In 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
A 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.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Friday, November 19, 2010
The Myth of App-lication of the Web
Just read a brief summary to two CEO's remarks concerning Apple at Web 2.0
Shantanu Narayen'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Remember Director? Where is it now?
Shantanu Narayen'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Remember Director? Where is it now?
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Microsoft isn't too mobile
Has Microsoft actually shipped a mobile device in the last couple of years that is worth a damn?
Their strategy has been a mess. They at one point supported 5 different mobile platforms, with little overlap between them.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Their strategy has been a mess. They at one point supported 5 different mobile platforms, with little overlap between them.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Why Flash Must Die
The clash between Steve Jobs and Adobe was for the most part manufactured by those covering the news. Jobs said that the iPhone, iPad and any other iOS devices wouldn't support Flash. Adobe responded by saying bad things about Apple. The press loves a good fight, even when it is a fight created purely in the minds of the writers.
The reality is that the decline of Flash started a couple of years ago, and is now gathering momentum. It began when it became apparent that things that designers had used Flash for could be done with code that was based on open standards. It was at that point more about good development tools and new skill sets.
This has been driven home to me in a parallel experience I have had over the last year with a web site a friend relies on for his work. It is a multiple listing service web application for real estate. Two years ago I was chagrined to find out that this site would only work with Internet Explorer, locking out the Mac and any other platform that did not have Internet Explorer. My friend told me that this was not a big deal since everyone in his office had a "PC".
Now, two years later, this same friend has a netbook, but keeps borrowing my iPad. He loves it. He claims it is actually easier for him to type on (he is a hunt and peck typist). He loves the pinch zooming. He loves the size and general sexiness of the device.
But it won't work with his MLS web application, which still only supports Internet Explorer. The company just released a "Mac Solution", which is nothing more Internet Explorer inside a runtime WINE (crossdos) container. It works, but is a kludge. It doesn't behave like a normal Mac application, so doesn't use any of the standard file requestors, drag and drop, etc. It is ugly looking but works.
I use this example to show why Flash must die. It is a similar thing. Instead of simply using open standards that can work across browsers on a variety of platforms, this MLS application is tied to a proprietary framework that can only work in browsers that Microsoft wants it to work in.
And this is a big problem with Flash. It only works in devices that Adobe develops the flash plugin for. If something new comes out, developers have to wait.....and may have to wait for a long time. Android is getting Flash, but it has taken a while, and some reports are that it isn't great shakes in the performance department.
For me, the other point of inflection was when Adobe began promoting Flash as a total solution for web development. This is at the end of the day quite insane. While these sites do look pretty cool, they break on anything other than a traditional desktop or laptop. Settop boxes, game systems, mobile devices - it doesn't work on any of these. Adding accessibility to the mix - and you have a world of hurt. It is possible to make flash sites accessible, but many developers don't bother. A company that hires developers to create their new web site in Flash now has to use these same developers to maintain it. As we move away from the paradigm of the traditional computer and towards the computing appliance, Flash is going to struggle to keep up.
Anyone who actually follows what has been happening in rich media development for the web already had a clue that Flash would eventually be challenged by open standards. I figured this out two years ago at Apple's developer conference when there was demo after demo of HTML 5 rich media, including clean vector animation - which was how Flash got it's start. I sat next to a friend who is a flash developer, and he told me that he would keep developing in flash because it would take too long for him to learn another development environment. I bet at this point he is reevaluating that position.
The good news for Flash developers is that they will be able to continue to develop flash applications for the near future. There will still be demand. But this is also the bad news as well; there is no "the house is on fire" scenario that will force entrenched Flash developers to change, which will set them up for a scenario similar to the company mentioned above that makes the IE specific MLS system. At some point, these developers will look up from their code, and realize the world has changed underneath them, and now they are in a situation where they have to either adapt quickly, or get left in the dust.
So - the point here is that the Flash issue is not an Adobe versus Apple thing; it is another example based on historical precedent where we are moving away from proprietary code and plugins towards open standards that can work across devices. It is what the web has always been about.
The reality is that the decline of Flash started a couple of years ago, and is now gathering momentum. It began when it became apparent that things that designers had used Flash for could be done with code that was based on open standards. It was at that point more about good development tools and new skill sets.
This has been driven home to me in a parallel experience I have had over the last year with a web site a friend relies on for his work. It is a multiple listing service web application for real estate. Two years ago I was chagrined to find out that this site would only work with Internet Explorer, locking out the Mac and any other platform that did not have Internet Explorer. My friend told me that this was not a big deal since everyone in his office had a "PC".
Now, two years later, this same friend has a netbook, but keeps borrowing my iPad. He loves it. He claims it is actually easier for him to type on (he is a hunt and peck typist). He loves the pinch zooming. He loves the size and general sexiness of the device.
But it won't work with his MLS web application, which still only supports Internet Explorer. The company just released a "Mac Solution", which is nothing more Internet Explorer inside a runtime WINE (crossdos) container. It works, but is a kludge. It doesn't behave like a normal Mac application, so doesn't use any of the standard file requestors, drag and drop, etc. It is ugly looking but works.
I use this example to show why Flash must die. It is a similar thing. Instead of simply using open standards that can work across browsers on a variety of platforms, this MLS application is tied to a proprietary framework that can only work in browsers that Microsoft wants it to work in.
And this is a big problem with Flash. It only works in devices that Adobe develops the flash plugin for. If something new comes out, developers have to wait.....and may have to wait for a long time. Android is getting Flash, but it has taken a while, and some reports are that it isn't great shakes in the performance department.
For me, the other point of inflection was when Adobe began promoting Flash as a total solution for web development. This is at the end of the day quite insane. While these sites do look pretty cool, they break on anything other than a traditional desktop or laptop. Settop boxes, game systems, mobile devices - it doesn't work on any of these. Adding accessibility to the mix - and you have a world of hurt. It is possible to make flash sites accessible, but many developers don't bother. A company that hires developers to create their new web site in Flash now has to use these same developers to maintain it. As we move away from the paradigm of the traditional computer and towards the computing appliance, Flash is going to struggle to keep up.
Anyone who actually follows what has been happening in rich media development for the web already had a clue that Flash would eventually be challenged by open standards. I figured this out two years ago at Apple's developer conference when there was demo after demo of HTML 5 rich media, including clean vector animation - which was how Flash got it's start. I sat next to a friend who is a flash developer, and he told me that he would keep developing in flash because it would take too long for him to learn another development environment. I bet at this point he is reevaluating that position.
The good news for Flash developers is that they will be able to continue to develop flash applications for the near future. There will still be demand. But this is also the bad news as well; there is no "the house is on fire" scenario that will force entrenched Flash developers to change, which will set them up for a scenario similar to the company mentioned above that makes the IE specific MLS system. At some point, these developers will look up from their code, and realize the world has changed underneath them, and now they are in a situation where they have to either adapt quickly, or get left in the dust.
So - the point here is that the Flash issue is not an Adobe versus Apple thing; it is another example based on historical precedent where we are moving away from proprietary code and plugins towards open standards that can work across devices. It is what the web has always been about.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
iPad, Kindle, etc.....
This article does a good job of summing up the dilemma both Amazon and Barnes and Noble face in selling ebooks - both have dropped the price of their readers today.
I've written in the past about e-books and the problems they face. The argument that would be given today for something like the Kindle would be the extraordinary battery life, and crisp display. The iPad's display is decent, but average (around 95 dpi I would guess). But wait......Apple has just started selling the iPhone 4, which has a much nicer display. It is really just a matter of time before this display technology shows up on the iPad, and at that point it becomes an even harder choice for those trying to decide between the iPad, Kindle and other ereaders.
I am not saying that Amazon's Kindle is doomed, just that their reader's sales growth will slope downwards. Where they will make their money is on their ebook publication, since there is Kindle software for the iPad and other devices.
The Android tablets are already here, and pricing is bound to drop. They will be the iPad's biggest competitor, and unlike the iPhone/Android Phone, they have a very good chance of dominating the tablet market. Apple will have to move quickly with better display technology and more aggressive pricing. As always, the difference will be content, whether it be in textual content or applications. The Kindle lags far behind in the latter.
One final aspect that is worth considering is the book or magazine remediated in digital form. At the end of the day, static books on the Kindle and Nook are a bit more than just a book itself on a device, but on the iPad and other devices publication can be something quite more. Content can be dynamic; it can have interactivity that the Kindle and Nook can't really provide well. These new devices offer the dimension of color, which makes digital magazines much more like their analog equivalents. This is, in my opinion, the overarching reason that e-ink devices are going to suffer. It is akin to the move from black and white to color film. Suddenly, black and white looked dated. It is even more of a problem here in that color publication has been available for centuries.
I've written in the past about e-books and the problems they face. The argument that would be given today for something like the Kindle would be the extraordinary battery life, and crisp display. The iPad's display is decent, but average (around 95 dpi I would guess). But wait......Apple has just started selling the iPhone 4, which has a much nicer display. It is really just a matter of time before this display technology shows up on the iPad, and at that point it becomes an even harder choice for those trying to decide between the iPad, Kindle and other ereaders.
I am not saying that Amazon's Kindle is doomed, just that their reader's sales growth will slope downwards. Where they will make their money is on their ebook publication, since there is Kindle software for the iPad and other devices.
The Android tablets are already here, and pricing is bound to drop. They will be the iPad's biggest competitor, and unlike the iPhone/Android Phone, they have a very good chance of dominating the tablet market. Apple will have to move quickly with better display technology and more aggressive pricing. As always, the difference will be content, whether it be in textual content or applications. The Kindle lags far behind in the latter.
One final aspect that is worth considering is the book or magazine remediated in digital form. At the end of the day, static books on the Kindle and Nook are a bit more than just a book itself on a device, but on the iPad and other devices publication can be something quite more. Content can be dynamic; it can have interactivity that the Kindle and Nook can't really provide well. These new devices offer the dimension of color, which makes digital magazines much more like their analog equivalents. This is, in my opinion, the overarching reason that e-ink devices are going to suffer. It is akin to the move from black and white to color film. Suddenly, black and white looked dated. It is even more of a problem here in that color publication has been available for centuries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)