tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-123159452024-03-12T18:58:34.258-05:00Hal Meeks Made it UpAbout freeing, teaching and making digital media,about learning, about art and design, about accessibility for ALLHal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.comBlogger138125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-86148349867911202642017-09-22T10:19:00.000-05:002017-09-22T10:37:49.870-05:00Features vs. InnovationI want to spend a couple of minutes talking about innovation and features. For the most part, Apple is focused on innovation. They add new functionality to products (like the dual cameras on the iPhone 7 and 8 plus, and the iPhone X). This is not to say that this functionality didn't exist before. But typically, Apple takes a different tact than others, and thinks about the value a feature can bring to a product from a systemic view.<br />
<br />
The dual cameras was a feature which existed before on other handsets. It was used for various things, such as black and white photography and zoom effects. But it is important to note here that these are just features. They are not baked into the DNA of the product at a system level. That is often up to the Android developers to add this functionality.<br />
<br />
As a further example, I have written about Apple's depth sensing technology. It is innovative, not because it didn't exist before, but it is so integral to the OS that developers can leverage it in new and exciting ways. Apple makes it easy for them to do this. Who knows what interesting Apps we will see in a years time that will use this functionality. This is not true of other handsets that have not thought system-wide about a new feature. Dual Cameras on an Android phone is an island. It is for taking pictures.<br />
<br />
I think a lot of people confuse innovation with features. Features are new things that are added to a device, which may or may not extend functionality in integral ways that move the product significantly beyond where it was before. Innovation does just that - it is a point of inflection where it is clear that what came before is now hopelessly outdated. The touchscreen on the original iPhone is such an example. I think the depth sensing and AR are examples on Apple's newest phones and OS 11 are as well, simply because Apple has an integration between software and hardware that Android phone manufactures don't have. It is not that they can offer features that are innovative (sometimes they do), but it is harder to do so.<br />
<br />
I have written in the past about Samsung and Apple, two very different companies that both make highly regarded handsets. Samsung often adds features (such as the curved display of the Edge), and sometimes innovates. So does Apple. But I think this comes from a different place for both companies. Samsung makes washing machines, refrigerators, Televisions and Cell Phones. They are often thinking about product differentiation in a crowded market. Apple sometimes thinks the same way, but more often than not, they don't. They come from a more solid design discipline, where you are always thinking about extending functionality in ways that don't just make the product different, but extend the capability in fundamental ways. Adding cellular to the Apple watch was an obvious thing to do, but what it really does is significantly extend functionality in ways that will continually delight it's users, such as Apple music integration. While it is indeed a new feature, it is also a moment of inflection that now makes what came before, including previous smart watches from Samsung, Apple and others, now outdated. It is the true rise of the wearable computer.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-62595158088624561042017-09-14T09:25:00.001-05:002017-09-22T17:20:24.486-05:00iPhone X No BrainerThis will be quick. I see no reason for the iPhone 8 to exist other than to plug a hole in the iPhone line. Certainly, the price of the iPhone X gives pause. It is expensive, but the price differential between it and the iPhone 8 Plus (which is what you have to compare it to, not the iPhone 8) is not that much.<br />
<br />
The only reasons I can come up with are:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>The iPhone X is harder to make.</li>
<li>Apple is constrained on how many OLED displays it can get for the iPhone X</li>
<li>Some people are still going to want a home button</li>
<li>Apple needs to have a slightly cheaper phone</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
The first two are a result of constraints on market delivery. Apple can sell more than they make, so the iPhone X will be next to impossible to get. That is a safe bet, even given the high price. People will gladly pay it. If you hate Apple with the burning hate of a million suns, you will chalk it up to Apple fanboys who will buy whatever new thing that Apple makes.<br />
<br />
I think it is that the iPhone X makes the rest of the line look old. Clearly it is the future of the iPhone, for better or worse (worse, if you love the home button, and touch ID).<br />
<br />
So, I see the iPhone 8 as a lead balloon. They will sell plenty of them, hell I might buy one. I give up, I want the dual cameras after Apple's demo's at WWDC, which I highlighted in a earlier post. This will be the first time I have upgraded phones in one year. It is a dumb financial decision, but not necessarily a bad artistic decision. I shoot a lot of photos with my phone. A lot. It makes sense for me to have the best camera I will always have with me.<br />
<br />
So, this is probably the last year of the home button. Buy it while it's hot. Next year the iPhone 8 will take the place of the iPhone 7 at the bottom of the line, and the iPhone X will be the midline phone. We will see.Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-3262737192239781202017-08-13T16:54:00.001-05:002017-08-13T16:54:34.417-05:00Depth Sensing with Apple's Dual CamerasApple's developer conference videos are always worth digging through, even if you are not a programmer. Some give an insight into Apple's technology, and a few clues as to where Apple is headed. Apple's dual cameras on the iPhone 7 Plus does a neat parlor trick, mainly a simulated bokeh effect. Watch this video:<br />
<a href="https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2017/507/">https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2017/507/</a><br />
<br />
I have read that Samsung had this blurred background effect "two years ago", which I am not sure is true. It is a "selective focus" mode where you select where the area of focus is to be on the photo. It is not really bokeh, but it's something.<br />
<br />
The difference with Apple's implementation is that they are using the dual cameras to measure depth. This allows them to apply effects based on this information. This is an entirely different way of working than Samsung's approach. For one thing, since the depth information is recorded with the image, this bokeh effect can be applied after the image has been taken. In the demos in the video, the programmers show other effects that can be applied after the fact. And the most important thing of all is that all of this is available in a newly minted API that any programmer can use for their imaging or photography application. Plus they have now implemented dual camera capture. Plus, there is ARkit (more on this later).<br />
<br />
There is a companion video where Apple's programmers show how to work with images that have depth data. It's interesting as well, but not necessarily as eye-opening for me as the video I have linked to.<br />
<br />
I hope that Apple manages to squeeze dual cameras into their "non-plus" version of their next phone. I'm there.<br />
<br />Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-33568070542186684692017-08-07T08:31:00.000-05:002017-09-14T09:28:33.216-05:00Google Pixel On SaleThe Google Pixel is now up to $200 off and is bundled with a Daydream headset. Why now?<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Completely subjective evidence. I have actually never seen someone with one. I think most Android users have not either.</li>
<li>It is a nice phone, but most users don't care. Their friends have a Samsung phone, so that's what they ask for. People don't mind spending for a nice phone, since they can pay for them on an installment plan. On top of that, Samsung phones are often discounted.</li>
<li>Project Daydream has failed to get any traction at all, since it only works with a handful of phones. Unlike Google cardboard.</li>
<li>Apple is getting ready to release a new phone, whatever they will call it. There is possibly a high end model (according to all the rumors). Selling the Pixel at a discount is a pre-emptive strike. There is most likely a new Pixel in the works. Dual cameras, augmented reality.</li>
<li>Speaking of which, Apple's AR push will steal the limelight from the nascent low-end VR efforts. I know that AR and VR are only distantly related, but people will kind of lump them together. Dumb headset that you have to wear, versus just pointing your phone - win for Apple.</li>
</ul>
<div>
I think Google's handset efforts are doing OK, but not gangbusters. They have sold Pixels, but not a lot of them. It is hard now to break out in the Android marketplace, since there are many good, capable phones now. Google has yet to find that killer feature. The phone's camera is good, but the iPhone 7 Plus's dual camera crushes it. Running stock Android is not a killer feature. Only geeks care about that. Most people just want a good handset with a nice screen which works well.</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-55295854533519984222015-06-09T10:30:00.001-05:002015-06-09T11:09:28.223-05:00The imminent fall of AppleWWDC 2015 was yesterday. It was a day of modest improvements, not sweeping changes. The big news was no surprise to anyone at all, which was Apple's music service.<br />
<br />
I have a co-worker that repeats to me frequently that "Apple has lost it's way". That is the belief of some after Steve Jobs left the building.<br />
<br />
It bears to be repeated - Apple was not Steve Jobs. He left his imprint on the company, but a part of that is a legacy of good design above all else. Apple doesn't invent many new things; it refines things that exist in ways that become obvious once Apple does it. The Watch is an example of what is right and wrong about Apple. They rushed a product to market that isn't still fully formed. It is definitely a work in progress. But, on the other hand, it is probably the best of the current devices out there that try to fuse digital assistant and timepiece.<br />
<br />
A study of contrasts to be sure - I watch Google's developer keynote last week, and was impressed, but it ultimately I have to remember that Google is not Santa Claus. It is giving us things because it wants to get better at mining data on it's users. Why does it give so much space for people to upload photos, with some really slick tools for discovery? It uses these very same tools to mine even more data on it's users. In that picture it sees a user holding a can of Pepsi - it now knows one more thing about you. Are you on vacation in Hawaii? It knows one more thing about you that it can now use to better target you for advertising and services, data it shares with it's "partners".<br />
<br />
There is much talk about the evils of Apple's "walled garden" versus Google's "openness", but it is really a matter of choosing your poison. This <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/apples-attacks-on-google-and-facebook-expose-a-long-term-problem-2015-6?op=1">article points to a world where people are willing to give up their privacy for convenience</a> - which the author claims puts Apple at a disadvantage. But it is really comparing two different things. Apple is not in the business of mining it's users - Facebook and Google are. Will people gladly hand over all the small details of their lives for a little more simplicity - to the point where both of these companies become truly intrusive? It remains to be seen - the cynics have already decided.<br />
<br />
I remember someone telling me that REM (the band) sucked after their first album. Really. REM went from indy darlings to a band that sold a lot of records. This doomed them for the early adopters, because they were popular, they must be bad. It is a form of close mindedness. Hipsters would write off Madonna as she became a pop diva, but "Ray of Light" is really a pretty great album - if it had been recorded by a complete unknown, it would have been hailed as a masterpiece. Success breeds contempt in small minded people.<br />
<br />
Is Apple failing? No. It is true that the Watch is not the groundbreaking success that the iPhone was, but behind the scenes, there are a lot of little things that Apple is doing profoundly right. When I heard of Apple pay last year, I told folks that it was the important thing that Apple had announced at WWDC. Google had tried to implement something similar, and had failed. Apple succeeded because their "walled garden" (so to speak) gave them an advantage that others don't (and continue to not) have. It allowed them to build a consistent user experience. It taps into something that people routinely do, and makes it better. People talked on phones before the iPhone, but the iPhone changed what people could use their phones for. I owned several smart phones before the iPhone, and they were all half-baked. Apple had the secret sauce.<br />
<br />
Apple sells a bunch of Apple TVs. Google has tried three times to sell something similar, and the first two tries were failures. They are now back for a third try, but I think it is too late. If I had to pin anyone as the company that came in late, but has been successful, it is Amazon with FireTV. They have a ecosystem that mirrors Apple's - a superior one to Google's Play store - which is functional but hardly compelling. Google has a store because they have to - not because it offers something that is better than anything else out there - in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really fit into their overarching strategy. Android is a way to get people to use phones tied to Google services - keeping them in the Google ecoverse so that they can be further mined for information.<br />
<br />
I think much is written about Apple because what they do is what other companies wish they could do. People really like their products. I doubt anyone really likes their Samsung phone in a way an iPhone user feels about their phone. Detractors call this a "cult" but it is not that at all - Apple doesn't force users to buy their products. People buy Apple products because they suck less. It really is that simple. Which confounds the detractors. It has to be more complicated than this - but really it isn't. Companies that focus on making great stuff do well. Sony for a long time made the very best TV sets you could buy, and it was because their TV's had a polish to them in not just the picture quality, but in the way they looked and worked. They lost that magic. Let's hope that doesn't happen to Apple.Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-90404155788827394052014-09-10T09:46:00.000-05:002014-09-10T09:46:19.246-05:00That iPhone bump and what it means for AppleI haven't posted here in a very long time. This will probably be my last post on technology for a while. I have been thinking a lot of how I can make writing a blog interesting again. It's time to write about other stuff.<br />
<br />
But I can't avoid spending a few minutes writing about Apple's new product announcements yesterday, because it represents a pivotal point in Apple's history, but not necessarily for the reasons that are outwardly obvious.<br />
<br />
A new iPhone 6 and the Watch. Both are technical achievements that illustrate Apple's technical abilities. Faster, thinner and also bigger, the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus represent another chapter in iPhone physical design, perhaps the biggest change since the iPhone 3. There is the curved glass on the side of the phone that makes it nice to hold. Moving the power/lock button to the side. Details.<br />
<br />
But there is weirdness as well. The bump on the back of the phone for the camera? What is that? It is obviously ugly and not finished. I know why they did it; they were so intent on making the phone slimmer (given it's increased screen size) that they couldn't make it any slimmer with the camera module. But it looks terrible. It will be a constant reminder. The phone will not lie flat on a surface. It may snag on stuff and get damaged.<br />
<br />
The Watch is also a compromised product. It is not attractive. It is a big thing that sits on the wrist. Not elegant at all like Apple's best products. It looks clunky. The best things about it are the new UI with the "cloud" interface that groups applications in a cluster instead of a grid. Look for it to be copied by other manufactures. But it is tethered to an iPhone to some of it's key features to work. No internal GPS means that it is of marginal use to runners, for instance. It is one more thing you have to carry along, and doesn't do anything that the iPhone already does, other than sit on your wrist. It is a bunch of features (many extraneous - really - I want to send someone my heartbeat?).<br />
<br />
The iPhone 6 and the Watch represent an Apple that is looking at the market, and reacting to it, instead of leading it. Samsung can't innovate because they don't have that culture, but they can cram in more features, make stuff bigger, make stuff thinner. But they don't have Apple's ecosystem and tight integration of software and hardware that blur together. Samsung's attempts to brand Android with their own look is half-baked - useable but not something that makes people take a step back in awe. It is serviceable, maybe even attractive, if a little annoying.<br />
<br />
But what Samsung did do is make phones bigger. And some people wanted that. Not everyone, but some people. My own opinion is that they look dumb and have a marginalized experience. They won't fit in a pair of pants that fit well, but perhaps a pair of baggy jeans. And I want my device to be unobtrusive.<br />
<br />
So Apple made a bigger phone, because it is being reactive and "giving the people what they want". Apple has at times been successful at this - when Apple added Windows support for the iPod, the iPod crushed it's competitors. It was what people wanted all along. When Apple let developers write Apps for the iPhone, instead of just having them create web applications, it creates an incredibly rich eco system.<br />
<br />
But the watch represents Apple attempting to find it's way by creating a new product, in a space that is still attempting to make a good rationale for existing at all. It is a product for technically inclined and those that want something just because it is new and shiny.<br />
<br />
But not all is glum. Apple's payment system is a stroke of brilliance. They may indeed be the ones to really put the credit card to rest, the same way that the iTunes store started the slow decline of music CD sales. Their health integration framework looks to be better realized that competing environments. It will create a whole little ecosystem for fitness applications. An elliptical trainer that can talk to your iPhone and add in data - most likely.<br />
<br />
Apple's software front looks solid. There are a lot of things under the hood of iOS 8 that could be innovative. But their newest products - arguably the biggest changes in a post-Jobs existence, are not a home run. They represent an Apple that is working to be relevant in a world of increased competition.<br />
<br />
Will I get a new iPhone, though? Yes, I will. I like the iPhone 6, and it has enough new stuff over my iPhone 5 to make it a good upgrade. But at the same time, it is still incremental, and that camera bump really bothers me. As for the Watch - let's check back in on it in 2 years and see where Apple has gone with the next version, if there is one.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-52874972088694457092013-09-23T10:37:00.000-05:002013-09-24T09:25:19.384-05:00Microsoft on the SurfaceToday Microsoft released a second version of their Surface products, named Surface 2. They are both worthwhile replacements, with better processors, better screens (on what used to their RT model) and better keyboards. The Pro model, tellingly enough, now supports a stylus.<br />
<br />
They are to be commended for trying to win in a market that has already become somewhat entrenched. For tablets, it is typically summed up as a battle between Android and iOS, but in reality it is more of a battle between several Android tablet manufacturers and Apple. Microsoft's tablets are but a speck.<br />
<br />
There are two Surface models; the Pro model using Windows 8, and the cheaper Surface using Windows RT, which has the same UI elements of the Pro model, but doesn't run Windows 8 applications. Confusing the naming between the two is probably a mistake for Microsoft, for they are in reality very different products. It is as if Apple was to release a "Pro" version of the iPad, that couldn't run Apps made for the iPad (okay, this analogy is a little weak, bear with me).<br />
<br />
I wish Microsoft well. I had a Windows 8 laptop, and thought it was interesting, but ultimately flawed. It always felt like I was being forced to work the way it wanted me to work. Some things felt arbitrary in how they were conceived. It was the first OS in quite a while that left be perplexed at times, wondering how the thing worked. I ended up spending time on the internet to learn how to do things such as fixing my wireless networking so that it would work correctly. It wasn't obvious to me how to work with the wireless settings.<br />
<br />
Microsoft is clearly following the lead of Apple, as it has done for a while now. There was the Zune, which again had a nice UI but suffered a poor adoption rate for a variety of reasons - mostly because of Apple's better ecosystem and management software. Apple actually made the iPod and iPhone work better on a Windows machine than Microsoft's own product.<br />
<br />
I think the Surface (not the Pro) should never have been made. I would abdicate the low end of the market to cheap Android tablets and possibly the iPad. It is watered down KoolAid, a confusing product that isn't quite a full Windows experience, with little 3rd party software support. That simply will never happen.<br />
<br />
The bright spot is actually their Windows mobile efforts.The Windows Phone experience is actually pretty good, some nice UI design touches that are innovative. Their market share is very weak, and will likely always be in 3rd place, but it gives them the product differentiation they need. A Windows mobile tablet at an affordable price makes a lot of sense. It is a product that is easier for people to understand - just like Apple, you could buy software for your Windows mobile handset, and have it work on a tablet as well. This represents a good value for customers.<br />
<br />
So, I think the Surface (not the Pro) is kind of a doomed product. I can envision people perplexed to find that their new Windows tablet really isn't a Windows tablet, but some sort of weird kind of a Windows tablet. Third party application support will be tepid; I can't imagine many developers wanting to write software for this thing.<br />
<br />
The key to Microsoft's success is not by copying others. It is by innovating. It is not driven by making something that is kind of like something else. It comes from envisioning what people want to do, and creating products that empower them to do that. This is a key part of Apple's success. They do not throw things out on the market just to see if it will catch on. That is what Samsung does (such as their watch). Apple may seem to be a step or two behind in terms of features, but a feature list is not the same thing as innovation. That is a lesson that Microsoft can take to the bank.<br />
<br />Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-36944337545371084292013-09-06T13:34:00.003-05:002013-09-06T13:34:47.304-05:00About ProcessI wrote this for my students to help them with their final project.<br />
<br />
------<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica;">We are winding down the semester. Next week's assignment will be to come in with a pitch for your final project. In essence, begin thinking about what you want to do for your project, and ask the following questions:</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">1. Who is the project for?</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">2. What is the narrative? Can it be summed up in one sentence?</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">3. Determine scope of your narrative.</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">4. Identify materials you will need to tell the narrative.</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">5 Implement a rough mockup, wireframe and/or material collection</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">When I use the term "narrative", i am talking about either fictional or non-ficitional accounts. As an example, a web site that helps people choose a pet would possibly have the single sentence declaration "This is a site that guides users through the process of deciding what kind of animal to get as a pet, using preference information combined with living constraints." An Audio project might have a statement like "This is a musical exploration of the United State's political landscape using a combination of original and found media."</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Much is written about “creative process”. 5 stages to consider are:</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">1. Preparation/Hypothesis </span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">2. incubation/data collection/experimentation/</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">3. synthesis/illumination/experimentation (i.e. rough draft)</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">4. implementation</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">5. assessment</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><br style="font-family: Helvetica;" /><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Steps 4 and 5 may need to be repeated based on results.</span>Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-3012414966354115002012-07-11T13:25:00.000-05:002013-09-06T13:46:15.697-05:00Ouya and KickstarterWithin 24 hours of initiating their funding campaign via Kickstarter, Ouja has already made $3 million dollars - more than triple their original funding goal.<br />
<br />
They are selling a box - a game console that runs Android - in a way an answer to mobile gaming, but really it is piggybacking on the success of mobile gaming.<br />
<br />
The problem developing games has been expense and access. Developing for the Wii, for instance, requires you to buy special magic development hardware, and use Nintendo's tools. This costs a significant amount of money. In addition, games have to be vetted through Nintendo Q+A - not just for whether the game is good or not - but whether is is appropriate for Nintendo's image of itself as family friendly. Nintendo has made it clear that it has no interest in courting the independent developer, which in my opinion has unnecessarily crippled it's handheld game system, the 3DS. The dearth of new titles can be traced to many things - but one of them is the cost of entry, and Nintendo's tight control over distribution.<br />
<br />
Contrasting with Ouja - you buy one of their $99.00 boxes, you now have a development platform. You are free to use whatever development tools you want (such as Unity, a 3D game development system) to make your game. You can easily have your existing Android game running on this new console - particularly since the game controller has a touch pad build in for games that use one (think Angry Birds).<br />
<br />
The company makes it money from a cut of sales - games are free to try, but through in-app purchases companies can make money - or through a subscription service (think WOW or other games) - and Ouya gets their 30% cut.<br />
<br />
This seems to fly in the face of logic - why another console - but clearly there is a market here that hasn't been tapped. Console manufacturers (Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo) all have online stores, but they have nothing on the scale of Apple's App store.<br />
<br />
And that is what is brilliant about the Ouya game system. This is the only way to get games for the system. There is no pain of retail shelf space, inventory etc. <br />
<br />
As I watched the numbers climb for Ouya on Kickstarter - the thought I had was what a missed opportunity this had/has been for Apple. They already have a $99.00 device that could have been what Ouya is going to be. They have an app store. They have a developer friendly distribution and development system. <br />
<br />
I have been mystified why Apple hasn't made the leap into an App store for television. They have all the pieces - and clearly people are ready - cash in hand - but Apple has simply chosen not to do it.<br />
<br />
I gave Ouya my $100 for a box. Given the openness of the platform, I figure that at least for my money I will get a fairly powerful media box that is hackable - so that in itself means there will be some use for it - think Netflix Hulu etc.<br />
<br />
What will have to happen next is Ouya will have to - ironically perhaps - get the big name developers on board. Game systems live and die by their titles. John Madden Football will have to run on it. People will feel much more comfortable when they see new titles alongside their established favorites. This will keep them from repeating history - the 3DO being a casebook example of a system that was capable - but too expensive and not enough brand name titles. I think things are different now, and Ouya has a chance. We will see.<br />
<br />
<br />Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-78172589693724596522012-06-22T11:50:00.000-05:002012-06-22T11:50:12.041-05:00Breaking BauhausI think it started with me about 5 years ago, when I read an article assigned to me in class on the importance of ornamentation. It used the term "making it special", and wound out a narrative of how ornamentation is important to religion and culture.<br />
<br />
The next point of inflection came a few month ago. Like many, I read a number of blogs, and one of my guilty pleasures is the gadget heavy blogs like Gizmodo and Engadget. The writing is typically breathless and severely ADD. There is always the underlying tension of Apple's products and the benchmark they provide for good design.<br />
<br />
At least one writer has decided as an arbiter of good taste to parrot what they perceive to be Bauhaus virtues, which boils down to the use of shiny white plastic and brushed metal (okay, I am simplifying). There is little discussion on <i>all the ways </i>Bauhaus had impact; the focus is primarily on products. This is to be expected, for it is easier to critique things that we use every day, without really digging deeper into why something works or it doesn't.<br />
<br />
I am not here to criticize Bauhaus, despite my title - for anyone in design would be silly to not acknowledge it's importance to 20th and 21st Century design. But people in design know there are many schools of design, some influenced directly by the clean aesthetic, some not. All have their place.<br />
<br />
Consider typography, and all the permutations of how it is used - more so than ever due to the facile nature of digital copy. Anyone with a copy of Photoshop can wield lettering, for better or worse (I consistently argue for the better).<br />
<br />
Those that "know what they like", and celebrate Bauhaus, without ever going through the painful process of designing something that people will use, will assume that it is all about "stripping away what is not important". How obvious is that! Let's design an iPod this morning, and then take the rest of the day off!<br />
<br />
The problem is that - again - using the example of typography - is that Bauhaus at it's worst becomes bland, blank and cold. It doesn't move you. Glass-sided buildings with no ornamentation - the materials are pretty much it, not much more. Contrast this with buildings that do make a statement, where ornamentation is part of the necessary aesthetic of "making them special".<br />
<br />
I think it is time for those who celebrate consumer goods to get a better grasp of what good design really is. It is much more than materials and placement. It is more than "just leaving out what is not important". It is a much harder thing than this. It is making something that will be valued, something that makes an impression, something that can bring a smile to someone's face. Ornamentation is crucial here - these are design elements that are not there for simply pure functionality - they are there because it appeals to us in a way that is uniquely human. Bad Bauhaus denies our humanity.<br />
<br />
This is why there are no truly Bauhaus automobiles. Automotive design hooks into both sides of our brain. I love automotive design for this very reason. It is not purely about functionality and efficient use of materials and structures, it is about how it makes us feel. Zagato's designs in the 60's were waaay out there at times, but their best work defined styling elements that others would pick up in their own cars. Virgil Exner's designs for Chrysler in the 50's where designed to be over the top; floating pieces of automotive sculpture that appropriated design elements from such sources as jet fighters. The cars at their best looked like they could actually fly.<br />
<br />
And this is why it hurts my brain now to hear evocations of Bauhaus in everything consumer. Those who consider it the last word in design (real designers do not) are not paying attention. They are simply echoing stuff they read somewhere. Design is more than materials and efficiency - it is about form, time and motion. This is more than the curve in the back of an iPad. It is more than making something banal but clean - it is - about making it special.<br />
<br />Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-57977861239317988442012-04-27T15:34:00.002-05:002012-04-27T15:34:45.130-05:00Hybrid Tablets.....back to the futureAs Apple continues to surge, Microsoft is betting that hybrid tablet/computers will be the next big thing. Just like they were before the iPad came along, which pretty much killed hybrid laptops off. But this time it will be different, but really it won't.<br />
<br />
There is pretty much a market for just about anything, but it still begs to question whether it is worth the effort. Samsung's Galaxy Note is an unwieldy combination of cell phone and tablet, <i>with a stylus as one of it's selling points.</i> I was amused at Samsung's extra long Super Bowl ad poking fun at the folks in line waiting to buy the latest unnamed competitor that Samsung wishes they were.<br />
<br />
Why they never will be Apple, or anything close, is for another time. Now, I want to ponder why would ordinarily smart people recognize that something that didn't sell that great before will magically be so much better now. Hybrid tablet computers were heavy, clunky, and eventually would become just another laptop in the hands of the user. They were too heavy to cradle in an arm like the iPad.<br />
<br />
Now, the solution is to have......a docking keyboard. It is a dead out of the gate idea. Developers have to make assumptions about basic functionality of products. This has allowed Apple to leverage both software and hardware experience to offer a coherent device platform for developers. I have talked to developers who relate what a pain in the neck it is to write for Android phones because you can't count on a physical keyboard, and even then - the keyboard interfaces are not standard.<br />
<br />
<br />
This won't be the case for Microsoft's Windows 8 to be sure. But from a software designers standpoint, does it make sense to rely on physical keyboard and point device interfaces when it is just as likely not to be there? Can there even be a cohesive user experience centered around tablet computing, or will be be another no-even-half-baked "Windows Tablet" thingie?<br />
<br />
Apple succeeds here because they see it all as one thing. Microsoft is cursed because they can't own the whole eco system - they are reliant on hardware manufacturers that have their own ideas as how stuff should work - just like the mess that is android user interfaces on cell phones (admittedly, it has improved a lot since a year ago).<br />
<br />
<br />
I saw one design that Intel is showing that features a tablet with a dock. That is their idea for this new "hybrid tablet". It is so bad it makes me ill just thinking about it. It is simply more back to the future. It didn't work last time, won't work this time as well, for the same reasons. Witness how many people who buy keyboard cases for their iPad - some, but not all. That is a problem. It kind of illustrates my earlier point - sure - there is a market there - but is it enough to stake an entire platform initiative on? No.<br />
<br />Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-35807806994289674482012-01-19T17:43:00.000-05:002012-01-19T17:43:52.134-05:00I'm sad for KodakWhat happened? Why chapter 11?<br />
<br />
Wait too late to pare the company down to profitable units?<br />
Abandoned the high end digital photography market at a time where cell phones are eating up the cheap, consumer camera market?<br />
Went into the printer business at a time where most people won't have a home printer in the next 10 years? (I am guessing it will happen sooner than that - heads up HP).<br />
Didn't buy/build a photosharing business to compete with Flicker/Picasa (Just buy photobucket, for instance). <br />
<br />
I don't know what happened, but I am sad all the same. I have my granddad's Brownie camera, which I love for what it represented - photography for the masses - real innovation.Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-21949248537523097752012-01-11T14:11:00.001-05:002012-01-11T14:15:28.832-05:00The impending revolution in digital camerasPoor Kodak! What has happened to you? Why did you go into the printer business!?!<br />
<br />
Their impending bankruptcy (everyone is waiting for the other shoe to drop) is a milestone of sorts, as the pioneer of photography succumbs to the world of cell phone cameras. Kodak all but abandoned the high end camera market years back when they were still a player. Getting beat up in the cutthroat low end market may have finally done them in.<br />
<br />
So - beyond the historic significance, there is the issue that what a camera is, and what it will become, and the context that it is used in. We are indeed taking a lot more pictures due to the availability of a camera in a cell combined with inherent connectivity - in turn connected to social networking.<br />
<br />
So what to do? Given this dilemma there is the pressure to innovate.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.lytro.com/">Lytro</a> thinks they have the answer with their "light field" camera. I will spare the explanation of the technology and instead focus on experience. No more focusing - images can actually be refocused while they are being displayed. A neat trick to be sure.<br />
<br />
However, I question that (in it's current state) that it is the innovation that some tout it to be.<br />
<br />
The camera is hopelessly tethered to Lytro's photo service. It is an intrinsic part of the experience. Images can be loaded on their servers and then shared, but because of the back end processing that has to be done, and also because there isn't native support in browsers for their images (nor do I believe there ever will be). In essence, you are buying a device that lives in a walled garden - which will work as long as Lytro stays in business. It seems to me that this is a big limiting feature of the camera, unlike any other camera on the market - which will work with pretty much anything as it they use standard image formats.<br />
<br />
The camera's resolution is a big step backwards. It is the antithesis of the multi-megapixel images that cameras can generate today. It is really no better than a point and shoot digital camera from a few years back.<br />
<br />
Finally - the neat parlor trick of being able to refocus the image from foreground to background - it wears thin after a while, because frame composition when shooting dictates what is important and not as important in the frame. In other words, the photographer makes a compositional decision concerning what they want the audience to see. Lytro takes this away from the photographer - in giving the option to refocus - it defeats the decision the photographer made when composing their image. Would being able to refocus on background/foreground make the Mona Lisa a better picture? Of course not.<br />
<br />
I think the real innovation is happening in much more subtle ways. We see cameras now that look and feel like they were designed by software/hardware engineers - not photographers - with interesting results. Sony's NEX line of cameras illustrates this idea. Some complained about the odd ergonomics of the camera, and it's reliance on a touch screen - but on the other hand - this line of cameras represents a rethinking of how a camera can work - and how the user can interact with it. The ultimate expression of this is their new <a href="http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&partNumber=NEX7K/B">NEX-7</a>, which contains several controls that can be reconfigured by the photographer - they can create their own preferred way of setting exposure etc. This is what software control gets you - flexibility of user interface design.<br />
<br />
Another expression of this just came out of left field, <a href="http://www.polaroid.com/en/sc1630">Polaroid's SC1630</a>, a camera powered by android. In a similar way to the NEX - it is an interesting take on the camera experience, where it is an android device that can use the Android store to purchase apps. Depending on how much Poloroid gives access to the camera for developers - it could presage the idea of user driven interfaces and apps that can unlock capabilities in the camera. Want to use it for infrared photography? Want a dedicated, programmable intervalometer for stop motion photography? Having a camera that can be upgraded through new software is a pretty compelling idea.<br />
<br />
The other aspect of this camera, and others that feature connectivity through wifi is the idea of sharing. Even Lytro gets this - that it is not just about taking the photograph anymore - it must also be able to instantaneous share. I think there is much more here that I could write about - the shifting of time, space, memory and emotional impact. But clearly, at least in consumer cameras - this will rapidly become a common feature in mid-line cameras ($100 to $400 retail).Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-35606922589684095422012-01-04T19:18:00.000-05:002012-01-04T19:18:45.022-05:00Stunning New Year PredictionsQuick and to the point!<br />
<br />
- Blackberry will continue to lose market share due to many reasons - catastrophic service outages that illustrate a fundamental flaw with their intrastructure and conceptualization of how messaging should work in 2011. Plus their devices are not sexy.<br />
<br />
- Android will continue to make gains. Look for focus on better, uniform user experiences across devices. Also - it will begin to show up on things other than phones and tablets. There are already two Android based handheld game systems out there - more to come. How can Google capitalize on this?<br />
<br />
- The fight for free cloud storage mindshare will hit a fever pitch with Google landing in the middle of it all. <br />
<br />
- There will be more interest in fully on-line high schools for under served areas, but also to alleviate class crowding and shrinking funds.<br />
<br />
- Google will continue to plug away at Google TV. It may show up on more new sets this summer, but it will be this extra thing that consumers ignore until there is a compelling reason for it to exist; ie content and a really sexy way to discover content, and merge that seamlessly with the current "real-time/time-shift" broadcast TV experience, blurring the line between the two.<br />
<br />
- 3D video cameras will dramatically drop in price, but it will be a while before 3D TV's will as well. Nintendo has it right with the 3DS - the experience needs to happen without glasses before it goes from novelty to something that we would use all the time.<br />
<br />
- Apple may or may not come out with a TV set. If they do, re-read that last paragraph. They will successfully integrate their iTunes storefront with the ability to timeshift Television - all through a consistent interface - which will support Siri for program searching with intelligence. And Apple will have the App store for the AppleTV, which can include advertising supported content, just like it does with Apps for the iPad and iPhone.<br />
<br />
<br />
- Apple will introduce a new tablet in the spring. There will still be only one basic model as before - with more ram, wifi or wifi and celluar. It will be a little thinner and lighter, but will also have a higher resolution and slightly larger screen.<br />
<br />
- Amazon will sell a lot of Fire's. A lot. Books, Magazines, Video - ie content. What Google doesn't have.Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-32381902127997487162011-12-10T17:35:00.000-05:002011-12-10T17:35:30.440-05:00Web OS Open Sourced - A Good ThingIs HP's decision to turn WebOS into an open source project a bad thing? <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57340423-94/sorry-webos-is-doomed-to-fail/?tag=mncol;subStories">Will it fail?</a><br />
<br />
I just guess at these things most of time. Thus the name of my blog. The only insight I have is an understanding of history.<br />
<br />
Open source projects can be spectacularly successful, but often die. A whole OS - with Linux/Debian/etc out there - why bother to develop for WebOS? Android would mop it up - of course.<br />
<br />
I criticize Android for the same reason I like Apple; it is all the stuff that is thought through, not the paint job, the size of the screen, or the even the icons. It is the difference of going through the process of designing something versus copying someone else's work. There is simply no shortcut. It shows up when you use an Android device (or, even better, several different ones) and a iPhone. Google hasn't forced device developers to follow strict UI guidelines. There is plenty of ways to innovate inside of this space - Apple does it successfully, so do developers for iOS.<br />
<br />
WebOS is interesting because it did not try to copy the iPhone. It is it's almost-fully realized OS and UI that it is some ways a different take on things. Perhaps with commodity, cheap tablets it will come back. Maybe as an embedded OS (which is what I think HP really wanted it for).<br />
<br />
I guess I am happy that it turned out this way, because at least WebOS has some chance. The Palm Pilot had a lock on the market, and completely squandered it by failing to innovate. WebOS was the equivalent of a hail mary pass; trying to do just what Apple did, which was abandon their current OS for something completely new. There were some very smart people involved with it's development.<br />
<br />
It would be a shame to see all this work simply die.Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-84648516370702872902011-11-03T08:34:00.000-05:002011-11-03T08:34:31.851-05:00Post Master's OralsI gave my oral presentation of my master's project on Tuesday. I typically do not write about myself in this blog - but I think it's important that I capture some things.<br />
<br />
I think it was very hard for me to cram in a world view in 30 minutes. I had 4 - 5 slides with just a single number on there - shades of my powerpoint preso on youtube.<br />
<br />
I have to generate some sort of social networking connectedness for my project web site. Lots of work over the next few weeks. Need to think of ways to push youtube video searches.<br />
<br />
In a way, I am excited by this. It's a challenge to build some sort of brand recognition - but to attempt it in the next 30 days - I think I have some plans for doing this.<br />
<br />
Subscriptions to like feeds on youtube<br />
building playlists and publishing them<br />
tie into my .edu prescence<br />
use twitter? I only have 32 followers. have to integrate that into my messages. I have mixed feelings on Twitter - part of me is concerned that it encouraged superficial understanding of complicated issues. It's the old "read the first two paragraphs of a news paper story" - the reader is left with the impression that that is all to know. Plus - I think twitter may eventually die. I think people want the convenience, but also something that is richer and more flexible. I think they might want more control over messaging - tiers of access - close friends versus professional contents versus co-workers.<br />
<br />
Finally, it was suggested I start a wiki. I think wikis have inherent flaws (another article) - it is a good solution for those who don't want to learn anything about more powerful solutions - such as wordpress. I think that people who haven't thought about this don't know that wordpress supports multiple users for editing and submission - with much more control over how things look in the end. Presentation is often tied to content itself. Wikis simply do not offer that level of sophistication. They are heavily text centric - there is no ways to build in some of the stuff I have been adding to vistamix.net. If I do build something like that - it will be more of a masher of other services. Publishing with zero work is key. Even a wiki requires you to go to a specific place, type in stuff, add pictures. I often don't have time to do this stuff. If I had no other solution I might consider it - if I needed a community to build a document I might do it - but I am not sure of the value of an individual using it. <br />
<br />
On the other hand - I need to explore it or a similar solution - or a combination of services glued together. Feed from my delicious bookmarks. Twitter stream. etc.<br />
<br />
So much to do.Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-81455656648947444742011-10-07T15:46:00.000-05:002011-10-07T15:46:27.666-05:00No rear view mirror, Apple<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/10/07/actually.dates.back.to.jobs.resignation/"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WJFKZ27WT3M/To9k6MBkcSI/AAAAAAAAAOg/P5-yBvkz4Tk/s1600/applelogo-mak.jpg" /></a></div>The graphic really started it all for me. Most love it, I think it is dreadful, and actualizes one of the worst things that could happen to apple.<br />
<br />
It shows Steve Jobs - doing what? - looking down at Apple from above - his eternal gaze fixed on the company? His specter will wander the halls of cupertino for some time to come - his DNA is embedded in the company.<br />
<br />
That I think the graphic is terrible - but it is a matter of taste - I know many like it - but what it embodies is an Apple that looks back - not forward. I can't believe that people are clamoring for it to become the new Apple logo. It is exactly the worst possible thing that could happen to Apple. A company that fails to look forward because it is always looking backward - towards the legacy of Steve - constantly asking itself (under the ghost like glare of Steve) "What would Steve do?". This is a classic scenario for decline - one where the company becomes held hostage to a legacy. This happened to Disney. There was a gap where after Walt Disney died, Disney Pictures made a series of lousy movies - but eventually they escaped it.<br />
<br />
Steve Jobs worked hard to make Apple what it is today. I sorely miss him - like many. I have witnessed too many great people die in my life.<br />
<br />
The logo points to a crippled, wounded company. I would hope that instead - let Apple be Apple - not Steve's Company. This is the only way the legacy can truly be alive. If people want to wear it on a t-shirt - fine - I think (and hope) ultimately it goes the way of the American flags that everyone had on their car/SUV after we invaded to Iraq. But they will need to let go at some point - and be willing to accept that Apple will (and should) move on.Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-7270755834321850352011-10-07T15:44:00.000-05:002011-10-07T15:44:04.696-05:00No rear view mirror, AppleThe graphic really started it all for me. Most love it, I think it is dreadful, and actualizes one of the worst things that could happen to apple.<br />
<br />
It shows Steve Jobs - doing what? - looking down at Apple from above - his eternal gaze fixed on the company? His specter will wander the halls of cupertino for some time to come - his DNA is embedded in the company.<br />
<br />
That I think the graphic is terrible - but it is a matter of taste - I know many like it - but what it embodies is an Apple that looks back - not forward. I can't believe that people are clamoring for it to become the new Apple logo. It is exactly the worst possible thing that could happen to Apple. A company that fails to look forward because it is always looking backward - towards the legacy of Steve - constantly asking itself (under the ghost like glare of Steve) "What would Steve do?". This is a classic scenario for decline - one where the company becomes held hostage to a legacy. This happened to Disney. There was a gap where after Walt Disney died, Disney Pictures made a series of lousy movies - but eventually they escaped it.<br />
<br />
Steve Jobs worked hard to make Apple what it is today. I sorely miss him - like many. I have witnessed too many great people die in my life.<br />
<br />
The logo points to a crippled, wounded company. I would hope that instead - let Apple be Apple - not Steve's Company. This is the only way the legacy can truly be alive. If people want to wear it on a t-shirt - fine - I think (and hope) ultimately it goes the way of the American flags that everyone had on their car/SUV after we invaded to Iraq. But they will need to let go at some point - and be willing to accept that Apple will (and should) move on.Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-70051739784703913052011-10-04T12:11:00.000-05:002011-10-04T12:11:29.028-05:00Goodbye ZuneMicrosoft's Zune is dead. It really has been a zombie undead platform for over a year now, as Microsoft shifted focus on their mobile phone platform.<br />
<br />
So, the phrase "(fill in the blank with some technology or product) got zuned" never caught on. The reaction for some is that the device was nice, but was always too late to the party. It is, in a way, tragic of course, but ultimately it was a crippled product that didn't offer enough of a reason not to buy an iPod. Wifi on the device was crippled at a time that Apple didn't have a mobile media player with Wifi. The Windows software was a severely weak link; many didn't really like it, and there was no software for the Mac or other platforms.<br />
<br />
The upside is that Microsoft learned a lot from the Zune (or so I hope) - the new mobile platform has a nicer UI, and there is the Xbox 360 - which is the greatest single argument that I can make that Microsoft really is capable of making great consumer products (yes, including their desktop OS and software applications). Pinning their hopes on a mobile phone OS is a good call indeed, and with Nokia as a strategic partner - I actually feel much more optimistic that this might actually be successful. Certainly, another competitor to Android and iOS would be welcome - generating new ideas for UI design, user experience, feature sets. Stay tuned (not zuned) indeed.Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-2376447469899243082011-09-07T13:19:00.000-05:002011-09-07T13:19:30.645-05:00dear hpplease do not stick webos in your printer division. have a real vision and either give webos away, and let anybody develop devices with it. partner with other companies to deliver content and work on your cloud services by yourself or with others. tie all of your devices and those of others to it. if it sounds familiar, it is.<br />
<br />
android needs a legitimate competitor. it isn't what it could be, and may never be. it's time for a decent alternative with a better interface.<br />
<br />
this is a path fraught with potential. you just have to believe and be willing to think different.<br />
<br />
google will continue to figure how to lock people into their ecosystem. they bought motorola for their intellectual property and their set top business. cable boxes powered by google. they couldn't get google tv right, so this is another tact that will be more successful.<br />
<br />
hp.....google will eventually dig into your business. they will be happy to concede the printer business. because who will care 10 years from now. hardly anyone will have a printer at home.<br />
<br />
please..... do something. webos is too good to throw away. it may instead figure into your future in ways you haven't imagined.Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-1805089464018403292011-08-25T20:46:00.002-05:002011-08-26T13:47:05.758-05:00Good bye, Hello, Good byeIn the last few weeks we have seen three major events happen with three of the most powerful corporations in digital information appliances (we used to call them PC's).<br />
<br />
Many may miss the rationale for Google's purchase of Motorola. It has to be understood that Motorola has struggled since their heyday with the Razr. They were never able to make a killer followup product with the same kind of iconic styling. It was a breakthrough product that was quickly copied, just as the iPad is being copied now. Their Android handsets were pretty good, and had some name recognition (Droid), but it wasn't the industry dominating device - because the market was flooded with Android handsets. <br />
<br />
The assumption is that Google simply wants to be Apple - build the whole ecosystem of device/service. They would make killer smart phones and tablets, tie it to their services (aka Chromebook - who actually bought one of those?), sell them cheap, and people will flow to their service.<br />
<br />
But Google doesn't have a good history with building great user interfaces or consumer products. GoogleTV was a big mess from day one - an ill-defined product that offered no compelling reasons to buy it - given there were cheaper/better products already available that were more focused and worked better. Logitech can't give them away.<br />
<br />
Android itself is a mess. Ask any developer that develops for both the iPhone and Android - which has the better store - which is easier to write for - which one makes the developer more money. There isn't a truly consistent guideline for application UI design, and what is there is was patently lifted from Apple, and then changed a bit (often for the worse). What is worse than plagerism? Ripping off and not even appreciating what has been ripped off - just a cut and paste job. There is a reason why Apple's iPhone only has one button on the front - they designed their smart phone for people who have never had a smart phone - or even a mobile phone at all. Android handsets have lots of buttons, with little cryptic symbols on them. Application user experience is largely hit or miss. The device manufacturers themselves can't even agree on a standard on how a keyboard should be handled in software - developers have to write for more than one handset. Insane.<br />
<br />
So....I have no inside knowledge obviously. I don't work for any of these companies. But....if I was Google.....I would be building reference platform devices with nailed down UI's that were damned nice and easy to use. Make developers and handset makers mad who want freedom to design their own user experience. Instead, let the device manufacturers focus on feature sets, form factors and cost. Treat the remnants of Motorola's handset division as a big bundle of patents and expertise.<br />
<br />
If Google does get into the handset business.....it will be a downward spiral. It isn't in their DNA to build consumer devices. They bought Google Docs, and have done nothing of note with it beyond some modest feature enhancements. It doesn't talk to any of their other services - Picasa, Maps/Earth, etc. They just don't have that vision, although they have had some of the pieces all along.<br />
<br />
Instead - I believe the part of the business they really want to emulate is Apple's cloud services and online retail services, which are tied to their handsets. This is the business that is perfect for Google - they can afford to almost give the handsets away - if you will let your handset only work with their services, let them data mine you, etc. You get a rich set of tools and access to media services. This could be very successful.<br />
<br />
Moving on - Oh, no HP. You killed your WebOS devices. Shoulda never bought Palm to begin with. Let it die because it deserved to die. Palm was horribly run, and by the time they finally got decent management, they were underfunded and a distant forth or fifth in the smartphone market. WebOS was the equivalent of a Hail Mary Pass - that was almost caught.<br />
<br />
If any lesson can be learned from the $99.00 Touchpad frenzy - is that HP had it all wrong. They should give WebOS away. Make it an alternative to Android without the ties to Google. Focus instead on media partnerships - see a trend here? Make nice, affordable devices - and let other companies have at it too (just like Android). WebOS has a pretty interface trapped in underwhelming hardware - but that can be fixed in a jiffy. It is a case of what could have been.<br />
<br />
Last - Steve Jobs resigns. This day had to come. He is dying. I heard an analyst say today that Apple now has about three years of products in the pipeline - and that Apple can be thought of as a company that has well programmed robots that will be running out of orders by then. Then - what happens?<br />
<br />
The problem with this is that this analyst has been asleep for the last couple of years. The iPhone has been in development for a very long time - some estimate as much as 6 - 7 years. There were many false starts.....but they stuck with it and took a long view. Many companies would have given up.<br />
<br />
Around the edges we have seen the rise of people inside of Apple who are talented and bright people, who have left a stamp on what Apple does. Jonathan Ive, Scott Forstall....many more. Apple is awash with talent, and a culture that puts design above everything. It is why the iPhone doesn't suck, and Android handsets do. There is nothing wrong with the technology in an Android handset - and that is all that Android handset owners can talk about - is the features - but they are often a series of compromises that normally would make sense for a consumer product - but that doesn't wash any more - you can't cut corners - use a slightly lower grade plastic - or make the phone just a little fatter because the skinny batteries cost more. Every extra button is another area of frustration - a lesson Camera manufacturers learned - cheap digital cameras are more automatic and have fewer buttons.....because that is what people want in an inexpensive digital camera. The Sony I have here has a setting that is automatic everything - and I bet it is where most owners leave it.<br />
<br />
Apple and Google are both innovators in their respective areas - and now seems to be a time where their paths will cross. Google has a lot of talent and a culture that others admire. They are a big cloud based data mining and advertising company that would love to get into some new markets. And they will.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-34172451575428899482011-05-19T09:59:00.002-05:002011-05-19T10:08:08.252-05:00A Confluence of Microsoft - can they keep from killing innovation again?Microsoft has made several moves lately to firm up their tenuous - or lack of - grip on mobile computing. Their strategy in the last couple of years has been fragmented; in fighting, non competitive products, cultural collisions and hugely missed opportunities.<br />
<br />
A while back I offered the word "Zuned" to describe what outwardly looks like a good product, but when the details of how it works become clear - it is obvious that it is a crippled product not from a technological viewpoint - but from a software and philosophical view point. The Zune shipped with wifi well before Apple included it in their mobile products - but it was so completely crippled that it was not just disappointing - it had a implicitly damaged user experience which made it undesirable. Do you know anyone that has a Zune (particularly the brown one)?<br />
<br />
The Hiptop was next - Microsoft bought them. When it came out - it was a slickly designed device that had some strong "Apple-like" aspects. The form factor was great. The business model was good - using a backend to massage web content so that it would work well in a low bandwidth environment. More importantly, it was a "hip blackberry" - strongly messaging centric - but cool in a way that Blackberry was not.<br />
<br />
Wow - it is dead now. They still make them, but it is clear that Hiptop's day has come and gone. Microsoft bought the company - without a clear understanding of how it would fit into their overall mobile strategy. They bled intellectual capital - most of the programmers left.<br />
<br />
The Kin/Mobile battle was next. The Kin so utterly, completely lost - and it should have. The UI was a mess. It was slow - an unforgivable sin. How could such a product slipped out - only to be killed shortly there after. It made Microsoft look bad.<br />
<br />
Windows Mobile itself has a new version - and the world says "Who cares?". They missed their window of opportunity - I remember the iPhone coming out, and looking at a friend's Windows mobile device. My friend kept telling me how his phone had a lot more stuff (camera with video recording, gps and keyboard). But it was big and ugly. The keyboard started to fail after a year of hard use. Most Window Mobile devices looked like it - something only a geek would love.<br />
<br />
So now they have bought Skype, and Nokia has announced a strategic partnership. I guess that Microsoft will end up buying Nokia's mobile division. Skype will be built into all the Microsoft products, notably their mobile offerings. Nokia still designs nice handsets - but they never moved quickly enough to address the iPhone. Wow - if they had adopted Android - it would have been huge. Android really needs good UI and form factor designers. The Droid is at kinda kool, but also a big pile of features and buttons with not enough cohesiveness. It has been a consistent problem with the Android mobile platform - which Google is now addressing - by tightening the reigns on UI programming standards. This has always been a strength of Apple - all the way back to the original Mac.<br />
<br />
I remain skeptical - given Microsoft's track record - they have to stop playing "me too". It doesn't work. There is no Xbox phone - which is a big, glaring hole in my mind - their big hit product (even I own one, and it is great) - with great branding - but not in mobile space. It should have been out a year ago. Tapping into Xbox Marketplace would allowed them to tap into a downloadable App model like Apple, but the advantage is that they are doing this right now - it just has to be extended into mobile space. Now Apple is nailing down portable gaming space - which will bleed over into traditional game device space - if I was Sony and Nintendo - I would be concerned. That Microsoft didn't let the Xbox developers take a stab at a mobile phone - with Microsoft mobile underpinnings - it is just another milestone in Microsoft's move to 2nd tier status.Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-61069687303695054702011-03-07T14:27:00.000-05:002011-03-07T14:27:09.648-05:00Why Apple gets it, and higher education does not<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-SH7qA5Iq5KE/TXUxS2iBuSI/AAAAAAAAAMI/GtFXtmq-DlM/s1600/technology-liberalarts+jobs.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-SH7qA5Iq5KE/TXUxS2iBuSI/AAAAAAAAAMI/GtFXtmq-DlM/s320/technology-liberalarts+jobs.png" width="320" /></a></div>Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-52182004340099553302010-11-19T14:26:00.000-05:002010-11-19T14:26:55.955-05:00The Myth of App-lication of the WebJust read a brief summary to two CEO's remarks concerning Apple at Web 2.0<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shantanu_Narayen">Shantanu Narayen</a>'s bizzare spin on Apple was that it was about control, and that Apple was for a proprietary and closed ecosystem, which Adobe was for the opposite, allowing content to flow across multiple devices and environments - meaning those that actually support a current version of Flash, which Adobe is the only commercial developer of playback technology. OF COURSE, this is also cheerfully ignoring the fact that Flash is the poster child of what has gone wrong with web development in the last 5 years. We are in the twilight of the era of the plugin and Adobe knows this, but has no plan B.<br />
<br />
Jim Balsillie, who is co-CEO of Blackberry, has this quote: users "don't need an app for the web". This is actually only partially true. What we call the "web" is now more than a browser that renders content. The web browser itself may be secondary to specific applications that use the internet and web standards to convey focused content. General design web pages that flow across platforms are hard to do, and even harder to do when attention is paid to design that interface in a way that makes best use of the device.<br />
<br />
Apple figured this out with the introduction of the original iPhone, and it appears to me that some dstill have not grasped this message. I do not want to open a web browser to do a simple task. I want an app. It has to be remembered that when Apple rolled out the iPhone - web development was the way that developers were going to be able to write Apps for the iPhone, and even developed extensions for HTML 5 that have been adopted. Blackberry will be able to directly benefit from this. I seriously doubt that Blackberry would have had the vision to do this themselves. From all appearances, they were totally blindsided by the iPhone - confident that people wouldn't change because they were married to the Blackberry way of doing things - even though Blackberry's architecture still has legacy thinking tied to it's roots as a pager with a keyboard.<br />
<br />
General content web pages aren't going away - but applications (whether web based or native) are definitely the future. Boxee is an excellent example of a company that understands this - how best to bridge the television experience with the internet? Build applications that can access web content and display it in a way that works on a TV.<br />
<br />
Adobe has to begin the process of killing Flash to be at that curve. What is going to replace it? Have they even considered this possibility? I think perhaps the developers have, but upper management may not.<br />
<br />
Remember Director? Where is it now?Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12315945.post-54865289282046738272010-07-06T12:34:00.000-05:002010-07-06T12:34:34.304-05:00Microsoft isn't too mobileHas Microsoft actually shipped a mobile device in the last couple of years that is worth a damn?<br />
<br />
Their strategy has been a mess. They at one point supported 5 different mobile platforms, with little overlap between them.<br />
<br />
There was the Zune. There were the missteps; the brown Zune, the wifi that was inexplicably crippled on the device. The tragedy was compounded with the fact that it wasn't that bad a device. The menu system was actually nice.<br />
<br />
There was Windows Mobile. It was the PDA/Phone thing. Geeks loved them. They were big, ugly and had lots of features. And they were saddled with an OS that had a poorly realized interface that was originally developed for their PDA's. I had a HP PDA, loved it's potential, but hated it's realization. Simple things like configuring wireless were almost purposely hard to do. It was almost like Microsoft didn't want you to use wireless networking.<br />
<br />
There was that other Microsoft Smart Phone thing. It was a little nicer to use, but it was confusing as well. What is the difference? Sometimes I was confused about which was a Smart Phone and which was a Windows Mobile device.<br />
<br />
There was the Sidekick. Microsoft bought a company that at one time had one of the most innovative phones on the market; a clever design that offered a great text messaging experience and lightweight web browsing through their back-end interface. It was killed not actively, but by neglect and lack of ability to incorporate it into their product line. It ran Java - does Microsoft write anything in Java?<br />
<br />
The last casualty has been the Kin. It was a device that was supposed to be targeted at the "20 somethings" - you know - that "connected generation". I remember trying to figure out how to use one in a Verizon store while waiting for a friend. The user interface was a car wreck. It took me a couple of minutes to figure out how to use it to make a phone call. It went downhill from there.<br />
<br />
Apple succeeded where Microsoft hasn't because it is small enough that it has by it's very nature been focused on using as much as it can from one device to another. Mac OS X and iOS4 share many of the same underpinnings. Expect to see features from the iPhone show up on Mac OS X - such as the re-write of Quicktime called Quicktime 10. Critics like to complain that the iPad is just a "big iPhone", but it's success is because Apple did incorporate all their research and fine-tuning in their new device.<br />
<br />
Microsoft has been all over the place, like a kid with tons of toys but also a very bad case of ADD. It can't seem to be focused on how to make a good device. It can't even seem to get the basics right. If Android hasn't passed them, it will soon.<br />
<br />
Microsoft can do this. The XBox 360 is a good game system despite a few annoyances. The menuing is good, you can even play back video in formats that their own desktop operating system doesn't support.<br />
<br />
Perhaps it is time to go back and refocus. Killing off all these devices that don't fit into a cohesive strategy is a good start. The Kin tried to take some ideas from the Sidekick, but the reality is that the Sidekick's days have come and gone - the last thing that was compelling about it was the device design itself, and it has been copied and improved upon by others.<br />
<br />
<br />
It may be that Microsoft has to look outside their own company for answers. The weight of the company, with all it's legacy, politics and culture, is preventing it from innovating. I am not an expert at this, but I can say it has been a very long time since I have seen a Microsoft anything that made me take a step back and be impressed. These latest occurances are just part of a bigger problem that is too sprawling to outline here. I am simply not knowledgeable enough to offer that kind of advice. All I can say is that when I held a Kin in my hand, it felt like a doomed product, and I am sure that I was not the first one to have this same feeling.Hal Meekshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16059462843697565259noreply@blogger.com0