive advantage by virtue of controlling the pipes. The answer that best serves the public interest is "no".
For example, Network Neutrality says that Comcast may not restrict access to Netflix or charge a premium for such access so as to make their own video on demand services more competitive. They can manage the bandwidth available for streaming, but they must not discriminate based on the content itself or who provides it. The user decides what services they choose to access.
(1) Wireless airwaves and landline right of ways belong to the public.
(2) Government has granted a small number of business organizations a license or charter to provide voice and data communication services to the public based on these public resources.
(3) Building and operating the nations communication networks gives these organizations certain powers which the public has an interest in regulating. The charter granted to these business organizations to provide voice and data communication services to the public prohibits any attempt to give themselves or anyone else an unfair competitive advantage over any other lawful communication service that runs on top of these network facilities. The public's interest in an open Internet that supports efficient innovation requires this.
Point 3 is the crux of Network Neutrality. Certain carriers have tried to obfuscate the issue by saying they need the ability to offer premium services and manage the network which Network Neutrality would somehow prohibit. I respectfully disagree. The issue is whether Internet data carriers can grant themselves an unfair competitive advantage by virtue of controlling the pipes. The answer that best serves the public interest is "no".
For example, Network Neutrality says that Comcast may not restrict access to Netflix or charge a premium for such access so as to make their own video on demand services more competitive. They can manage the bandwidth available for streaming, but they must not discriminate based on the content itself or who provides it. The user decides what services they choose to access.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Does Android Compete with iPhone?
The race is on, Android sales are catching up with iPhone, and we all know a race implies a winner. The question that's not as widely considered is how much these products actually compete? First, Android is an operating system used by multiple vendors, so we need to consider Apple's iOS eco-system and what these respective products bring to the market.
If you are a cell phone maker looking for a low cost licensable OS, Android is a clear winner. If you're a cell phone carrier looking to offer a family of attractive "smart phones" you can customize to add "carrier value", again Android is a winner. But what do these respective products offer to the people who actually buy and use them?
Android
- A cell phone available on multiple carriers.
- A flexible Internet communication device that offers mobile Web, Email, Maps, navigation, social networking, and the ability to run 3rd party apps.
- Lower cost in some cases but not others.
Android is a remarkable product, and if it weren't for the iPhone, it would be far ahead of anything else in its field, but the iPhone and iOS mobile platform arrived first.
iPhone/iOS
- A cell phone currently available through some carriers.
- A flexible Internet communication device that offers mobile Web, Email, Maps, navigation, social networking, and the ability to run 3rd party apps.
- A best in class App store available in 60 countries.
- A best in class portable music platform (iPod).
- A best in class mobile gaming platform (iPod Touch).
- A best in class mobile tablet (iPad) that serves as a book reader, electronic publishing channel, and is well suited to other business applications.
- Best in class battery life.
- Best in class retail product support.
- A consistent user experience that is always responsive and not bogged down by crapware.
- A restrained design that does not overwhelm new users with all the things it can do before they experience finding and downloading software from the App Store.
- A vast eco-system of product accessories.
- A consistent upgrade path.
- A broadly supported mobile computing platform that offers a consistent target for mobile application developers.
The next question one might reasonably ask is which of these differences are sustainable? The surprising answer is most of them. Some are based on long term investments which cannot be easily replicated (iTunes + iTMS, over 300 Apple retail stores, Mac desktop, Xcode developer tool chain). Another big factor is profitability to sustain ongoing development and innovation. Apple's vertically integrated business model has proven to be highly profitable at almost every level. In contrast, Android development is largely funded by Google's Search business. Whether this business model can expand to support an iOS like eco-system is an interesting question.
Today, both Android and iPhone/iOS are clearly successful. It is not my intention to predict a winner, but to point out how these products address very different market needs with relatively modest overlap. Both products have enormous growth potential. Android offers a powerful Internet enabled smartphone that is not locked down by a single vendor. iPhone/iOS offers a powerful, easy to use mobile computing platform that was not previously available.
As a smartphone OS, Android is a huge success. As a mobile platform OS, iOS has more developers and more software which is attracting ever increasing investment. When it comes to mobile touch screen tablets, there is only one well stocked App store with software designed specifically for the tablet format. If Android fails to attract significant tablet software over the next year, while Apple remains on track to sell over 40 million iPads, the difference will become more apparent.
If you are a cell phone maker looking for a low cost licensable OS, Android is a clear winner. If you're a cell phone carrier looking to offer a family of attractive "smart phones" you can customize to add "carrier value", again Android is a winner. But what do these respective products offer to the people who actually buy and use them?
Android
- A cell phone available on multiple carriers.
- A flexible Internet communication device that offers mobile Web, Email, Maps, navigation, social networking, and the ability to run 3rd party apps.
- Lower cost in some cases but not others.
Android is a remarkable product, and if it weren't for the iPhone, it would be far ahead of anything else in its field, but the iPhone and iOS mobile platform arrived first.
iPhone/iOS
- A cell phone currently available through some carriers.
- A flexible Internet communication device that offers mobile Web, Email, Maps, navigation, social networking, and the ability to run 3rd party apps.
- A best in class App store available in 60 countries.
- A best in class portable music platform (iPod).
- A best in class mobile gaming platform (iPod Touch).
- A best in class mobile tablet (iPad) that serves as a book reader, electronic publishing channel, and is well suited to other business applications.
- Best in class battery life.
- Best in class retail product support.
- A consistent user experience that is always responsive and not bogged down by crapware.
- A restrained design that does not overwhelm new users with all the things it can do before they experience finding and downloading software from the App Store.
- A vast eco-system of product accessories.
- A consistent upgrade path.
- A broadly supported mobile computing platform that offers a consistent target for mobile application developers.
The next question one might reasonably ask is which of these differences are sustainable? The surprising answer is most of them. Some are based on long term investments which cannot be easily replicated (iTunes + iTMS, over 300 Apple retail stores, Mac desktop, Xcode developer tool chain). Another big factor is profitability to sustain ongoing development and innovation. Apple's vertically integrated business model has proven to be highly profitable at almost every level. In contrast, Android development is largely funded by Google's Search business. Whether this business model can expand to support an iOS like eco-system is an interesting question.
Today, both Android and iPhone/iOS are clearly successful. It is not my intention to predict a winner, but to point out how these products address very different market needs with relatively modest overlap. Both products have enormous growth potential. Android offers a powerful Internet enabled smartphone that is not locked down by a single vendor. iPhone/iOS offers a powerful, easy to use mobile computing platform that was not previously available.
As a smartphone OS, Android is a huge success. As a mobile platform OS, iOS has more developers and more software which is attracting ever increasing investment. When it comes to mobile touch screen tablets, there is only one well stocked App store with software designed specifically for the tablet format. If Android fails to attract significant tablet software over the next year, while Apple remains on track to sell over 40 million iPads, the difference will become more apparent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
