Category Archives: Mobile/Smartphone

Writings on laptops and smartphones, including devices, software and development.

My Ears Are On Fire

Posted on by

So… if you haven’t heard, Amazon announced a bunch of new Kindles yesterday. For the most part, I think the pundits have nailed it so a few quick bullet points before I dive into the meat of my post:

  • Awesome prices! $80 for a Kindle, $100 for a Touch version and $200 for the tablet are amazingly low. (Marco Arment points out that the new Kindles (except Fire) are all with Amazon’s ad service in place, though, so if you can’t stand the ads it will really cost $40 more.) I’ve considered a dedicated e-reader for years but may pull the trigger now that all the buttons are gone, the devices look great, and the prices are awesome.
  • RIM is in trouble. The device looks almost identical and supposedly has similar specs. Oh, but the price of the Fire is $300 less. (If Apple is suing Samsung for copying iPads and iPhones, will RIM sue Amazon for mimicking the Playbook?)
  • Chris Espinosa wrote some interesting tidbits on the new Fire browser and how it could be used to gather even more info about you. (We could move middle class salaries forward in this country if we could figure out how to make Google, Amazon, etc., pay for all the data they find valuable and have collected on us for free.)
  • I don’t think this is an “iPad killer.” The media is overwrought with hyperbole and link bait and no headline is link bait like “iPad killer.” Given that, John Gruber and Michael Mace have well-thought-out articles on this topic. Michael’s headline pretty much says it all: iPad and Kindle Fire together could be a buzz-saw in the tablet market, cutting down all competitors in their path.
  • One other thing I want to point out that is particularly appropriate is FAKEGRIMLOCK’s guest post over at Fred Wilson’s blog today. FAKEGRIMLOCK talks about how products/companies with personality win. Seems to be that Amazon, Apple and Google are all kings of personality in the tech world right now. Companies like RIM, Nokia and Microsoft have lost some of theirs.

So… on to my thoughts and these I will focus on developers. I think our world is fracturing into tiny fiefdoms. Sure, today Amazon’s tablet uses either Android 2.2 or 2.3 but in the future what are the odds that it stays perfectly compatible? It will always be something: a unique screen dimension, a feature Amazon needs ahead of Google or one Google doesn’t want at all, a tweak to a “bug” that developers have come to rely on. Something.

And when that happens, it is not write once, run everywhere. It is write once for one platform and then hack in fixes for the others. This is the bane of development.

Is this a problem already on Android? Of course. But I would argue that products like the Kindle Fire (and Barnes and Noble Nook) exacerbate this issue. Look at all the advertising for Kindle Fire. Go ahead, look. There is only one place I have seen that actually mentions Android, and that is the Amazon App Store.

Because of the minimal marketing of the Android brand, Amazon has minimal need to remain completely compatible with the Android core.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It just means when it comes to Android development, we as developers must focus on one platform at a time instead of writing for an OS. We won’t say we write for Android. We’ll say we write for the Amazon Fire.

Bringing the App To You

Posted on by

I have been thinking about a fundamental shift that is starting to occur in the world of software. Instead of you going to the application, the application is starting to come to you.

In the old days, when I wanted to send an email or create a document or calculate in a spreadsheet, you would go to some sort of launch screen, find the application you want to use, launch it and get to work.

It seems in the last few years this is fundamentally changing. It started for me in 2006 when we started working on the BlackBerry. If I created a web link within powerOne, such as how all the help is integrated, it would seamlessly launch the browser and display the content. A simple hit on the back button would bring you back to exactly where you were in powerOne.

But this isn’t really new. You could always do this with email and the Office suite was always linked together, and apps like the old “Works” systems had similar features. Even other apps had an “email” link in them that would launch the email client and automatically create a new address. Internet Explorer and Firefox have always done this.

Given that it was the seamless nature of how this capability worked on the BlackBerry that made me take notice. There was no splash screen, no visible change in app at all, that made this situation unique and started opening my eyes to the possibility]ies.

And as we have progressed through the last few years I am seeing more and more examples. Facebook and Google+ can now seamlessly access my contacts and look for people I know. iPhoto can send pictures to Facebook. The on-device video app can send created content to YouTube. Almost every smartphone and tablet news app makes it seamless to Facebook, Tweet, and email, among other options, a story. iOS 5 will have Twitter integration available to any app that wants it.

To me, though, this is just the start. What happens when all of your apps are integrated seamlessly across the web and device? What happens when you don’t have to deal with files but instead can just say “I want this memory [or comment or post or article or note or contact] over here.”

I don’t hear as much talk of this idea but think the idea of bring the app to you will be a significant driver of innovation on the web and mobile devices as we move forward. So developers… how does your app do this?

Waiting for Something Amazing

Posted on by

The last two weeks in mobile have left me dizzy. Google buying Motorola, HP dropping all hardware, including webOS, and finally Steve Jobs retiring. There have been so many unbelievable things happening such a short time period that I have to admit it makes me feel a little like the boy on the trike in “The Incredibles.”

If I Was Running…

Posted on by

Here is what I do know about the tablet market, none of which are original thoughts:

  • There is no tablet market, there is an iPad market. Imitating Apple’s iPad is not going to win significant market share. Apple has too many things going for it right now: superior product, control of supply, massive distribution, momentum.
  • The TouchPad weekend (devices sold like hotcakes when priced at $99) means nothing. There is no lesson here other than people love a bargain.
  • Remaining tablet makers have a choice: keep building your tablet and hope Apple screws up somewhere and you can quickly move to fill the void or invent a different kind of tablet.

If I was running RIM…

RIM is one of the companies that I think has a unique opportunity to differentiate. If I was running RIM I would laser focus the entire product on solving small to medium sized business problems. This would allow RIM to differentiate its offerings from Apple effectively. How would I do this? I would build a world-class web services layer that makes coordinating and sharing schedules, contacts and everything else across the office seamless and simple. In other words, I would explore how RIM’s technology advantages in BlackBerry Enterprise Server and BlackBerry Messenger could be the core of an approach that focuses on making technology control and integration as simple for SMBs as it has been for enterprises, without needing an IT department.

If I was running Microsoft…

Frankly, I’d keep doing what they are doing: combining tablets with Windows 9 to create a seamless Windows-tablet interface. Is this the right approach? Will customers prefer the “run Windows everywhere” approach over the “be restricted to specified tablet software” approach? Who really knows but Microsoft has to find out. There is actually evidence in both directions on this one. Microsoft, of course, has failed to sell Windows-on-tablets for a decade now. On the other hand, Apple managed to sell “iPhone apps” on tablets when it was first launched. If Microsoft’s approach is the same as Apple’s when it comes to Windows apps — “we have an awesome tablet for you with a unique interactive interface but if you really need a Windows app on the go, you can do that too” — then the strategy just might work this time. Can they beat Apple with this strategy? My feeling is this is a bet-the-company decision for Microsoft (meaning the company’s future growth is completely dependent on this decision) and frankly I’d be more comfortable betting the company on this than a copy Apple approach.

If I was running Google…

Speaking of a copy Apple’s approach… I spent the most time thinking about this one. Just like RIM, I don’t think Google would take the advice even if I was in a position to give it to them, but all the same here it is. Focus on social. Google’s future is social. It has to be. Google, you don’t really need to compete with Apple and Microsoft. While every action shows that these are the two companies you are most afraid of, neither is really a threat to your business. Neither makes money from advertising, neither competes on search (really), neither is in your league when it comes to web services. Facebook, however, is the one who sucks the wind from your sales. Same business model except Facebook says you don’t need search because everything you need to learn you can do so from your network. If I was Google, I’d be focusing all of my efforts on making devices that redefine social. I have no specifics on what that is. I am no social guru, tend to be a late comer to those technologies, and tend to see social through the lens of business, not through the lens of, you know, social interaction. But this is clearly Google’s biggest threat and strategically the entire company needs to use its strengths to win here.

If I was running…

To me there is a massive tablet section left that I don’t think has been focused on yet. RIM could do it (but won’t) as they at least had some mind-share in this segment. I honestly think this will likely come from someone who is not technically in the tablet space today, maybe an Amazon or Barnes and Noble. While I love my iPad, I still have a notepad I use. I desperately want to get rid of it. It needs to be good at three things: taking notes, reading, and browsing. Apple has nailed two of the three but the note-taking piece just isn’t there. Being restricted to a cursor and keyboard is a problem and pen input on an iPad is less than satisfying. Would I carry two devices? Of course as I already do: my iPad and a pad of paper.

Final Thoughts

The only way to beat Apple is not to outcompete them at their own game but to take on a segment of the market that Apple is either not focusing on or may be willing to give up. Jeez, hasn’t anyone in the tech space read Clayton Christensen? I don’t have all the segments here and some of these may be areas Apple would defend but by picking off a sub-segment and pushing Apple upstream, any number of tablet vendors could get a toe-hold and eventually compete head-to-head.

Talking to Myself about Google, Motorola and webOS

Posted on by

Talking to myself about this past week’s mobile events:

Why did Google buy Motorola?

Patents, primarily, but being able to bring out a reference device could have been in play. I also think that Google sees the carriers as a major cause of Android fragmentation and this could be a way to fight back.

Do you think Google is fundamentally giving in to the integrated business model used by Apple and RIM?

No although they may end there anyway as I think this will scare Android licensees.

Wait. Carriers have a role? in this Motorola-Google deal?

Yes. I believe the vendors are weak when dealing with carriers and Google needed leverage. I don’t think this was the original reason for the deal but do believe this is probably the biggest benefit for developers. Fracturing of the standard flavor Android platform should be less of an issue, excluding the Nook-Kindle-Chinese offshoots that will happen because Android is open source. Google should now have the direct leverage it needed to ensure that the Android operating system updates go out to device customers in a timely fashion.

What will happen with the two companies?

As their sizes are about the same I would think it would have at least even odds of working but offset that with two very different company cultures. I’m backing off of this question. There are way too many moving parts to know what impact this will have on Google, let alone the market.

What impact did Google-Motorola have on HP?

Very little for the decision would be my guess. I have a hard time believing this was just decided on Monday.

Really? Isn’t the timing suspicious?

I do believe the announcement timing was done on purpose but I doubt that the decision was precipitated by the Google-Motorola deal. Not convinced a public announcement was smart, though, at least if the goal is to license the OS.

So you don’t think HP is trying to license it?

No. What value does a public announcement have?

Hey, I’m asking the questions here.

Sorry. What I mean is the Google-Motorola announcement already puts pressure on those without an operating system to acquire one or build their own, non-Google flavor of Android. The public announcement of webOS devices being canceled doesn’t help that at all. There is plenty of pressure behind the scenes.

So why make a public announcement?

I don’t think it was a signal to other mobile hardware vendors. I think it was a signal to HP’s enterprise customers, Oracle and IBM. “We were distracted before with all this consumer hardware stuff,” I think HP is saying. “We aren’t anymore.”

So where does that leave webOS?

Without a home. Clearly the HP laptop division being spun out doesn’t want it otherwise it would have been wrapped into that announcement. It could have been easily bundled up with it. My guess is it will be sold off for expertise or patents.

Not as an OS?

I don’t think so as I don’t see who would want it. Okay, LG and HTC could want it but neither company has any real software experience. It is a huge difference between maintaining a skin on top of an OS and building an OS. Besides both companies are in a better position to customize Android then re-start with webOS, especially since they have built multiple years of expertise there. Samsung has Bada and I don’t think there is benefit in owning a second OS. Amazon is a long-shot as I think they are likely too far along with their Android customization efforts. Facebook… maybe they are the only ones but I would have thought all this would have been floated and discussed long before the announcement. There is no benefit in announcing the discontinuation of hardware before announcing a licensing partner. If HP had found a buyer or licensee I think that would have been announced instead.

Why is there no benefit in announcing hardware discontinuation? Wouldn’t that signal to a licensee that HP won’t compete with them like Google will?

Because the developers will all scatter to the wind and I can tell you from personal experience, once you are burned there is little chance of attracting developers back. A smartphone platform without developers is no better than a feature phone platform.

So who would buy webOS then?

I could see Apple and Microsoft both desiring the old Palm’s 1500+ patents. I could see Google making a play for them as well. They have plenty of cash left to plunk down another couple billion for the patents. Besides Apotheker, given the explosion in mobile patent costs, could claim victory by selling just the patents as those alone could be worth more than the $1.2B HP paid for it.

Apple is amazingly missing from this week’s announcements.

Oh, yeah? I would say Apple is everywhere in this week’s announcements. Motorola is in dire straights because Apple took all the profits. Apple, along with Microsoft, are also the ones suing everyone over patent infringement and Google needs to fight back there (or at least even the odds. And as for webOS… that one is obvious. HP is in essence saying it doesn’t want to compete with Apple (nor Google for that matter) for either tablets or smartphones anymore.

So where does this leave us as developers?

We have four major platforms now in the US: Android, iOS, BlackBerry and Windows Phone. BlackBerry OS will be usurped by RIM’s QNX operating system in the spring and the big question now is whether developers will go along with the move. If RIM handles this well they could mitigate Nokia-MS alliance before there are even devices. If they don’t then we imitate the band Genesis and name our next album “And Then There Were Three.”