Like it or not - iPad is there to be unleashed on the consumer in less than 60 days.
Will it outsell its older diminutive cousins? Probably not. Will it sell in quantities? Likely so. Which leaves me wondering what kind of business opportunity lies behind the polish and gloss of Apple's latest brainchild.
iPad has a modestly good screen resolution of 1024 x 768 pixels and sports a screaming-fast browser. All that makes it a good candidate for running web applications. While "native" apps will definitely run better and look nicer on the tablet, the web applications on iPad should be quite usable as compared to the experience on other mobile i devices.
Now imagine you have a web application...
All of a sudden your user base might expand into the segments you'd never thought of as your "customers". Those people are likely going to be less computer-savvy than you might imagine. Yet iPad will make it ridiculously easy for them to access your web application.
The moral? If you are a web application... Look good at 1024 x 768. Be utterly intuitive - no iPad user is going to read the manual.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Looks Matter. Even If You Are a Smartphone
It must have been the thousandth time I saw a Nexus One ad for the past week. And every singly time I see it I ask myself the same question: why that trackball thingy panel?
Since the first time I saw the phone a few month ago when it was still called HTC Passion I couldn't grasp the grand idea behind the exterior design of the device. It must have been something beyond the design realm that prompted the lower panel. They must have desperately needed that space to ensure proper cooling or something.
One of iPhone appeals is its symmetric design. Somehow Android phone manufacturers at large try to "differentiate" themselves with chins, hips, and other nonsense. Motorola CLIQ comes closest to an eye-pleasing design. If it had decent hardware and software I could have bought it.
Apple figured out the optimal exterior design of a smartphone and Microsoft understands it. That's why Windows Mobile flagship device looks remarkably familiar. When it hits the market, preceded by a monumental marketing push from Redmond, the consumer will go for it.
Google's experimental approach to everything works great with gratis online services. Unless the plan is to give Android phones away, it might make sense to build something that not only works but also looks great. Or just photoshop those ads...
Since the first time I saw the phone a few month ago when it was still called HTC Passion I couldn't grasp the grand idea behind the exterior design of the device. It must have been something beyond the design realm that prompted the lower panel. They must have desperately needed that space to ensure proper cooling or something.
One of iPhone appeals is its symmetric design. Somehow Android phone manufacturers at large try to "differentiate" themselves with chins, hips, and other nonsense. Motorola CLIQ comes closest to an eye-pleasing design. If it had decent hardware and software I could have bought it.
Apple figured out the optimal exterior design of a smartphone and Microsoft understands it. That's why Windows Mobile flagship device looks remarkably familiar. When it hits the market, preceded by a monumental marketing push from Redmond, the consumer will go for it.
Google's experimental approach to everything works great with gratis online services. Unless the plan is to give Android phones away, it might make sense to build something that not only works but also looks great. Or just photoshop those ads...
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Google vs Android Developers
Android SDK 2.1 is out together with a number of questions I'd like to ask.
The first device leveraging the platform was released a week ago. The developers were left in the dark till now. How comes?
This release is yet another manifestation of the lack of well-thought policy over there at Google on what stands behind a version number.
2.1 corresponds to API level 7 ("API level" is an internal SDK version identifier used by Android). It's interesting how 2.0 (API level 6) and 2.0.1 (API level 5) got moved to "Older Platforms" area of the Android developer site while Android 1.6 (API level 4) and 1.5 (API level 3) are still among the "current" platforms.
Is any new Android SDK version going to deprecate it's highest ranked predecessor from now on? With great ancestors 1.5 and 1.6 staying there forever?
Developers need clear version numbering that can be correlated to stability and longevity of the corresponding SDK. Preview and beta versions should be named as such. API-breaking versions should get an incremented minor version number (i.e. 2.o.1 shouldn't have existed, it should have been 2.1.0).
While software versions have been increasingly used for marketing purposes, it's important to remember that they do have a meaning in software engineering.
Here's a painfully true quote of MG Siegler of TechChrunch:
The first device leveraging the platform was released a week ago. The developers were left in the dark till now. How comes?
This release is yet another manifestation of the lack of well-thought policy over there at Google on what stands behind a version number.
2.1 corresponds to API level 7 ("API level" is an internal SDK version identifier used by Android). It's interesting how 2.0 (API level 6) and 2.0.1 (API level 5) got moved to "Older Platforms" area of the Android developer site while Android 1.6 (API level 4) and 1.5 (API level 3) are still among the "current" platforms.
Is any new Android SDK version going to deprecate it's highest ranked predecessor from now on? With great ancestors 1.5 and 1.6 staying there forever?
Developers need clear version numbering that can be correlated to stability and longevity of the corresponding SDK. Preview and beta versions should be named as such. API-breaking versions should get an incremented minor version number (i.e. 2.o.1 shouldn't have existed, it should have been 2.1.0).
While software versions have been increasingly used for marketing purposes, it's important to remember that they do have a meaning in software engineering.
Here's a painfully true quote of MG Siegler of TechChrunch:
Simply put, iPhone apps, as a whole, are much, much better than Android apps. Maybe that’s because Android apps aren’t quite as mature yet. But I don’t know. The Android Market has been around for over a year now, and the fact that there still isn’t a Twitter app that’s as good as the top five iPhone Twitter apps is a bit odd to me.Developers are the crucial part of Android ecosystem. Google has some thinking to do. Maybe eventually the horse will be put in front of the cart.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Twitter Lists are Great. Now I Want Twitter Categories
It's been quite a while since Twitter unleashed lists and I'm finding them quite useful for organizing the accounts and people I follow.
TwitHive - an excellent web application for Twitter - has been providing list-like functionality since long before lists came to be. Lists made it a commodity and as it stands now most Twitter clients allow us to access the content we care about naturally via channels.
Which brings us to the current day and makes me think about something very similar to lists but serving a totally different purpose - the ability to split the content I create into separate slices, or categories, so that the people following me can choose either to follow the stream in its entirety or to limit themselves to just a subset of it. In this setup when I configure a new service to auto-post my content to Twitter I'll choose whether I want to post to the "raw" stream or to a particular "category" so that only people following that category of mine will get the update. This way I'll be able to easily separate my lunch-time musings from Android developer tips and such.
Wishful thinking? Sure enough. Yet we all know that Twitter growth has flattened recently and they must be on a desperate search of ways to turn the situation around. Categories might be a step in the right direction.
TwitHive - an excellent web application for Twitter - has been providing list-like functionality since long before lists came to be. Lists made it a commodity and as it stands now most Twitter clients allow us to access the content we care about naturally via channels.
Which brings us to the current day and makes me think about something very similar to lists but serving a totally different purpose - the ability to split the content I create into separate slices, or categories, so that the people following me can choose either to follow the stream in its entirety or to limit themselves to just a subset of it. In this setup when I configure a new service to auto-post my content to Twitter I'll choose whether I want to post to the "raw" stream or to a particular "category" so that only people following that category of mine will get the update. This way I'll be able to easily separate my lunch-time musings from Android developer tips and such.
Wishful thinking? Sure enough. Yet we all know that Twitter growth has flattened recently and they must be on a desperate search of ways to turn the situation around. Categories might be a step in the right direction.
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Perfect Android Phone
Different people choose Android to be the OS that powers their smartphone for different reasons. My reason is Android provides the best Java implementation in the mobile domain. Forget about Java ME. Android's Java is a real thing that in many respects is on par or better than its desktop counterpart.
Your reason is probably different but you decided to be on the lookout... And found this post talking about my vision of a perfect Android phone.
1. Affordability
Mobile landscape evolves quickly. A smartphone has to be affordable. Affordable to me means less than $200. Enough said.
2. Google Voice and Data-only Plan
I don't mind if the phone's price tag is attached to a contract with a major carrier. The plot is to port my number to Google Voice and run away with a reasonably priced data-only plan.
3. Upgradability
The dictionaries don't know such a term but it's as simple as being able to upgrade your phone to the most recent version of Android. For better or worse Google produces new Android versions at mind-boggling pace and you want to stay on top on that. There are hardware limits to how far you can go with it but you should be able to have a reasonably recent version.
4. A MID (Mobile Internet Device) Will Do
Does it really have to be a phone? Not necessarily. An Android-based tablet a la yet-to-be-announced Dell Streak will do just fine. Tablets typically offer a slightly larger screen (5 inches is a good way of thinking about it) but are still highly pocketable. Due to the larger screen size the on-screen keyboard becomes quite usable and the lack of physical keyboard is less of an issue.
Currently this fine strategy faces a number of obstacles.
1. You can't really port your number to Google Voice (yet).
2. Reasonably priced Android phones are outdated on arrival. I'm going to speculate that Google treats its partners as bad as it treats developers by not providing either with timely information and by frequently changing its plans, conventions, and intents without prior notice.
The moral of the story is that if you are shooting for an Android phone, either as a user or a developer, you'd better look for a future Google-branded device. The odds are you are better off with a MID rather than a phone. If Google happens to plan to offer one that is.
Android will take over the world in about 6 months. I've been saying that for the past year and half.
Your reason is probably different but you decided to be on the lookout... And found this post talking about my vision of a perfect Android phone.
1. Affordability
Mobile landscape evolves quickly. A smartphone has to be affordable. Affordable to me means less than $200. Enough said.
2. Google Voice and Data-only Plan
I don't mind if the phone's price tag is attached to a contract with a major carrier. The plot is to port my number to Google Voice and run away with a reasonably priced data-only plan.
3. Upgradability
The dictionaries don't know such a term but it's as simple as being able to upgrade your phone to the most recent version of Android. For better or worse Google produces new Android versions at mind-boggling pace and you want to stay on top on that. There are hardware limits to how far you can go with it but you should be able to have a reasonably recent version.
4. A MID (Mobile Internet Device) Will Do
Does it really have to be a phone? Not necessarily. An Android-based tablet a la yet-to-be-announced Dell Streak will do just fine. Tablets typically offer a slightly larger screen (5 inches is a good way of thinking about it) but are still highly pocketable. Due to the larger screen size the on-screen keyboard becomes quite usable and the lack of physical keyboard is less of an issue.
Currently this fine strategy faces a number of obstacles.
1. You can't really port your number to Google Voice (yet).
2. Reasonably priced Android phones are outdated on arrival. I'm going to speculate that Google treats its partners as bad as it treats developers by not providing either with timely information and by frequently changing its plans, conventions, and intents without prior notice.
The moral of the story is that if you are shooting for an Android phone, either as a user or a developer, you'd better look for a future Google-branded device. The odds are you are better off with a MID rather than a phone. If Google happens to plan to offer one that is.
Android will take over the world in about 6 months. I've been saying that for the past year and half.
Another Day, Another Android AppStore
Yesterday at CES that's currently taking place in Las Vegas Lenovo announced its first Android phone - LePhone. It's a nifty phone but that's not what I'm going to talk about. As I figured out Lenovo is working on its own Android AppStore.
The phone is originally bound for China and Android Market is not accessible in that country. Understandably there needs to be an app distribution channel for the platform to be successful. However as far as I can tell there are other efforts in this direction by other Chinese companies. Barring the obvious option of Android Market as the preferred distribution mechanism, both consumers and developers want a single application distribution channel, at least per country.
Hopefully Lenovo realizes what they are up to.
The phone is originally bound for China and Android Market is not accessible in that country. Understandably there needs to be an app distribution channel for the platform to be successful. However as far as I can tell there are other efforts in this direction by other Chinese companies. Barring the obvious option of Android Market as the preferred distribution mechanism, both consumers and developers want a single application distribution channel, at least per country.
Hopefully Lenovo realizes what they are up to.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Why Unlocked Phones Don't Matter in the US
This is the second post in a row with a title that start with "why". I wonder if it's due to Google Nexus One "why" moment.
Anyway, as the title says unlocked phones don't matter in the US. Here's the reasoning that made me believe so.
There are four major cellular network carriers in the states: Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile. Verizon and Spring use CDMA technology that seem to be used primarily in USA while AT&T and T-Mobile employ a more recent GSM tech widely deployed worldwide.
CDMA and GSM are not compatible at all which reduces the number of major networks an unlocked phone can be used on to just two. That means you can potentially use your unlocked phone on either Verizon or Sprint or on either AT&T and T-Mo. They keyword here is "potentially".
Further "research" reveals that portability between the major US CDMA carriers Verizon and Sprint is not universally guaranteed and an arbitrary phone will unlikely to work on the other network even if unlocked.
While GSM was designed for portability, there are still minutiae on the technical side that can prevent full compatibility on the data side, which is essential for smartphones such as Nexus One. Specifically, different GSM carriers use different radio frequency bands for GSM 3G data transfer. It happens to be the case that AT&T and T-Mo are just such carriers meaning an unlocked Nexus One will only work on T-Mo's 3G network but not on AT&T's.
Now I'll ask you a question. What is the point of buying a $530 unlocked phone if the only major network you can use it on is T-Mobile?
Anyway, as the title says unlocked phones don't matter in the US. Here's the reasoning that made me believe so.
There are four major cellular network carriers in the states: Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile. Verizon and Spring use CDMA technology that seem to be used primarily in USA while AT&T and T-Mobile employ a more recent GSM tech widely deployed worldwide.
CDMA and GSM are not compatible at all which reduces the number of major networks an unlocked phone can be used on to just two. That means you can potentially use your unlocked phone on either Verizon or Sprint or on either AT&T and T-Mo. They keyword here is "potentially".
Further "research" reveals that portability between the major US CDMA carriers Verizon and Sprint is not universally guaranteed and an arbitrary phone will unlikely to work on the other network even if unlocked.
While GSM was designed for portability, there are still minutiae on the technical side that can prevent full compatibility on the data side, which is essential for smartphones such as Nexus One. Specifically, different GSM carriers use different radio frequency bands for GSM 3G data transfer. It happens to be the case that AT&T and T-Mo are just such carriers meaning an unlocked Nexus One will only work on T-Mo's 3G network but not on AT&T's.
Now I'll ask you a question. What is the point of buying a $530 unlocked phone if the only major network you can use it on is T-Mobile?
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Why I'm not Buying Nexus One
Today Google has officially become a hardware company with the debut of its Android-based smartphone called Nexus One, which is available via the only channel - online from Google.
A lot has been said on how this thing is better than iPhone and the sliced bread. However as the title says I'm not buying it and here's why.
1. The Price
$530 might sound great across the pond but here in the US folks "en masse" are not get used to swasting (swasting = (s)pending + (wasting) - got it?) half a grand for a toy that's gonna become outdated in three weeks or so. That rules out the unlocked option.
The other option allows you to have the phone for $180 with a 2-year T-Mobile contract on an $80/month plan. I've been with T-Mo for the past umpteen years and despite that can't just upgrade one of my phones. That pisses me off.
2. Battery Life
Good luck with a 1400 mAh battery on a beast with 1GHz processor... My biggest gripe about G1 is miserable battery life. To be usable a phone should survive a full day on a single charge while being used.
3. Keyboard (or Rather the Absence Thereof)
I use my smartphone primarily as a GTD system (ActionComplete). Keyboard is an essential element of a satisfying user experience in such a scenario.
4. Design
Some might find the lower panel with the lonely trackball attractive but I just don't like it.
5. Google's Disrespect for Developers
The new shiny thing runs Android 2.1. Where the heck is Android 2.1 SDK that I can use to make sure my applications work on the device?
I'm not buying Nexus One.
A lot has been said on how this thing is better than iPhone and the sliced bread. However as the title says I'm not buying it and here's why.
1. The Price
$530 might sound great across the pond but here in the US folks "en masse" are not get used to swasting (swasting = (s)pending + (wasting) - got it?) half a grand for a toy that's gonna become outdated in three weeks or so. That rules out the unlocked option.
The other option allows you to have the phone for $180 with a 2-year T-Mobile contract on an $80/month plan. I've been with T-Mo for the past umpteen years and despite that can't just upgrade one of my phones. That pisses me off.
2. Battery Life
Good luck with a 1400 mAh battery on a beast with 1GHz processor... My biggest gripe about G1 is miserable battery life. To be usable a phone should survive a full day on a single charge while being used.
3. Keyboard (or Rather the Absence Thereof)
I use my smartphone primarily as a GTD system (ActionComplete). Keyboard is an essential element of a satisfying user experience in such a scenario.
4. Design
Some might find the lower panel with the lonely trackball attractive but I just don't like it.
5. Google's Disrespect for Developers
The new shiny thing runs Android 2.1. Where the heck is Android 2.1 SDK that I can use to make sure my applications work on the device?
I'm not buying Nexus One.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)