Category: Featured Tech.pinions

iPad: It’s more than just the hardware

It seems that every time a new tablet comes on the market, people compare the hardware to Apple’s market leading iPad and wonder if this is the one that will dethrone it. The problem with this thinking is that the iPad isn’t just about the hardware and specs, it’s the experience.

iPad screen imageCompanies like Samsung can put together a piece of hardware that is similar — although still not as good — as the iPad, but they still lack the infrastructure that makes the iPad appealing to consumers.

People generally don’t care as much about specs as they do about what they can do with the device. You can list off the specs for the new iPad and people will just nod politely and smile.

However, if you tell them that with iCloud all of their information will be across every Apple device they own, including computers, you can see a light go off.

Explain to people that with iTunes Match they can access their entire music library without taking up any space on the iPad, and they will get that.

These are the things, in combination with the hardware, that make the iPad what it is. These are also the things that continue to elude Apple’s competitors.

No other company in the tablet or smartphone space have the infrastructure that Apple does. In that respect, Apple is almost 10 years ahead of its competitors.

Apple started building the foundation for what we see today with the release of the first iPod. Then with the release of iTunes, to give users a hub for syncing music and the iTunes Store, the company was well on its way controlling online sales of media.

Of course, the iTunes Store has expanded greatly since those early days and now sells movies, music videos, TV shows, and now apps for its mobile devices. That really tipped the scales.

A consumer with an iPad can purchase everything they need directly from Apple. All of the music or other media they may want, and keep all of their information synced between multiple devices. The best part is, it’s all done by simply entering your Apple ID.

When I picked up my new iPad from Apple after the event in San Francisco last week, I had it set up in minutes. I entered my Apple ID and all of my contacts, calendars and email were there waiting for me.

Not only that, I had access to all of the apps I purchased — no searching through the store trying to remember what I bought. I tapped 20 or so apps and they installed. My Apple ID also synced my iTunes Match music so I was listening, syncing and productive within minutes of having the device in my hands. I didn’t even need a computer.

All of my purchases in one place, instantly.

That can’t be matched in the market today. And it’s not for lack of trying. Other companies have tried to duplicate what Apple does, but they always come up short.

Apple has a way of making difficult tasks seem very easy. It’s mind boggling to think of all of the things going on in the background on an iPad, but all the consumer sees is their data is synced and they can access their media. That’s the way it should be.

While companies like Samsung and other tablet makers boast about specs, Apple explains what you can do with the iPad. You can create music with apps like GarageBand, edit images with iPhoto, record 1080p video, write documents, make spreadsheets, play games, create presentations and many other things with the more than 200,000 native iPad apps.

The iPad is about the experience and Apple has that locked up.

Intellectual Property Rights and 3D Printing: A Fight Tech Can Win

Fights over intellectual property rights have become so much a part of the tech scene that it sometimes seems the industry employs as many patent and copyright lawyers as it does engineers. And if the fights over software patents and music, video, and book copyrights weren’t enough new  technologies allowing anyone to become a micro-manufacturer could become the next front in this running battle.

Photo of Makerbot Thing-o-Matic
The Makerbot Thing-o-Matic 3D printer.

3D printers costing as little as $1,000 let you turn a computer-generated design into a plastic object almost as easily as a printer turns a Word file into printed pages. 3D scanners can turn physical objects into printable designs. Much more expensive commercial machines can print in a large variety of materials, including aluminum, titanium, stainless steel, glass, and ceramics. Low-cost computer-driven milling machines and laser cutters can do jobs that printers can’t handle. And if you don’t want to do the printing yourself, companies such as Shapeways are becoming the Kinko’s of custom manufacturing; send them a file and they’ll ship you a part.

Some tech-optimists see 3D printing as a solution to many of the world’s problems.  In a posting announcing that it would be distributing plans for printable objects it calls “physibles,” The Pirate Bay announced:

“The benefit to society is huge. No more shipping huge amount of products around the world. No more shipping the broken products back. No more child labour. We’ll be able to print food for hungry people. We’ll be able to share not only a recipe, but the full meal. We’ll be able to actually copy that floppy, if we needed one.”

This, of course, is cheerful nonsense.  Printing food, for example, would require an edible feedstock, meaning there is no net gain for anyone.

But the technology does make it easy to make copies of a large variety of objects, from toys to replacement parts for your bicycle.  But is it legal? After all, the availability of Xerox machines made it possible to copy books and software lets you copy DVDs, both activities that constitute copyright infringement.

It may come as surprise, but in general, physical objects enjoy little or no intellectual property protection. With some specific exceptions, such as sculptural works of art and buildings, physical objects cannot be copyrighted.

Of course, there are other forms of protection. Trademarks, for example. You could copy a Nike sneaker—the technology doesn’t actually exist to do that yet, but it will—but putting a swoosh on it would violate Nike’s trademark. There’s a fuzzier part of trademark called trade dress that can protect the general appearance of an item, but to win it, the product must be very well-known and immediately identifiable, like the classic Coke bottle. Finally, there’s the possibility that your copy will infringe on someone’s patent. Even an object you design from scratch could inadvertently violate a patent though most of the time, replicating part of a patented device does not infringe. (For more detail on the fine points of the law, see the wonderfully titled Public Knowledge white paper “It Will Be Awesome If They Don’t Screw It Up” by Michael Weinberg.

The danger is that industrial incumbents will fight to strangle this baby in the crib. For many industries, the selling of replacement parts is a lucrative business. Until 3D printing  came along, though, it was simply too difficult and expensive for anyone to bother making competitive parts. One exception was the auto industry, where the huge market for replacement body parts made it worthwhile for third-party manufacturers to take on the huge cost of tooling to make copies. The auto industry has tried and failed to shut down this “crash parts” business for decades, though it recently has had some success using design patents.

Some companies have tried to sneak physical products under the protection of the digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lexmark, for example, included a chip in toner cartridges that contained computer code. It argued that replacement cartridges made by Static Control Components infringed its copyright by copying the code. But in an important ruling, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals found that adding computer code for the purpose of extending copyright to something otherwise not protected was unacceptable.

There’s a good chance, though, that as  3D printing becomes easier, cheaper, and more popular, industry will try to legislate new protections. This time, however, I think the tech world and the spirited “maker” community can prevail. First, as the fight over the Stop Internet Privacy Act showed, it is much, much easier in Washington to block legislation that to pass it. The system is heavily biased in favor of inaction.

Second, this time the community is forearmed. The tech industry paid little attention when the DMCA was being debated in the late 1990s and to the extent it got involved, it deferred to big software companies such as Microsoft and Adobe, which wanted strong protections against piracy. The industry was a bit slow to rally to the anti-SOPA cause, but once it did, it proved effective.

The use of information technology to make physical object is an important new frontier. Let’s hope, in Weinberg’s words, that they don’t screw it up.

 

Why Microsoft Has Big Challenges Ahead

I genuinely desire for Microsoft to succeed with Windows 8 and beyond. I believe it is healthy to have competition in the market of personal computing and I like the way I see Apple, Microsoft, and Google with Android, pushing each other. Of course everyone has their opinions on who is doing more but I don’t intend to cover that here. Rather, I want to focus on what some of the challenges ahead are for Microsoft to succeed with this next round of software.

Do Consumers Care About Windows?

At the core of this challenge for Microsoft is going to be creating demand and consumer interest around Windows 8. There is a lot of momentum for Apple’s ecosystem and their hardware and software. As I survey and observe the market I don’t see that kind of interest around Windows in general but specifically Windows 8. Granted, Windows 8 is not in the market yet but in a general sense we can confidently say that Windows itself is not the reason notebooks and desktops are selling.

What I think has to be noted is that Microsoft and partners can not simply expect to slap a piece of hardware on a shelf at retail and simply assume that Windows 8 alone will be a driver of interest and generator of consumer demand.

I feel the same way about what is happening with UltraBooks. Just because these new form factors are thinner, lighter, have decent specs, and run Windows 8 does not ensure success in any way shape or form.

My biggest concern for Windows 8 can not be answered yet but it lies with the question of when these products hit the market, will consumers even care?

The Software Challenge


When it comes to software or the selling of software, things like the OS as well as individual software suites, etc, the market has changed drastically for Microsoft. Microsoft has traditionally been in the business of selling suites like their Office solution as well as their Operating System for well over $100. Yet we are now in an “app economy” where consumers are now used to paying quite a bit less for software. Even in Apple’s ecosystem around OS X many of the highest selling software titles rarely go above $29.99. Even Apple’s own operating system, productivity apps, etc, are all well below what Microsoft is used to selling software for and unfortunately for Microsoft I think these software economics are here to stay.

Given Microsoft’s prior business models, which got them to where they are today, I don’t see how the new app economy and software economics are going to work in their favor.

Microsoft has done some good work around re-inventing their operating system. But I still think there is some work that needs to be done for Microsoft to also re-invent their business model around software.

If Microsoft were to have to sell both their new OS as well as stand alone elements of the Office Suite, like Word for example, in the same price range that Apple does, it could have a significant impact on their business. Ultimately I feel that consumers have come to expect this new software pricing ecosystem so I don’t see how Microsoft sells their software for the prices they used too.

The manufacturers who make desktops, notebooks, tablets, and more, are relying on Microsoft to get this right the first time. They simply have no other choice and neither does Microsoft to get it right the first time.

In the end, consumer demand / interest in Windows 8 and the new software economy are all things that I believe present real challenges for Microsoft. All one needs to do is look at the foot traffic in an Apple store vs. the foot traffic in a Microsoft store to see the glaring difference in consumer interest in each companies products.

The world has changed drastically since Microsoft’s last operating system hit the market. It is going to be interesting to watch how they adapt to a fundamentally different landscape than the last time they released on OS.

Why the New iPad is Revolutionary.

Not long after the new iPad was announced, story after story was written that this new iPad was evolutionary, not revolutionary. But I am not convinced that is a correct viewpoint. In fact, I believe that this new iPad will actually have a revolutionary impact on the market in some very interesting ways.

Some Historical Perspective

Back in 1981, I wrote the first report on what was to become desktop laser printers. At the time, laser printers were as large as mainframes and took up much of a 9’ X 12’ room. But I had seen Canon’s laser printer engine and wrote in this report that by using this type of technology in potentially desktop sized printers, I could imagine a day when we could publish documents on our desktops. Now, this was three years before postscript laser printers hit the market and before Aldus’s Pagemaker was introduced.

Not long after this desktop sized laser printer engine was shown to Steve Jobs, he made a fortuitous decision to build an Apple laser printer of his own. And after being convinced by John Warnock (co-founder of Adobe) to include Postcript as its software engine, Jobs put in place a key component of technology that would put Apple on the map. Not long after that, Paul Brainerd created a Mac product called Pagemaker and together, these two products launched the desktop publishing revolution. Although Jobs embraced both products, I am pretty sure he and even the team at Apple never really understood the magnitude of these products impact on the world of publishing at first. For Jobs, the decision to back a desktop laser printer was totally out of order given Apple’s PC centric business model and those around him argued loudly with him about doing this product.

But we now know that Steve Jobs’ stubbornness about introducing a laser printer had its roots in his desire to have a digital version of his calligraphic type fonts replicated through this printer. And from that point on, while at Apple until mid 1985 and at NeXT, the issue of high quality graphics took center stage on every product Steve Jobs touched. And when he came back to Apple, this was still top of mind. By the way, I worked on multiple desktop publishing marketing programs for Apple, MacWorld and various hardware and software vendors who were doing DTP like products then and saw up close how Apple single handedly rewrote the rules of electronic publishing, something we now take for granted and use every day when we create our own newsletters, Web pages, etc.

The New iPad

In the column I wrote not long after the new iPad was launched, I pointed out that from the inception of the iPad, Jobs wanted it to have the highest resolution screen possible but that at the time of the release of the first two generations of the iPad, the technology was not there to deliver the real iPad he wanted to give his customers.

But it was always on the roadmap and they had to do some serious engineering between their team and their partners to get us this new iPad to this incredibly high resolution. And with it, I believe Apple is ready to have another revolutionary impact on the market via one of their products.

One good example of this will be in medical applications. Although doctors and hospitals have actually been adopting and using iPads in pretty big numbers, this new iPad will become a must have tool soon. The reason is that with the older iPads, the information they were processing on it was mostly data driven. But as you know, doctors rely on a lot of things like xray’s and digital imaging to help them make key diagnostic decisions. For final analysis they will always defer to industrial strength 10K graphics workstations, but the new iPad with its high resolution screen will now be able to give them on-the-go images that can deliver much more imaging details then they had on their original iPads. This will become an important part of their ability to do immediate analysis and will now become the minimum level of tablet graphics quality they will accept in their medical practices.

Another example will be its impact on catalogs. Apple recently released the new catalog category in the iTunes store but I have talked to some catalog vendors who consider today’s tablets inferior for delivering the graphics quality they demand in their print catalogs. A good example might be Restoration Hardware. They pride themselves in delivering one of the greatest graphics quality catalogs on the market and would have never even considered doing a digital version for the older iPads. But for them and any other vendors for whom high quality images are critical to their catalog sales processes, the new iPad will be revolutionary for them. According to Joaquin Ruiz, CEO of Catalog Spree “With ultra-sharp pictures, text and video, the new iPad is perfect for all forms of publications. March 7, 2012 will be remembered as a landmark for publishers from news, to retail, to education, and to books.

The folks involved in engineering, oil and gas exploration and nuclear energy research will also see a higher resolution iPad as a welcome mobile tool that will become a key part of their on-the-go digital tool-belt. And don’t count out this high resolution iPad’s role in education. This new iPad will deliver a much closer representation of textbooks, especially ones that have a lot of images, graphics and diagrams, and to students it will become the minimum resolution they will accept in a tablet that will soon carry all of their textbooks.

When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone, he said he would be happy if Apple could get even 1 percent of the cell phone market. An understatement if there ever was one. And even with the iPad, while Jobs used a lot of flowery language to describe it, he was cautious in declaring what type of impact it would have on the market.

At the launch of the new high-resolution iPad, Tim Cook and team–I believe–clearly understated what this new iPad’s market impact will be. All they said was that it was a newer and better version of the iPad and that they were pleased they could deliver a new tablet with a much better screen. But don’t let that fool you.

I believe we will look back relatively soon and realize that with this iPad, Apple started another revolution that has it roots in their desktop publishing heritage and instead of desktop publishing this time around, the revolution will take place in mobile publishing. The result will be to extend Jobs and teams original mantra that was, “What-You-See-is-What-You-get,” but this time it manifest itself on the new iPad. Think of the new iPad as the new representation of Steve Jobs’ laser printer’s paper. And its influence will touch every market. It will drive what I believe will be the minimum standard in tablets as tablets become the vehicles for every form of mobile publishing content, whether it be images, video, games, newspapers, magazines or books as well as the future of the web.

The Importance of Vision in the Technology Industry

I came across this article in the TabTimes written by my friend Dave Needle. What the article points out is an interesting video that was posted on YouTube showing Roger Fidler and his Information Design Lab putting quality thought and vision around media in particular but largely how digital technologies will change the future.

XEROX Parc and other institutions throughout this industries history were also voicing ambitious visions about our computing future. This could be called the Golden Years of computing. This was a fascinating time in the computing industries history. This time was full of ambitious vision and ideas about where computing could go. Many ideas never panned out, or took longer for the market to adopt but that didn’t change the fact that there was a good amount of thought leadership going on about the technology and its possibilities in the future.

My question is where is that kind of thinking today? Has this industry lost its vision? Are companies too focused on simply making next years products that they and their RND labs are not playing a role in creating the future but rather they are content to follow it?

There is no doubt that Apple is leading in many areas of vision and defining computing for tomorrow. I would, however, like to see more companies or RND labs, or institutions contributing vision to the public forum.

I am sure it is a mix of a lot of things but as I have studied this industry’s history and spoke with many who have been in it since the beginning it becomes clear that the vision for the future is not being cultivated today the way it was two decades ago.

As you watch this video with Roger Fidler I hope, that like me, we encourage more of this type of sharing of ideas, vision, and innovative concepts in the public forum. These are the kinds of things that lead to self fulfilling prophecies. We simply need more vision universally from more companies and more visionaries. I am not saying we are void of it completely today but what I am saying is that perhaps vision has lost its role in the industry today and needs to be brought back out into the limelight.

Corning I thought did a good job of this with their world of glass video series.

You can watch the video here as I highly recommend it. This video is as good as any I have seen on showcasing the importance of vision for the technology industry.

Also if you haven’t seen it view Knowledge Navigator made by Apple under the vision of John Sculley.

The iPad and The Simplicity of the Name

What Apple did by eliminating the numeric moniker was the right thing to do, in fact it may even be brilliant. The fact of the matter is numeric values that specify product generations simply can not last forever. Companies who use them generally change product names, create new names, or add some other moniker like HD, Extreme, Maxx etc. After a while they all get old. Does anyone think this would have continued to iPad 12? or iPhone 18?

This is actually a move I have been waiting for. Ever since the iPhone 4 I have been conversing with many industry insiders that the numeric moniker needs to go away. Many commenters and some smart folks out there in the press have been rightly observing that Apple themselves have been doing this for a while with other products. The Mac is not the Mac 25 or the iPod 8 or the MacBook Air 4, etc.

More importantly another industry, where legacy brands is hugely important does not do this and that is Automobiles. I do not drive the Honda Civic 17. I drive the Honda Civic and the model is 2009. The year is largely irrelevant when someone asks me what car I drive. I simply say the Honda Civic. Car companies often delineate the brand with a value for engine size or class but the brand is what matters the most. When consumers say they are getting the new iPhone it is common knowledge that that statement refers to the most recent or newest. Therefore the name is all that is needed not a numeric distinguisher.

Numeric branding simply gets old, tired, and generally more difficult to market after a while. The brand is the legacy not the number. I hope Apple does this with the iPhone. I hope it is not the iPhone 5 and just the iPhone. It may take people a little getting used to but believe me they will get used to it, past it, over it, etc and move on and it will be better for everyone.

You know who else does this? Intel. Intel has standardized for the time being on Core i3, i5 and i7. Each year this number does not change. What you know is that you want the latest Core i3, i5, or i7. Intel, like many other companies, knows how key branding is and numeric monikers to distinguish new generations are hard to keep up. They are also entirely un-necessary.

Why may this be brilliant? Well without a distinguishing moniker I wonder how the press will be able to speculate, rumor, etc without calling out which model exactly they are speculating or rumoring etc? A title like What Apple Should Bring to the Next iPad without a numeric moniker will become redundant. Would you follow that title next year with What Apple Should Bring to the Next Next iPad / iPhone? That would seem ridiculous. Now I am sure we are not lucky enough to get away from all the ridiculous Apple speculating that goes on the media. I am sure they will adapt and figure out ways to write crazy stuff but I do think this simple naming scheme will make it a bit more difficult–or at least I hope.

We Are Entering the True Era of Personal Computing

Remember that old HP campaign “The computer is personal again?”  I remember seeing that campaign and thinking to myself, when did the computer become un-personal? I’ve been cogitating on this term “personal computer” and in light of the recent debate of whether the iPad is a PC, I have come to some personal conclusions on this topic.

I would also like to preface this by saying that I agree with how Tim Cook illustrated what Post PC meant. He explained how Post PC means the PC is no longer the center. That is true. However, we are using this term “post pc” only because a desktop or notebook form factor is what has been associated with “PC.” We should not forget that the term PC literally means personal computer. So my overarching point is that we are actually in what is truly the PC (personal computing) era. My logic is as follows.

First lets look at some computing history.   To do that I am going to look at the evolution of personal computing by calling out specific “eras” of computing.   The first era was the birth of computing. During this era computing was in its infancy. Things like the transistor, then the microprocessor were invented which paved the way for computing.   During the first stage of computing, computers were quite large and normally filled a room mostly and in the form of mainframes then eventually minis.   Many visionaries dreamed of making these devices smaller so people could bring them into their homes and own their own computer.   This vision paved the way for desktop computing. 

Desktop Computing

This is the second era of computing.  What most during this time would consider the personal computer I will call a desktop computer.   The term personal came from the idea that each “person” would have one.  When computers were largely mainframes or minis they were too big for each person to own.   Bill Gates famously said “some day there will be computer on every desk.”   This was the result of the next evolution of computing as computers become smaller and were able to now fit on desks as well as become more affordable.  Of course these devices could become personal in the sense that a person owned them and could personalize them to a degree.  But more personal computers were still ahead. 

Portable Computing

The next era was the era of portable computing.   This was the era of notebooks.   Some call this mobile computing but my argument is that notebooks were really more portable computers than they were mobile.   Meaning you could move them more easily than a desktop but you still sat down and were stationary using the device at arms length (generally) to type.  My point is you weren’t actually doing computing while being mobile–you were still stationary.    

Notebooks certainly took us one step closer to personal computing because they added an element of portability. They tended to travel with a select person who largely customized the notebook thus making it more personal to that individual.   I would argue that the notebook is actually the first truly personal computer and birthed personal computing.   

Now enter smart phones and tablets.   The Merriam-Webster definition of a computer is:

“a programmable usually electronic device that can store, retrieve, and process data.”

Another definition I found in the dictionary says:

“An electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program.” 

So my first question is how is a tablet and smart phone not considered a computer?  I also highly customize my smart phone and tablet for my own tastes and likings via software, personal data storage, access to media, and take them with me everywhere I go.   So how exactly how are they not also personal?  Thus one would have to logically conclude that smart phones and tablets are in fact personal computers on which computing tasks take place.  

What we need to realize in this evolution of personal computing is that devices like smart phones and tablets represent a form factor evolution of computing similarly to the way the desktop form factor evolved to the notebook form factor.   This evolution led to portable personal computing and it made computing possible in places that were before impossible with a desktop–like at Starbucks.  The evolution of the personal computer form factor from notebook to tablet and smart phone represents the evolution to truly mobile personal computing.   Again bringing computing to places not before possible or were before inconvenient–like the couch, bed, walking down the street, etc.  

The Era of Mobile Personal Computers

My point earlier was that notebooks were more portable than they were mobile due to the form factor of a notebook still requiring its user to be stationary, with the device resting on a surface being used at arms length.   Devices like tablets and smart phones change this computing paradigm.  We can hold these devices in our hands and use them, we can move around while using them, we can use them in a range of places and situations where a desktop or notebook could never be used.   Places like point of sale retail, by waiters, or car salesman, while running through the woods, while hunting, while boating, at the park, at the beach, etc.   

The tablet and smart phone form factor represent what I believe are the best form factors for truly mobile personal computing.   Thus they are simply form factor evolutions in personal computing not something other than a personal computer.  

Can they replace other form factors?

 
The answer is no; tablets in particular are not replacing PCs, at least not in the foreseeable future.   Rather what is happening is tasks or jobs are being replaced.  Things that once were done primarily on the notebook or desktop form factor are now being done largely on devices like tablets and other form factors. In essence the best way to think about this is that time is shifting from notebooks or desktops to tablets and smart phones. 

Prior to tablets, for example, the notebook owned the bulk of a consumers time when it came to computing tasks like searching the web, consuming media, checking email, etc.  Now with tablets, time has been shifted to the tablet or smart phone where the form factor is more convenient for tasks like browsing the web, checking email, etc, in many situations.   

Each form factor has a role to play.  Based on the list of computing tasks consumers perform, the form factors play a role in making those jobs easier to accomplish.    In this environment what happens is that consumers spread their time across a number of form factors to accomplish computing holistically.  

Before one “personal computer” monopolized consumers time.  Now time is shared between computing devices in the ecosystem in order to accomplish a wider range of computing tasks.  Things that were not possible, or were harder to accomplish with previous form factors become possible with new computing form factor evolutions that stick in the market.

Rather than look at tablets and smart phones as separate from PCs it would be more helpful to look at them within the larger personal computing ecosystem.  If we did this then we would not be arguing about whether the “death of the PC” is imminent or the degree at which PC sales are slowing.   Instead we would be talking about the growth of the PC industry as well as the expansion of personal computing into new form factors, use cases, tasks, etc.

What we need to let go of is not the idea that these devices are not personal computers. What we need to let go of is an archaic and out of date definition, assumption, and stereotype of the term PC.
  
We are not really in the post PC era.  We are in the post notebook form factor era. We are in the post traditional definition of a PC era.    We are actually just entering the era of truly personal computing.    If Bill Gates vision of long ago was that every desk would have a computer then I offer up this: in this new era, every pocket will have a personal computer.

Apple’s Brand Unraveling? Ridiculous!

I came across an article yesterday in which the headline screamed out “Apple’s Brand Unraveling.” The author even went on to call the new naming of the new iPad “weird.”

Apple’s brand unraveling is the furthest thing from the truth. In fact, what Apple did with the new name is extremely calculated and strategic and in fact sets in motion a most important new branding statement. Before I get into the strategic value of the new name, you might ask how I know that this branding move is strategic. Well, it came from Steve Jobs himself. The last time I spoke to him when I caught him at the end of an Apple launch early last year, I asked him about the iPad’s positioning. When the iPad launched, it seemed very consumer focused, but by the time I asked him about it, the iPad had crossed into being a pretty solid productivity tool. I won’t go into detail here about his view on this but one thing he said in the conversation is that he wanted people to think of the iPad as their designation for their tablet and the fact that it had broad reach. He did not say iPad 1 or iPad 2. It was very clear to him that the brand was the iPad and the first two versions were just model numbers. He never even referred to them as 1 or 2.

Now from a strategic position, this new iPad actually represents the real iPad he and Apple always wanted to deliver to the market. I consider the first two models early versions of the iPad and this new iPad is the first one that really represents Job’s vision for the iPad. Apple had to use the existing screen technology that was available for the launch and used this in these first two models. But Apple executives told me that it has taken close to three years and incredible engineering work to finally bring to market the real iPad of Steve Job’s dream. This goes back to Steve’s incredible attention to detail. Remember in his Stanford speech when he talked about getting into the beauty of calligraphy? I am sure that he was somewhat disappointed with the fonts and even fancy letters on the original iPads as the screen just did not have the resolution to deliver the high quality non-pixalated text he came to love. And it is that vision that was always in Jobs’ plans when he and the team were creating the iPad.

Now, do you really think that Jobs, who had worked with the team on a long-range plan for the iPad well before he passed away, was not aware of the iPad retina project? And that he was not involved with the branding and new naming of this new version since it was the one he really envisioned from the start and represents the real iPad he always wanted to give his customers? For Jobs, this one with the Retina Display was the iPad! And as such, it now finally deserves the name “iPad.”

So, what does that mean? From this point on, any iPad they do will have at minimum this Retina display and deliver extremely high-resolution images, video and text in the ways Jobs envisioned it to be from day one. Now, text on an iPad is actually better then it can be even on paper. (My colleague Steve Wildstrom has a good piece on this today.)
And images are closer to being what you see in real life. And movies can be seen in higher resolution then you get on your HD TV set today.

All of this and nothing less is what from now on will define what an iPad is. While they may have future models such as an iPad mini or iPad biggie should they create other versions, the brand is iPad and from now on the name is set to mean all Apple branded tablets with their Retina display and high quality imaging experience. This represents a strategic branding move and a very important one.

So, let’s be clear. The brand of all Apple tablets is the iPad. There may be other models, but they will all be iPads. Doesn’t sound too weird to me.

The New iPad: Leaving the Competition Behind

It would be extremely difficult to make the case that any competitive tablet in 2012 and perhaps even 2013 can hold a candle to the new iPad. Not only do I not believe that Apple competitors fully understand the tablet market but they have also not been investing in the kind of technologies needed to compete in this market.

For many the tablet has simply been a me too strategy. Something that historically has either not worked or only worked for a short time thus not being sustainable. What you are forced to walk away with after evaluating the new iPad is that Apple is more serious about this new category of computing than anyone. I would also argue that they are also the best oriented to not only continue to define this new category of computing but to also dictate it as well.

Dictating the Hi-Resolution Race
Every Android smartphone owner who goes gaga over their somewhat high resolution screen should thank Apple. The Retina display kicked off the trend of higher resolution phone displays. Once consumers saw, and are still captivated by that screen, it became very hard for a device to be successful at the mid to high end without a high resolution screen.

The same will now be true of tablets. There will now be a resolution race to catch up with Apple’s Retina display on the new iPad. Which you absolutely have to see to believe. There has never been such a high resolution display on a mobile device and seeing such clarity and image quality on a bigger screen changes the experience with the device in a way I never imagined.

Because of that there is nearly zero chance that consumers walk into retail, as many do, and check out the new iPad and even consider any competitive tablet that is on the market or will hit the market this year. I know that sounds harsh but as I stated the competition does not understand this new category of computing and they are not doing all they can to compete in it. Therefore, for the time being, the competition will not stack up to the new iPad.

This hi-resolution race may also come in interesting ways to notebooks. As I observed, once you see the retina display on the new iPad it is hard to look at other screens comparatively. This may be one of those things that becomes necessary to bring to every computing device. Its sort of like HDTV, once you went HD you would never go back.

Apple is dictating the hi-resolution race and it is a great thing for the industry–as soon as the competition can catch up.

Tablet Software
If any area makes it more glaringly clear that other tablet vendors don’t understand the category it is software. My experience, and many others, line up with Tim Cook’s assessment of a lack of pure tablet apps on the Android platform. Several times a week I go browsing searching for tablet apps on my Android tablets and always walk away disappointed. There are a handful of great tablet apps on Android but when you compare that to app shopping / browsing on iPad it is night and day.

Interestingly, I don’t think Apple gets enough credit at large for basically rejuvenating the entire software industry. Think about how passionate not only developers but also consumers are about software. When all that existed was notebook and desktop PCs I don’t recall such excitement over software. This has always been the case with the Mac community but that is a column for another time.

If you think about it there is no reason glaring barrier to entry for great tablet software to be made for competing platforms. There may be economic, lack of desire, lack of understanding, etc, but nothing by way of technology inhibitors standing in the way.

Apple on the other hand, has what I now consider an insurmountable lead with iPad apps and it will be at least two years, if not longer for other ecosystems to even get close. Even if they did Apple won’t stand still and two years from now their software ecosystem will be even bigger and stronger.

The iPhoto demo alone on the iPad was one of the best software demonstrations I have seen in some time and perhaps the best example of the value of touch computing to date. And by the way its $4.99. If nothing else Apple proved that with software the possibilities are endless with this new category of computing. And hopefully now it is clear to the masses that the iPad is a personal computer and not just for consumption. (Teaser: more on that in my column tomorrow )

So how do others compete? Honestly, at this point in time I am not sure. Apple’s vertically oriented strategy gives them such an advantage that makes competing with them, especially in tablets, extremely difficult.

It appears that many Wall St. Analysts feel the same way. Many of the notes to clients I have seen so far make the bold claim that Apple is dramatically in front of competitors and are reiterating a strong buy for Apple.

I am not saying that competitors should give up. Apple is challenging them to innovate and fully grasp this new category of computing. This is one of the most exciting categories of computing that I have ever encountered.

The New iPad Display and the End of Paper

In 1985, Apple invented computer printing as we know it. Until the introduction of the LaserWriter, the first personal laser printer, computer output emulated either typewriters or mainframe line printers. The $7,000 LaserWriter didn’t sell well and was soon overtaken by cheaper models from Hewlett-Packard, but not before enabling what came to be known as desktop publishing.

iPad screen imageWith the introduction of the new iPad, Apple has again redefined the mechanics of publishing, this time in a way that could finally bring on the demise of paper. Since tablets arrived a couple years ago, they have seemed the natural replacement for the printed page, whether it represented a computer document, a book or a magazine. A tablet could be held like a book or magazine and its software often presented text as pages rather than streams of scrolling text. Their long battery life let  you use them without thinking much about the need to recharge.

The one thing wrong with this otherwise perfect reading machine was the display. Compared with a well-printed book or magazine, or even quality laser printing, text was a bit fuzzy and hard to read in small font sizes. Photos looked OK, but not great. Although the iPad’s 9.7” diagonal display was bigger than most books and had a bit more than half the area of an 8 1/2×11 sheet of paper, the amount of useful content it could hold was reduced by the need to use relatively large fonts for readability.

The new iPad, whose display has to be seen to be appreciated, marks a dramatic change. For the first time, type looks as good on a screen as it does on paper. Photos pop in a way they never have before on a tablet, matching high quality printing on good paper.

Combined with the enormous increase in typographical control offered by HTML 5, the new iPad offers art directors and designers a challenge and an opportunity. Typography in tablet apps often looks like an afterthought and most ebooks look awful. The iPad screams at them to do better. Among other things, they still have a lot of work to do in choosing fonts optimized for backlit LCD displays; not matter how high the resolution, inherent differences between the reflective lighting of paper and transmissive lighting of the display has a big effect on optimal font design for each.

Though the iPad’s screen is somewhat smaller than the trim size of most magazines, the new display should enable complex magazine-style page layouts that look far better than what we have seen on tablets to date. Advertisers should love it since the appearance of their ads can match Condé Nast-style printing.

For a while now, I have found myself “printing” documents—typically Word and PDF files to my old iPad for reading. But the experience has not been entirely satisfactory. Getting documents onto the iPad and managing them once there remains a messy, inconsistent process that the new iPad doesn’t fix. A page designed to fit on 8 1/2×11 page has to be either shrunk to illegibility or scrolled to be read on an iPad. As a result, I find myself resorting to paper more often than I like.

I suspect the new iPad will begin to change this. Pages with 12-point type will probably remain legible even when shrunk to fit the display, which is roughly 6×8. Over time, I think the 6×8 page could become the new normal (or the new normal.dot) as the tablet with a high-resolution display with a diagonal of about 10” becomes the default way of reading. (Other tablet makers will eventually catch up with Apple’s display resolution, though it will probably take at least a year but because of limited availability 2048×1536 pixel displays and, perhaps more important, the lack of processors that can drive them.)

The super high-resolution introduced on the iPhone 4 looked spectacular, but had limited impact because the 3.5” display, and even the 5” high-res screens turning up on some Android phones, are too small for serious reading. Bringing similar resolution to a screen the size of the iPad will change things in much more fundamental ways. The days of printing on paper may finally be numbered.

The New iPad: Setting the Stage for Innovation

This morning Apple introduced a new iPad and with it has raised the bar for anyone creating a competitive tablet. The iPad, with its new Retina display that delivers 2048 X 1536 resolution, is clearly the highest definition tablet on the market. More importantly, as Apple pointed out, the work to create this type of HD quality experience on a tablet took many years of effort and tight integration with their new chip, which will make it very hard for competitors to match anytime soon.

Apple has punched up the power of the new iPad with a custom version of their ARM processor called the A5x, which is a quadcore chip designed specifically to boost any image or video displayed on their new Retina screen. One only has to view the new iPad against an older iPad 1 or 2 to see the major differences between the products. And it is even more pronounced when you view it next to an Amazon Kindle Fire or any of the other tablets on the market with standard definition displays.

With the new iPad display, there is no pixilation whatsoever on pictures and video and text in books is sharper then ones in any real book outside of those designed with high res text and images. And saturation of images and video are 44% greater then on the older model iPads.

Apple also adds a new 5-megapixel camera that takes video in HD, has a much larger sensor then in past iPads and has a 5-element lens with backside illumination and an IR filter that gives amazing color and white balance. And a new dictation feature is now added to the keyboard making it easy to dictate words into a document quite accurately and easily.

As expected, the new iPad also has an LTE option. It includes radios that cover EVDO (Verizon) HSPA GSM, HSPA+, DC-HSPA and LTE, which make’s it a world capable communications tool out of the box. And it will have the same battery life as iPads in the past. 10 hours for continuous use without LTE radio and 9 hours with.

Prices are the same as on the older models, although Apple will now offer a 16-gig version of the iPad 2 for $399, a new price point for iPads and one that will make it available to a broader audience. And the design is about the same so it will work with most cases and peripherals without any changes.

They are also introducing new apps from iPhoto to an updated iLife and an updated version of iMovie that allows for much finer creation tools to new ways to edit and distribute your movies via iCloud. And while all apps work with the new Retina display well, software developers can enhance their apps for even greater resolution to make them optimized for this new display. Software is clearly the key differentiator. The iPhoto demonstration alone will wow consumers and highlights the power of touch computing.

All of this new technology integrated into the new iPad will have a major impact on the market for tablets. From now on, this iPad will be the standard all other tablets will be compared to. And with it should come an even greater opportunity for Apple to pad their lead in tablets.

Of course, we expect that other tablet vendors will try and match Apple with higher resolution displays later this year. But if what Apple says is correct, their integration of both this custom display optimized for this new processor could make it hard for the competition to directly catch up anytime soon.

I view Apple’s new iPad as a major advancement in tablet design and one that will have a major impact on the market for tablets. In business, the need for higher resolution tablets has always been strong, especially in vertical markets like medical, engineering, and even ones where handling a lot of data for viewing is important. At the very least, the new iPad should have even greater interest in the enterprise where Apple is already making major inroads. And consumers who watch movies and view their pictures on tablets will really be drawn to this HD experience, as the quality of their content will be the best on a new iPad.

Although there will always be a market for lower cost tablets, with the new iPad Apple has introduced a new measurement to the decision process for users at any level. And this will cause some challenges for buyers this holiday season as I doubt that any competitor can even come close to having something competitive by then.

That should give Apple a significant edge going into this holiday, as the iPad will clearly be the best tablet available bar none.

One more thing:

Apple also introduced a new version of Apple TV. While many had hoped that Apple would introduce an actual TV, that was not in the cards. What Apple did release is a new version of Apple TV with a new UI and more importantly, support for 1080P HD content. This is a big advance and one that current Apple TV users have been asking for. The price stays the same at $99 and the new software includes the Genius function and a completely new UI making it much easier to find content and display it. This should also be a hot product going into the holidays as more and more people are opting for products like Apple TV and the Roku box to handle their on demand TV experiences and movie viewing and the new Apple TV should be a big hit for Apple.

Related Columns:

The New iPad: Leaving the Competition Behind
The New iPad Display and the End of Paper

 

Windows 8 and Mountain Lion: Same Problem, Different Answers

Yesterday, Pat Moorhead took a look at Microsoft’s Windows 8 Consumer Preview on tablets.Today, I consider it from the point of view of a laptop/desktop user.

Faced with the challenge of unifying the tablet and desktop user experience, Microsoft and Apple made radically different choices. The results, Windows 8 and OS X Mountain Lion, are now out in preview form. And based on what we can tell from the preview editions, it looks like Mac users are going to be a lot happier than their Windows counterparts.

Apple, which traditionally has been much bolder than Microsoft in breaking with the past, this time opted for the conservative approach. In Mountain Lion, it is bring some iPad/iPhone features, such as notifications and messenger, from iOS to OS X. But it is leaving the user interface of previous OS X versions mostly unchanged.

Microsoft has chosen to make the radically new, tablet-oriented Metro user interface standard on desktops (a term I am using to cover all conventional PCs, whether actual desktops or notebooks.) In part, this is a consequence of Microsoft’s decision to use a version of its desktop OS on the new Windows tablets, while Apple chose to base the iPad’s software on the iPhone, leaving the more powerful, flexible, and complex OS X to conventional PCs.

Metro looks like a very promising tablet interface. It is attractive, well thought-out, and offers features lacking in both iOS and Android. We won’t really be able to judge it until hardware makes come up with tablets optimized for it later this year and Microsoft comes out with a version of Windows for ;ess power-hungry ARM processors. But it is off to a promising start.

On a desktop, however, and particularly on one lacking a touch screen,  Metro is a disaster in the making. I’m trying to give it the benefit of the doubt. Maybe its just unfamiliarity it will feel better with more extended use. But I doubt it. To me, Metro on a desktop feels as wrong as Windows 7 did on a tablet.

Part of this is an issue of size. Metro speaks Microsoft’s new UI design language and Metro is basically a scaled up version of of Windows Phone 7 (as the iPad version of iOS is a scaled up version of the iPhone.) As with other tablet OSes, all Metro apps run full screen, or nearly so–you can open a second app in a vertical strip that takes up about a quarter of the display. This is fine on a tablet, but is much less acceptable on the bigger displays of a desktop. The Mail app looks a little silly on a 13″ display, sillier on a 15″, and downright ridiculous on a 27″. And Mail is one of the least egregious offenders; the Weather apps covers over half of the screen with a point picture or, well, weather.

Lurking behind Metro is Desktop, which, with some critical exceptions such as the lack of the Start button, resembles the Windows 7 UI. I’d be happier if Microsoft would just let me boot Windows 8 into Desktop. But for now, at least, this is prohibited, except perhaps for some enterprises running server-managed PCs. If you are doing anything PCish on your PC, you’ll be spending a lot of time in Desktop. The new version of Office, for example, will be made up of Desktop apps, albeit with a Metro flavor.

But even if you live in Desktop, you’ll be visiting Metro a lot. For example, unless you have pinned an application’s icon to the task bar or copied it to the desktop, you will have to go to Metro’s “all applications” list to launch it. And it is jarring and annoying to keep jumping back and forth between two radically different UIs.

Windows 8 is still a beta and Microsoft has ample opportunity to fix the worst problems of using it on a PC. The simplest would be to let users who choose to boot directly into Desktop. It’s not necessary to bring back the Start button in all its complexity, nut a straightforward way to launch any Desktop application from Desktop is essential. Im not sure the Metrofication of desktop Windows is ever going to be a very happy thing, but Microsoft could do a few things that would make it a great deal less disconcerting. For now, two UIs on one desktop is one UI too many.

 

Windows 8 CP Tablet Experience: Distinctive yet Risky for Holiday 2012

A little less than a week ago, Microsoft launched to the public the Windows 8 Consumer Preview (CP). This is a follow-on to the Developer Preview (DP) that I’ve been using on a tablet and all-in-one desktop since it was introduced last September at the Microsoft BUILD partner conference. After 6 months and reportedly 100,000 code changes, is Windows 8 ready for prime time? Based on over 20 years of working with Windows development code and launching real products, I believe that Windows 8 is very distinctive but is risky for a Holiday 2012 release.

If you haven’t actually used Windows 8, I urge you to download it here. Truly using beta software is the only way to truly get the “feeling” of preview software and devices. What I will do is take you through the areas where I believe Windows 8 shines, needs work, and finally, areas where there’s not enough data to make a recommendation one way or another. I want to stress that my assessment is based on “preview” or “beta” code, not the finished product. Finished code is called RTM, or “Release To Manufacturing”. One very important hurdle for preview or beta is that it must be feature complete, which in some areas Windows 8 is and others, not.

Tablet Experiential Plusses

  • Fast response: My tablet booted very quickly and most times, woke up very quickly from “sleep.” Like DP, Metro was very fluid and fast as well, a first for a PC platform. Even installing apps was fast.

  • Content mashups:  Unlike Apple iOS or OSX, Microsoft has attempted to deliver what people really want who have multiple on-line services; a focus on the content and interaction, not the service. For example, those who have LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, multiple address books, etc., Win8 makes it simple. Instead of having to go to multiple services or apps, consumers go to apps like “People” (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google), “Pictures” (Local, SkyDrive, Facebook, Flickr), and “Messenger” (Facebook, Microsoft, etc.) All of this saves time and places focus on the content.

  • Metro apps visually stunning: Microsoft pulled the “essence” of the app experience from Windows Phone, Zune and theXBOX 360. This results in beautiful looking apps like Music, USA Today, Weather, Bewise Cookbook, and iCookbook. When playing music, cover art and band photos are “silhouetted” on the display giving the feeling of a premium experience. Photos are huge and there is always a lot of white space. App beauty matters; just ask Apple.

  • Live tiles: Microsoft took what Android started in mobility, perfected the notification system with Windows Phone and extended it to the tablet. Without even opening up an app or swiping, consumers can see latest emails, next calendar item, most important stock prices, weather, and social media updates.

  • Dual use experience: I have been a proponent of modularity for years as it ultimately where the future of computing is going. With Win8 mid-term, Microsoft has the unique ability to capitalize on this with tablets, unlike Apple or Google. It’s simple; when users want to use the tablet on the couch or in bed, they use Metro. When I want the full desktop,they dock it with a full sized mouse, keyboard, 32” display and am doing real work. Microsoft ultimately needs to enable a way for a Metro and Desktop app to share the same local data files, but cloud-sync is an acceptable start particularly for the tech-aware audience.

  • XBOX integration: Like Windows Phone, Windows 8 CP integrates XBOX functionality quite well but is just a start. Using the XBOX Companion app on my tablet, I could find movies, TV shows, and music and even launch games to be watched or played on the XBOX. It is like an XBOX remote on steroids. I am still waiting for the enhanced “play to” functionality to share local content like photos and web pages to the TV via the XBOX. This functionality was discussed in-depth at the BUILD conference.

  • Search: Unlike the iPad, users can do full document and app content search. This what consumers expect and this is what Windows 8 CP delivers.

Too Early to Tell

  • ARM experience: Microsoft and its partners have been very selective on showing the Windows on ARM experience. It has been shown on stage and behind closed doors, but unlike the X86 versions, the public cannot touch the devices. Even at January’s CES show, the public was not allowed to touch the devices. If it were working great, there wouldn’t be a restriction and as I pointed out here, there are many challenges with Windows on ARM.

  • Updates: Every operating system and apps have updates and for good reasons, namely security and bug fixes. What is unknown with Windows 8 is the size and frequency of updates. We all know that the current pace and method of Microsoft updates is unacceptable in the modern world, and if it continues at its current pace, will detract from the tablet experience. The first day after I installed Windows 8 CP and got my system ready for desktop use, I received 34 updates; 4 for Windows 8 and 32 for Office. It took over an hour and that’s unacceptable in a modern, tablet world.

  • Tablet Games: I was very impressed with Pinball FX, but one game make not a trend. Given games are the most popular iOS and Android app category, I would have expected more by now.

  • Metro SkyDrive: I have used SkyDrive and Live Mesh for many years but primarily use Dropbox and SugarSync. There are two main issues I have found. First, I can see no more than 14 icons on an 11″ tablet display and there isn’t search capability. Sorry, consumers don’t like to create file folders nor do they manage them tightly. I am expecting Microsoft to change this or it renders SkyDrive useless.

  • Number of relevant apps: Certainly this will grow given Microsoft’s big bet and investment into developers but I was expecting more apps 6 months after Visual Studio was shown at the BUILD conference. 15 games and 3 social media apps 6 months after the developer preview isn’t the progress I expected.

  • Tablet OS footprint: The size of the final tablet installation is unknown, but if it’s more than a few GB, this will be a cost issue for tablets. Hard drives are “free” on desktops, but on SSD-based tablets, it’s a premium. The current download size for Win8 CP is between 2.5GB and 3.3GB, but those then get “unpacked” and increase in size. Microsoft is recommending 16GB free space for 32-bit and 20GB for 64-bit so the reality is the build will be between the download and the recommendations. Keep your eye on this one….

  • Tablet battery life: Microsoft and its partners have made a tremendous effort to improve battery life. Early indications show that by re-architecting the ways drivers work and BIOS work, using Metro as the front-end user experience, and by leveraging the lowest power ARM and X86, battery life will be competitive. I expect battery life to be competitive, but less than iOS or Android devices; but then again, it does more and I believe that it won’t become a consumer issue.

Experiential Improvements Needed

  • Too many bugs: Yes this is preview, but I was surprised to see this far into the development process the amount of application “hangs” with Metro apps like Mail, SkyDrive, and Photos. I experienced many situations where the screen just sat there in one color as if it were waiting for something. I used Microsoft’s recommended hardware tablet platform so that cannot be the issue.

  • Universal email inbox: The Metro Mail application doesn’t support a universal inbox. This is just basic and is surprising a feature complete preview launched without one.

  • MS Office file format viewers: Unlike iOS, OSX, and Android, the Win8 CP doesn’t include local viewers for MS Office documents. But it does support viewing PDF files.. huh? Click on a Word doc and you get sent to online SkyDrive where you can view and even edit a document. I see why Microsoft would want this as it “motivates” you to buy Office, but with all of the competition providing this, it really messes up the experience. The Windows 8 on ARM systems do contain Office but it isn’t clear what will ship on X86 systems. For the user’s sake, we can only hope that OEMs install at least viewers or Office Student Edition.

  • Metro Windows Explorer: Sorry, the newly designed Explorer doesn’t cut it in a touch environment. Even on an 11” display, it’s just too easy to click on the wrong icon or accidentally delete or move a file.

  • Metro Internet Explorer bookmark folders: Even Apple fought against but finally learned on iOS that for a browser to be usable, it needs an easy way to file bookmarks. And that means folders. 50 bookmarks strewn all over the place is just a mess and will repel users.

Conclusions

Windows 8 Consumer Preview builds upon the Developer Preview by adding application previews and cloud connectivity.  Windows 8 for consumer tablets is very distinctive in that it can effectively be used as a tablet device for “lean-back” usage models and for “lean-forward” usages when docked in desktop mode. Like Android, Windows 8 takes a content-first approach, albeit with much more beauty and style, and simplifies user’s interactions between different local and cloud-based services.

Unlike iOS, Windows 8 is “alive” and vibrant with its live tiles, white space, and over-sized imagery. When launched it will pose a serious threat to high-end Android tablets and will help thwart competitive threats on the desktop by Android, iOS (in convertible form), and even OSX. The biggest challenge I see is Microsoft’s and its partner’s ability to hit the 2012 holiday selling season with a stable operating system for tablets to compete with the iPad. That risk is being mitigated with special image loads for specific devices, but given the state of the Windows 8 CP experience, hitting holiday 2012 with the experience Microsoft envisions and must deliver will be a tremendous challenge.  I believe it is a bridge too far and the experience will suffer at the need to hit the holiday selling season.

Why the TV Industry is Vulnerable To Apple

In 1992, while I was overseeing the largest multimedia computing show in NYC for a large publishing group, I was asked to meet with Sr. Executives of one of the major TV networks. In my opening comments at this show, I had mentioned that I thought that one of the major benefits of things like delivering expanded media content on a CD Disc would be to eventually launch an era of content on demand. And one of the examples I gave was that I could see someday when people would be able to call up a TV show on demand and view it at will.

Now, remember that this was before the Internet and few were even thinking about new forms of media distribution. In fact, everything we were discussing at the show was very PC centric. But one of my jobs is to look at technology and visualize its impact over a period of time and try and figure out how it could eventually impact consumers.

It turned out that since this event was in NYC, a lot of TV executives attended this show and consequently I was invited to meet with some execs at one of the major networks to explain my thinking about content on demand. As I spoke to these executives, it became clear to me that while they were interested in the future, they did not want to embrace anything that would disrupt their current business model. The idea of giving customers more of what they wanted through an “on-demand” format was taboo and if it did not increase the quarterly bottom line, they wanted no part of it.

However, to their credit, they saw that what I shared was worth thinking about and they soon created an executive position that was called something like VP of Digital Content. It was so long ago I can’t remember that exact title of the job description but this person was chartered to find out about the digital world and recommend how this company could or should deal with its potential impact on their business. So for the next three months I got quite an introduction to the TV business and its business models and more importantly, how risk averse they were and how much they feared change.

Looking back over the last 20 years, and thinking about that assignment in 1992 and how different the world of TV is today, I am actually amazed at how much progress the television industry has made. But to get where they are today in which each of the networks use the Internet to deliver some of their top shows, they had to understand that the Internet is just a medium for delivering their content. And that consumer’s will continue to want these shows on demand, anytime and anywhere they happen to be.

But to be clear, while they are starting to embrace the Internet as a vehicle for distribution, they are doing so reluctantly. If they had their way, they would keep total control of this distribution for themselves and drive their viewers only to their dedicated sites for viewing their shows. But the Internet has forced them to open up a bit and little by little they are doling out their top shows to dedicated partners who they trust to help them keep some semblance of control so that they can maximize their earning potential and if possible try to keep their customers within their network family as much as they can.

However, in this world of digital content, they are now realizing that while they ruled the roost in the world of broadcast television, they are just another channel among thousands of channels that consumers can choose from for viewing video content. But what they don’t seem to get is that in this world of digital, they will need new distribution partners and that they will not have as much control over them as in the past. And I also don’t think they really understand the idea that people want to have access to that content anytime, anywhere and on any device they own.

Enter Apple

Now enter Apple, who if the rumors are to believed, has been calling on the executives of all the networks and trying to cut deals with them for Apple’s new TV initiatives. And I am hearing that they are resisting Apple’s partnership offers as Apple wants to pay them next to nothing to carry this content and they fear that Apple will do to them what they did to the music industry in which Apple pays a minimal fee to the artists compared to what the artist might have gotten with their labels in the past.

Now, I don’t know what type of deal Apple is offering the networks, if any at all. But I do know one thing. Apple could become one of the most powerful video network distribution companies in the future and to not embrace what Apple is doing could be very painful for them. The reason is simple economics. While we don’t know exactly what Apple is doing in this area of video distribution yet, we have their history to look at for some clues. For example, when they initially introduced the iPod and the iTunes store, they opened the door for music artists to have millions of potential customers. But over a ten year period, Apple made it possible for that music to be played on iPods, iPhones, and iPads and to date, have sold over 350 million iOS devices in which music artists can sell to just through Apples own music distribution vehicle. Add a base of 40 million Mac users and in total there are over 140 million Apple devices tied to the iTunes distribution medium.

Now enter Apple TV. While many people think of this idea of being a physical TV, they miss the real point of what I believe Apple is doing. At the core, I believe they are moving towards becoming a powerful distribution network for video. And while I do think they will have a cool TV someday in their product mix, the reality is that every iOS device and every Mac will become an “Apple TV.” That means that for these networks, and any other of their video channel partners, Apple will deliver to them well over 140 million potential customers immediately once their TV distribution network gets turned on. And given Apple’s history you can expect that the Apple TV experience, whatever form it takes, will be elegant, easy to use and perhaps even revolutionary in the way people use their services across devices.

The mistake the networks could make is to not see Apple as this massive vehicle for distributing their content and instead see them as having to be their partner for making money and relying on Apple for high margin revenue. That is the business model of the past. The new business model that I believe will emerge is to find ways to get eyeballs to view the content and then get creative in the way they make money on that property. Of course, they could tie some advertising to it, but they could also offer games tied to the content, sell merchandise tied to the content, and give special prizes tied to the content, etc. Instead of resisting Apple, or perhaps Google or Amazon who I believe will create similar video distribution networks, they need to embrace them as vehicles to get their content in front of these eyeballs and find creative ways to keep their customers coming back and mining new ways to get revenue from their digital customers.

Apple is going to become one of the most powerful video distribution networks by nature of their existing customer base and one that is added to continually. They have sold 50 million iPads so far and will sell at least another 50 million this year, turning every one of them into an “Apple TV.” I know the networks would like to keep control of their distribution, but in the world of digital, those days are gone. The sooner the networks understand this and see things like Apple’s new distribution vehicle as a critical way to get their content to the masses quickly, the sooner they can adapt to and fine tune a new business models to take advantage of this new era of on demand, anytime, anywhere and on any device video content world.

Why Microsoft Should Make an XBOX Mobile Gaming Console

Yesterday I shared a column on why casual gaming, or even more immersive gaming on smart phones is not going to threaten dedicated mobile gaming consoles any time soon. To come to this conclusion I had been using the Sony PS Vita for a few weeks. Using that device also led me to the conclusion that Microsoft needs a device like the PS Vita for their gaming ecosystem. There are a number of good reasons for this.

Strategy for Windows and Windows Phone
Microsoft includes on their Windows Phone platform an XBOX Live hub. This is simply an application that lets you interact with your XBOX Live friends and view your own profile information and achievments. Given the success of the XBOX 360 it makes sense for Microsoft to branch the service out to mobile devices. They even have an iOS app for XBOX Live as well.

What would be interesting for Microsoft strategically would be if they built this device and had some of the main dashboard UI be much closer to the Metro UI they are orienting around. The new XBOX Live dashboard is getting closer but is not the fully Metro UI yet.

I would expect a device like this from Microsft to be quite successful given the passion of the XBOX 360 audience and the number of live users gaming online. If that were true then a large number of consumers who purchased the XBOX mobile device would get immersed in the Metro UI and become familiar with it. Thus making them partial, perhaps, to Windows 8 and Windows Phone products in the future. One could make a strong case a dedicated XBOX Live mobile gaming console could be more successful than Windows Phone in the short term.

Gaming as a Service
Another key element of strategic interest in this thinking is the role of the XBOX Live service as a part of such a device. I can imagine that if Microsoft demonstrated with such a device how groups could play Modern Warfare with their friends online from both the XBOX 360 and the mobile console, that it would generate quite a bit of excitement. The PS Vita and new software that will be rolling out will support this feature as well. However, XBOX Live is such a good gaming service for hard core gamers that a mobile device tied to XBOX Live gaming could be a big hit.

This would further the revenue model for XBOX and perhaps even generate more XBOX Live Gold customres. Gold is the package where you pay $50 a year for special online features. Perhaps using XBOX Live on the mobile platform could even cost slightly more as a package. Either way it makes for an interesting extension of a core servce Microsoft is invested in.

Game Software Developers
Lastly a move like this would attract game developers for the Windows Platform much more rapidly than I believe is currently happening. Games are a rapidly growing category on mobile devices and even casual games on notebook and desktop PCs are gaining steam.

Microsoft could include in many of the same development toolkits the ability to easily also make games for the mobile XBOX console on top of their other Windows products. The byproduct would be more key apps, and in this case games, for the Windows ecosystem. Something they desparately need.

Microsoft could make it easy to buy these games for the mobile device through their own digital store, similar on Windows phone and Windows 8, which in turn would bring more consumers to their stores doorstep.

There is actually quite a bit strategically I like about this idea for Microsoft. I know the push back on this concept is around how big the market would be for a device like this. Especially since a piece of hardware like this has a longer product cycle life of more than 2 years conservatively. But I will again default to this market being similar to the console market at large. A market where the value has never been in hardware but is always in software and services. Although the hardware may have a long life the annual revenue opportunities come from soft are and services.

The thought of being able to play a game like Modern Warfare, Battlefield, or Gears of War from a mobile console while I travel and my friends are playing as well from their consoles is just exciting.

The key in all of this thinking is the hardware touch points that Microsoft can use to get consumers into their ecosystem. XBOX has been one of those key peices of hardware. So naturally with the world going mobile and Microsoft wanting a peice of that pie, my opinion is that a dedicted XBOX mobile gaming console is a good business strategy for Microsoft. It is also a product I think they would sell very well.

Why Smart Phones Won’t Take Down The PS Vita

The question that was raised at the initial announcement of the PS Vita was whether or not a dedicated mobile gaming unit could survive in a world where casual mobile games on smart phones exist. The answer is of course it can and there are several key reasons why.

To set the foundation I will again remind our readers of the jobs to be done philosophy as laid out by Clayton Christensen. Consumers hire products for specific jobs or tasks. Consumers acquire products to fill a void or fulfill a need. Smart phones are not hired to be gaming devices. They are hired to be communication devices. Browsing the web, playing games, running other non-communication apps are, all icing on the cake but the core reason this product is purchased or hired is to communicate. Dedicated mobile gaming devices like the PS Vita on the other hand are hired to be gaming platforms. And because of this the Vita is built intentionally for gamers, where smart phones are not. Two specific areas where this stands out are with the physical gaming buttons and battery life.

Physical Gaming Buttons
Because the smart phone lacks physical gaming buttons, my view is that it is a casual gaming platform. Meaning not something you will sit and play games for hours upon hours. I am not saying this is not possible only that for those who taking gaming seriously and consider themselves core gamers, the smart phone is not the device of choice. Rather, gamers sit for hours and play PS3, XBOX 360, etc, and they are used to the nuances of physical control buttons and believe for many immersive games they are necessary.

I have tried to play many of my favorite console games on my iPhone or iPad like EA’s Madden Football, or FPS games like Modern Warfare and they simply are not the same.

The PS Vita provides the most comprehensive console experience on a mobile device that I have encountered yet. It brings a full fledged gaming experience that hard core gamers know and love. Sony has also some great features that tie the PS Vita into their Playstation ecosystem. Things like online multiplayer gaming where you can play online with friends who are playing on the PS3 while you play on the PS Vita and vice-versa. Or transfering saved games or pausing points while playing PS3 and picking up where you left off with the Vita. Those are the kinds of holistic gaming experiences that get me excited about the state of the video game industry again.

Battery Life
The next big stand out is battery life. Even if we were to make the argument that the smart phone could become a central gaming platform for hardcore gamers the device would still have a battery life issue. The simple truth is you can not sit and play a game on your smart phone for hours upon hours and expect the device to last all day. Considering consumers hire smart phones to be communcation devices, I doubt that the trade off to play games and not be able to communicate becase of a dead device by the afternoon would be worth it. Again it comes back to the role or the job the product is built, designed, then hired to accomplish.

The PS Vita has good battery life considering the large OLED screen and great graphics. In my relatively conservative hour and half to two hour a day gaming sessions with the Vita I could go easily go several days without charging. In fact the bulk of my use with the device came during my recent trip to Barcelona for Mobile World Congress. I had many long plane rides and the Vita never died on me. In fact I only needed to charge it twice the entire trip of 6 days.

This is why there is a role for specific products built for a specific purpose. These devices may not appeal to everyone but they appeal to those who know they need it. I view this similar as a truck. Not everyone needs one but those who do could not work / live without it.

The bottom line is that there are a large group of consumers out there who have no desire to play video games for long lengths of time. Therefore a device like a smart phone will easily cater to those non-core gamers who want play games casually and to kill time. However, for those who are hard core gamers, and they know it, a smart phone will not suffice, and they know it.

You could however make an interesting case that the iPad or an Android tablet paired with a game controller could meet the needs of the core gamer. I could go for that argument but for the time the full ecosystem is not quite there. For example, from a gaming perspective, I am fully vested in both Sony’s and Microsoft’s online gaming systems. I have a core group of friends, games, achievements, etc, all tied to those platforms. The iPad with Game Center is getting there but still lacks the depth of something like XBOX live in my opinion when it comes to catering to the needs of hard care gamers. This shift could happen at some point in time but as for right now I am still convinced that dedicated mobile gaming platforms have a place in the market. Considering Sony announced they have sold well over 1.2 million Vita’s since the launch I’d say consumers agree as well.

Next Column: Why Microsoft Should Make an XBOX Mobile Game Console

The iPad 3’s Impact on the Industry

iPad event invitationApple finally made it official yesterday: The third-generation iPad will be unveiled at an event in San Francisco on  March 7. (Score one for The Loop’s Jim Dalrymple, who departed from the conventional wisdom and predicted an announcement on Wednesday, not the traditional Tuesday.)

I’m not going to indulge in guessing about the details of the announcement. Others will supply plenty of that. Within minutes of the invitations going out, tech blogs were buzzing about the significance of what might or might not be a higher-resolution iPad display. But even without knowing the details of the new iPad–which I will call the iPad 3 even though Apple may not–it’s possible to assess some of its impact on the industry.

The tablet market. Simply put, the new iPad should insure Apple’s continued dominance of the market, with Amazon and Barnes & Noble, with their ebook-oriented specialty tablets remaining the only other players enjoying any success.  Samsung and the other Android tablet makers were unable to make any real gains on the iPad during the year and half that the iPad has been standing pat. Now Apple is leaping ahead while the competition is still struggling to catch up to where the competition was. Apple may make things even worse by keeping the iPad 2 in the product mix as a lower-cost alternative. The wild card in the mix is the forthcoming tablets running Microsoft Windows 8. Even with the release of a consumer preview of Windows 8 hours away (as I write this), there are still more questions than answers about the tablet version.

The Android model. New software features of the iPad 3 that are not dependent on new hardware will be available on old iPads, and, where applicable, iPhones, on the day of launch. This makes the Android approach, where software updates are at the discretion of OEMs and carriers, look worse than ever. This week, manufacturers announced new Android tablets and phones running old versions of the operating system, with upgrades to the current Ice Cream Sandwich version promised  for the vague future. All too often in the past, those updates have never materialized.  Google’s inability to manage the Android upgrade process is the platform’s greatest failure and a key reason why its  numerical dominance has failed to turn into true industry leadership.

The personal cloud. Recent Apple announcement, particularly the iPhone 4s and Mountain Lion, have been characterized by an ever-deeper integration of devices with iCloud. So far, this has been mostly a win-win for Apple and its customers. Consumers gain convenient services, while Apple ties them ever more tightly into its ecosystem.

Carriers. Carriers who have built out LTE networks–Verizon wireless and AT&T in the U.S.–need traffic and an LTE iPad, assuming the new version is so equipped, will certainly be able to provide it. The key  question is pricing. The current 3G plans, $50 a month for 5 GB (Verizon has a 100 GB offering for $80) are too expensive, but carriers aren’t anxious to encourage extra 3G traffic on crowded networks, but LTE is another story. Apple struck a groundbreaking deal for no-contract service for the original iPad. It will be interesting to see if similar creativity accompanies the iPad 3 announcement.

 

 

MWC 2012: Clear Android Differentiation and Other Trends

I suspect that each MWC will be better than the last. This show, I believe, is quickly becoming the leading industry conference for mobile smart device technologies. Therefore, Mobile World Congress will be one of the shows were we can expect to dig into the trends of our mobile computing tomorrow. On that point, this year a few things stand out.

Android Differentiation
Bloggers, journalists, some pundits, etc, mostly seem to believe the world would be a better place if Google’s OEM partners simply did not change Android and just shipped a stock OS the likes of the Nexus line of devices. Unfortunately in that reality hardware companies go out of business. Therefore differentiation is key if pure hardware players hope to stay in business.

Related Column: Dear Industry Dare to Differentiate

After seeing many of the Android device announcements from the leaders like Samsung and HTC, it is clear they are fully marching down the path of strategically differentiating from the pack. This I believe is a good thing all together.

Samsung for example is taking a stab with their Galaxy Note line of products at differentiating their device experience by pairing it with a companion pen experience. HTC did something similar with the Flyer but has seemed to have abandoned that path for now. For Samsung however, including the pen as an accessory (which is where it belongs) has opened the door to bundling exclusive and proprietary software in order to enhance the pen experience. Samsung is shipping with the Galaxy Note Phone (I refuse to support the Phablet term), and the Galaxy Note 10.1 tablet, Adobe’s touch suite of products like Photoshop and Ideas. Samsung is also including their own S Note application for note taking and other useful pen experiences. Samsung is wisely using this strategy as a key differentiator and if you watch any screen media you will see their marketing is fully committed to this direction.

HTC has also been going down this path and has now furthered their strategy even more with the new Sense 4.0 UI.

Beyond Samsung, pen accessories at large seem to be a trend around Android tablets. LG announced their Optimus VU with a pen accessory and I expect pen accessories to continue to be used as a differentiator for the time being.

It is clear at this point there will be no stock Android prioritized devices by the OEMs, thus I question the market at all for Nexus devices. Throw on top of that the fact that the stock Android devices running the latest release take over a year to roll out in any large fashion. John Gruber makes a great observation:

Best to think of today’s Ice Cream Sandwich as a developer preview of next year’s mass market Android phones.

Focus on Device Family Brands
The other trend I am noticing, which is also a positive sign, is that HTC and Samsung for example are focusing more on family lines of devices. Peter Chou of HTC during their press conference announced that HTC intends to streamline their roadmap and focus HTC innovations. HTC kicked this off by releasing a new family line of devices called the One “series.” Their flagship product is the HTC One X which sports the latest Tegra 3 chipset from NVIDIA.

Samsung also is heading this direction with the Galaxy S series, Tab family and now with the Galaxy Note. Motorola also hopefully continues this direction with the Razr family. And Nokia as well with their Lumia line of devices. This direction is needed within the industry in order to stop the absurd device naming syndrome that has plagued many OEMs. When you have dozens of devices in channel all with different names and marketing material blitzing consumers with dozens of device names etc, the landscape can look incredibly confusing.

By focusing on a family line of devices, OEMs can differentiation and then position those differentiating features within a family line of devices for their appropriate target audience.

All in all, I am seeing some positive trends coming out of MWC 2012 that encourages me about the state of healthy competition within the mobile smart devices landscape.

Why Google Must Commit To Hardware

With the Nexus One and their recent purchase of Motorola, Google has more then signaled that they will soon be in the hardware business in a big way. And the recent rumors that they are building a 120,000 square foot consumer experience testing center on their campus suggest that they will test their own hardware along with partners products in order to create and deliver devices that are truly optimized for their Android and Chrome software.

This move is of course controversial since it means that they will be in direct competition with their customers and partners who back Android and Chrome. However, I don’t think Google has any choice but to go in this direction if they have any hope of gaining ground on Apple and try to stave off an imminent threat from Microsoft via their Windows 8 cross-device Metro strategy.

One of the facts that is becoming very clear to the industry at large is that Apple’s lead in hardware, software and services is a mammoth one. They are selling over 5 million Macs per quarter. The iPhone continues to be a hot product and while Android has gained much ground in units shipped against the iPhone, Apple is taking as much as 74% of all the profit in this space. And the iPad holds well over 80% of the tablet market share and this will be the case through this year too. And many of my research colleagues predict that even in 2015, Apple will have at least 60% of the tablet market.

But the key to Apple’s success is no secret. They are where they are because they own the hardware, software and services and combined they give Apple a significant advantage over their competitors. And while that too is no secret, what is not understood well by the outside world is that they architect their devices around their services. The best example of this is with the iPod. While the hardware itself is the profit center for Apple, it was the music service that was the critical component that made the iPod take off. From a hardware perspective, they architected it around the music service, which means they designed the iPod software, user interface and hardware dials so that they were optimized to deliver a great portable music experience.

The same goes for the iPhone and the iPad. It is the services that drive the final UI and hardware designs and since Apple controls the entire eco-system, they can be assured that they deliver to their customers a unified and easy to use experience with their products.

Now consider the plight of the middleware software vendors like Google and Microsoft. What they bring to the party is a critical component of any final product via the OS. But both companies architect from the inside out, or only at the software level and then hand this off to their vendor partners who must now design their hardware around the software and hope the design can be optimized for the OS they have been handed. And from Google and Microsoft’s standpoint, they can only influence and hope so much that their hardware vendors will get it right.

Historically speaking, Microsoft has done the best job of creating strict technical guidelines that hardware vendors can follow, but Google’s approach to Android design is pretty much a moving target. Vendors have told me of all kinds of problems they have had getting strict hardware guidelines from Google for building Android devices.

Microsoft’s model worked for PC’s. But I don’t think this model will continue to work with this new world of mobile devices. What seems to be happening now is that in both the Windows and Android camps, controlling how the hardware vendors use these operating systems is much more difficult as hardware vendors strive to try and differentiate themselves in the market place. In many cases that mean’s hardware and software UI tweaks that go beyond what these companies give them in the way of an OS which then potentially delivers various forms of fragmentation.

At some point, not controlling the entire hardware, software and services delivers diminishing returns to both of them and sooner or later they will find that the old PC model of creating an OS and giving it to vendors to propagate will not work. In fact, I am seeing that understanding starting to become clear to both Google and Microsoft as they stare up at Apple running away with all of the profits. Apple’s model works. Using the old PC model will not work in this new world of mobile devices.

This is why we are seeing so much hardware activity at Google and I expect to see similar branded hardware strategies evolve at Microsoft very soon. While they can hope that their partners can utilize their software to create great hardware and services, at some point they have to realize that putting their trust in their vendor partners to deliver their vision is a crapshoot.

Indeed, they may only have a real chance to catch Apple if they take control of the hardware, software and services and the sooner they realize this, the sooner they can control their individual destiny’s.

PlayBook 2.0: Is This the Best RIM Can Do?

UPDATE: On about the 10th try, I finally got both the personal hosted and corporate Exchange accounts working. I have no idea why the setup failed repeatedly and an identically setup eventually worked. I’m hoping for some explanation from RIM.

—–

If any evidence is still needed that one-time leader Research In Motion has become hopelessly uncompetitive in the mobile computing market, there’s no need to look any further than the BlackBerry PlayBook 2.0 software. Its flaws are not only enough to leep it from gaining traction in the tablet market, but  bode very ill for the next generation of BlackBerry handsets based on the BlackBerry 10 operating system.

PlayBook screen shotThe relatively few folks who bought the PlayBook have been waiting patiently for nearly a year for a software update that would make the 7″ tablet usable. The version 2.0 software takes them about halfway there, not remotely good enough in a world where Adroid tablets are steadily improving and Apple is readying a new version of the iPad that will doubtless increase its already huge lead over the competition.

The most surprising thing is RIM’s failure to get messaging even close to right. The PlayBook has finally gotten a native mail app, meaning it now longer must be connected to a BlackBerry handset through the Bridge app. The trouble is that the mail app isn’t very good.

PlayBook mail does not work with RIM’s BlackBerry Enterprise Server for corporate mail, contacts, and calendar. For that, you still need to use Bridge. In theory, it can connect to Microsoft Exchange accounts and I know who users who have done so. But I ran into repeated failure connecting the PlayBook to either a corporate Exchange account or a personal hosted Exchange account (picture), both accounts that I have set up on iPhones with no difficulty.

The standard internet mail is also sorely deficient. I was able to set up an IMAP mail account without trouble, but the PlayBook app displays only my inbox, not any of my folders. There is a separate Gmail app. but it turns out to be nothing more than a link to web Gmail.

BlackBerry Messenger, another signature RIM product,can also be used only with Bridge, although RIM promises that a native client will be available eventually. The PlayBook mail app can be set up to include Facebook mail and Twitter direct messages. But there is still no proper Twitter app for the tablet. That tantalizing Twitter icon on the home screen again proves just to be a browser link.

This is sorely disappointing, because the the PlayBook is an attractive piece of hardware, especially at the $199 (for the 16 MB version) fire sale price. It has an excellent user interface, reminiscent in some ways of the lamented Palm webOS, and excellent display, and good battery life.

The lack of third-party apps is a serious problem, but the real issue is RIM’s failure to deliver proper messaging. From its beginnings, BlackBerry has meant messaging and this remains its fundamental selling proposition. Without world-class mail or BlackBerry Messenger, the PlayBook simply has no competitive advantages and many  drawbacks.

Worse is what appears to be the reason for PlayBook communications deficiencies. BlackBerry Messenger and BlackBerry Enterprise Server were designed to work with the peculiar software environment of the Java-based BlackBerry OS. RIM has never successfully ported these services to other OSes and it looks like they are having no success bringing it QNX, the RIM-owned OS at the heart of both the PlayBook and BlackBerry 10. That leaves the BlackBerry reliant on Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync for enterprise mail. Even disregarding my unfortunate experience, Exchange ActiveSync is something Apple  already does really well, though Android still needs either OEM modifications or third-party software to handle it. If this is the best RIM can do nearly a year after the original release of the PlayBook, I’m afraid they have run out of time.

 

You Can Never Have Enough Tablets

One of the things my firm focuses on is spotting trends within the technology industry. As a part of our constant search for trends we employ a concept we call “live the future now.” What this means, is that we as trend analysts, ourselves being early adopters, attempt to look for and implement things into our own work, play, family, life, etc, that we believe consumers may use technology for in the future. We also hunt out and study other people or groups of people, mostly early adopters, who are also using technology today the way we believe the masses will in the future.

So this column is going to be more about the future than the present.
Because I live and breathe this industry I also acquire quite a lot of technological gadgets as a part of this process. For the past six month’s I have been utilizing in different capacities no less than five and upwards of eight tablets at any given time all throughout my house. Not all my tablets are running the same core OS as some are iPads, some run Android and one runs Web OS. This helps me evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a range of tablet operating systems and device features. Regardless of the OS I basically keep a tablet in every room of my house, except the bathroom, at all times. In basically every room where we spend significant time you will find a tablet of some shape or form. Living with a tablet in every room of my house is a fascinating experience. It is also a very convenient experience.

In the future I believe having access to these “smart connected screens” in every room will be a staple of most consumers’ homes in the developed world. What this enables is a situation where consumers don’t need to carry their tablets with them from room to room. They simply move to each room and as necessary, at their convenience, pick up the closest tablet and begin using it.

In my own experience doing this, I found that quite often I simply wanted to look something up on the Internet. What I looked for was the most convenient screen to access the Internet with. My notebook is rarely near me on the couch or bed and my smart phone suffices but the screen is a little to small for the job most times. This is where tablets come in. They are more mobile than notebooks and sport bigger screens than smart phones. And when you have one in every room you don’t have to think about bringing your tablet with you or where you left it last. Having a tablet in every room ready to be picked up and utilized was not only extremely convenient it was also extremely useful.

Now in this reality we must recognize that we may potentially shift from tablets being mainly personal computing devices to perhaps more communal computing devices–at least in the home environment.

Shift from Personal to Communal Screens
With the role of the personal cloud, I can see a situation where you just pick up the most convenient tablet/screen to your proximity, in whatever room you happen to be, log in to your personal cloud, and instantly the tablet becomes “your tablet.” It would contain all your personal settings, preferences, access to media, etc.

In this environment what is personal is your cloud not the device itself. This is a different take on the concept of personal computing. This of course does not mean that we consumers will not own personal computing devices, like smart phones for example, but that there will also be screens we use in our daily lives that are not personal but more communal. The personal cloud we subscribe to is what turns any screen into our personal computing platform for the amount of time we choose to use that screen as such.

Google’s Chrome OS is very similar in concept to what I am outlaying. Any person who has a Google account and has invested in the Chrome OS, via a ChromeBook, could log into my or any ChromeBook and begin using the device as if it was their own. When this concept makes its way to tablets I believe it will enforce this idea of a screen agnostic tablet, in every room, future that I am outlining.

Now of course for this to happen the cost of tablets will have to come down. That is why I pointed out at the start of this column that I am talking more about the future than the present. However, what if someday we can sell a $99 or less tablet that runs a very light OS, with access to cloud services, and wi-fi? Another way this reality could happen is with a hardware-as-a-service model where as a part of a subscription, perhaps to your cable provider, the devices are provided for free.

The bottom line is that over the next five years the BOM cost of tablets will come down. If these devices rely more on the cloud than native software, some of the costs will move from the device to the service. Making the hardware more affordable as it relies more on a service to become “personal.”

It is with these types of “smart connected screens” that I believe we will see the explosion of devices into consumers homes. Prior to tablets we may have assumed that the dominant computing screen in consumers lives was going to be a notebook PC. In essence we would have said that there would be a notebook in every room, owned by every consumer. I think we are rapidly learning that, that future is going to be given to tablets.

Microsoft Office: Way Too Early for Obituaries

 

Office logoIn recent days, it has become popular to herald the impending death of Microsoft Office and the doom of Microsoft itself as its cash cow heads for the slaughterhouse.

  • In a series of tweets, Duke business professor Vivek Wadhwa argued that Microsoft has become irrelevant, largely because tablets are the future and Office doesn’t run on them.
  • Minimalmac blogger Patrick Rhone argued that Microsoft’s failure to get Office on the iPad allowed people to realize they could get by very well with the Microsoft suite.
  • At TechCrunch, John Biggs maintains that a paradigm shift away from printing and paper is leading us into the “post-Office” generation.

Not so fast.

While these analyses are right about the long-term trends, I believe they drastically underestimate the importance of office in the daily life of business, government, and other large institutions. Consumers may be realizing that they no longer need Office–that, in fact, they never needed Office and would always have been better off with something lighter and simpler such as Apple’s iWork. This will hurt Microsoft some. But the company’s bread and butter is Office and its attendant backend services, such as Exchange and SharePoint, in the enterprise.

There are bad and good reasons for this. The really bad reason is the inertia and conservatism of large organizations. Government is the worst offender. It’s tough to see how agencies that still run mainframes that communicate with greenscreen 3270 terminals using Systems Network Architecture  and whose managers think they have mobilized their IT because they support BlackBerrys are going to dump Office anytime soon. It is very common, for example, for federal agencies to require that responses to requests for proposals be submitted as Word and Excel files.

The much better reason is that there is a world of of documents far more complex than web pages (or tablet apps.) And production of those documents requires the right tools. Word is used not out of inertia but because it includes a lot of features that cannot be found elsewhere. In an environment where documents pass through many hands on their way to complete, tracking changes (also called edit tracking or redlining) is essential if you ever need to know who made what edits. Complex documents need automatically generated tables of content, indexes, and, in the case of legal briefs, tables of authorities. Footnoting and bibliography flexibility is essential. Furthermore, many companies have a vast investment in custom Word stylesheets (Word calls them templates, but stylesheet is a more familiar term for HTML users.)

Alternatives like Google Docs don’t begin to cut it. Apple’s Pages comes closer, but even Apple doesn’t seem to regard iWork, which has not be updated in three years,  as a serious competitor to Office. OpenOffice, in its various incarnations, offers all the complexity of Microsoft Office in a much less user-friendly package.

For now, and for the foreseeable future, preparing documents for print is still tremendously important. Over time,  it will become less so, but endless scrolling web pages are not a viable alternative. We will be doing more and more of our reading on tablets. But tablets are going to need software that can create proper documents for them. Nothing does a very good job of this today, but it is hardly an insoluble problem and I expect Microsoft will address it in both the rumored Office for iPad and Windows 8 version of Office, expected late this year.

Word, of course, is only one component of Office. In environments where Microsoft Exchange is the back end for mails, contacts,  and calendaring and scheduling, Outlook remains the indispensable client. Yes, you can get Mac Mail to work with Exchange and Exchange is iCal-compatible, but accessing an Exchange Global Address List from Mac Address Book is somewhere between difficult and impossible, depending on the configuration of the Exchange server.

Excel lives in a league of its own. My guess is that the bulk of Office users don’t make much use of Excel and could undoubted get by with something much lighter, even the spreadsheet component of Google Docs. But for the legions of Excel power users, it is absolutely indispensable. and many companies have spent a lot of time and effort building Excel models that cannot be ported to anything else.

And what can I say about PowerPoint? I’ve always found it the weakest major component of Office, an adopted child who never quite got integrated into the family. Not to mention the agony of sitting through those presentations. For Mac users, Keynote is definitely a worthy competitor (how bad can a program designed by Steve Jobs keynotes be?). But huge numbers of enterprise workers will only give up PowerPoint when you wrest it away from them. For better or worse, mainly worse, it’s here to stay.

All of these are reasons why neither Office nor the computers needed to create documents of any complexity are going away. We may do our reading on tablets, but content creators will still be creating on Office. As long as that is the case, Microsoft will be a highly relevant, and almost certainly highly profitable, player.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Case for Intel’s Future Smartphone Success

In my many weekly conversations with industry insiders we discuss Intel’s chances in mobility markets, specifically smartphones. Few people are betting against Qualcomm and for very good reason in that they are entrenched at handset vendors and their 2012 roadmap, at least on paper, looks solid. What few are discussing is how Intel will pick up market share. My last column on Intel’s smartphone efforts outlined what Intel needs to demonstrate quickly to start gaining share and getting people to believe they can be a player. Now I want to take a look at why I believe Intel can and will pick up relevant market share over the next three years.

Intel Finally Broke the Code with Medfield

This isn’t Intel’s first time in mobility. Intel owned XScale, an ARM-based mobile processor that was in the most popular WinCE devices like the Compaq iPaq, one of the more popular Pocket PCs. XScale products even powered Blackberrys for a time as well. Intel sold the entire XScale mobile application processor business to Marvell in 2006 for $600M. This move was driven by Intel’s desire to focus on X86 designs. What followed were some failed mobile attempts with Menlo and Moorestown, two low power, Atom-branded processors that made their way into MIDs (Mobile Internet Devices). It appeared that Intel would make grand announcements with big names like LG for smartphones then nothing would happen afterward. Things are very different with Medfield. Handsets are at China Unicom in testing for Lenovo and Motorola announced their handsets would be at carriers for the summer.

Medfield is a huge step forward in design and integration for Intel. First, it combines the application processor with I/O capabilities on a single chip. This saves handset makers integration time and board space. Secondly, it is paired with the Intel XMM 6260 radio based on the Infineon Wireless Solutions (WLS) acquisition. This increases the Intel revenue BOM (Bill of Material) and also helps with handset integration. Finally, Intel has embraced the Android mobile OS in a huge way with a large developer investment and will provide optimized drivers for Medfield’s subsystems. This move is in contrast to their MeeGo OS efforts that didn’t go anywhere. Intel has even gone to the effort to emulate ARM instructions so that it can run native apps that talk directly to ARM. These apps are typically games that need to be closer to the hardware. This is a very good start for Intel, but as I tell my clients, if there are 10 steps to mobile silicon success, Intel just successfully crossed step 3.

It’s a Tough Smartphone Market

Intel made some very serious headway with Medfield, but it is a very competitive market out there. According to IDC, in Q4 2011, Apple and Samsung combined to garner almost 50% of the smartphone market. As I pointed out in my previous column, Apple already designs their A-Series processors and I don’t see that changing. I expect Samsung with the exception of the very low end to lean into their own Exynos silicon. Nokia at 12% Q4 smartphone share is tied to Windows Phone and Qualcomm at least for the short term. Struggling RIM doesn’t need another variable to worry about with their muddled operating system strategy and is currently tied to Qualcomm. Finally, HTC is rumored to tie up with NVIDIA on its Tegra platform on the high end. Who does this leave for Intel?

For Intel in the short term, with Motorola and Lenovo on-board, this leaves private label for carriers, LG, Sony, ZTE, Huawei, Kyocera, Sanyo and a very long tail of small manufacturers. The long tail will be a challenge for Medfield until Intel waterfalls the products line to be cost-competitive with lower end models. I expect Intel to start waterfalling products down in the end of 2012.

Why Intel Could Succeed

While I outlined the many challenges, Intel could very well succeed in the space longer term. First, the phone marketplace is a rapidly changing market. Not only have there been tremendous share shifts in the last two years, but feature phones are migrating to smartphone market resulting in exploding growth.

Operating systems are clear from shaking out. Microsoft will not go gently into the night with Windows Phone and will invest what it takes to be successful even if it takes another Nokia-like investment to own another platform. I also believe once Microsoft starts gaining share, they will devote resources for X86 on Windows Phone 8 or 9 platforms. They see Intel as successful with Medfield and the WINTEL alliance could be brought back from the dead. Long-term, I do not believe Samsung will be happy licensing someone else’s operating system, particularly with Apple’s integration and experience success. I expect Samsung to do one of three things, possibly two; increase investment in Bada to a point that it can compete with Android in a closed environment, embrace webOS, oe lean heavily into Tizen. Marketplaces in dynamic change are an opportunity for newcomers, even companies worth $140B like Intel.

One other important factor that hasn’t fully played out is “carrier versus handset-maker” dominance. Up until the Apple iPhone, the carriers dictated terms to the handset makers. Every carrier who has adopted the iPhone has taken a gross margin reduction. This doesn’t mean they made a bad decision; they had to carry the iPhone. That carrier margin reduction money is going to Apple and not the carriers. Carriers are strategizing how they can regain that dominance going forward and I believe Intel will part of those plans. Intel has the capability to partner with an extremely low cost manufacturer or ODM an entire solution, white label it to a carrier and provide a competitive Android experience. I expect a few key announcements this month at this year’s Mobile World Congress.

Of course, we cannot forget about Intel’s technology. According to tests run at Anandtech, Intel’s Medfield is competitive in power at 32nm LP so you must assume that it only gets better at Intel’s 22nm 3DTri–Gatetechnology. Intel will roll Atom into 22nm in 2013 and 14nm in 2014. This is all the while in 2012 TSMC is at best case at 28nm and GLOBALFOUNDRIES and Samsung is at 32nm.

I define success as the ability to reach a relevant level of profitable business that supports the desired brand goals. For Intel, this doesn’t need to be 80% like they have in the PC market, but needs to be a profitable 20%.

What this Means for Intel, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, and NVIDIA

Over a period of three years, Intel will start to take market share from Qualcomm, Texas Instruments and NVIDIA, albeit very small in 2012. As Intel integrates wireless, moves to 14nm, and waterfalls their offerings to lower price point smartphones, this makes much more competitive to handset makers and carriers. I expect Huawei, ZTE, or a major carrier to go big with Intel in 2013 which will make a huge difference. One thing to remember about Intel; unlike others in the marketplace, Intel also captures the manufacturing margin TSMC and GLOBALFOUNDRIES makes and the design margin ARM earns. While Intel has a long way to go in proving themselves, they have the start they never had before at a time to take advantage of the mammoth growth in smartphones. Never count Intel out of any market, no matter how many times they have tried and failed.

The New Microsoft and Apple OS Wars–Game On

After years of lagging behind Apple in terms of innovating around their user interfaces on both their smartphones and Windows, Microsoft finally took a big step towards competing with Apple head on last year with the introduction of their new Metro UI. Introduced first on Windows Phone 7, this new Touch UI, which uses a tiling metaphor to deliver a more graphical way of dealing with data, is also coming to Windows 8 this fall and in essence, will finally unify the way people interact with Windows based software across smartphones, tablets, laptops and desktops in the future. And while touch is critical to smartphone navigation, Windows 8 is also built around a touch UI that, especially on tablets, will be key to navigation and input on all Windows based devices soon.

Of course, this move is basically copying what Apple has been doing for over five years with their iOS strategy in which they use the same OS, UI and touch architecture on iPods, iPhone and iPads. And while direct screen touch is not built into OS X, Apple has gone to great pains to create a touchpad experience that very much emulates these same touch movements on all MacBooks and with an external touch pad for iMacs. And with the recent introduction of OS X Mountain Lion, they now add much of the great features only available on iOS devices to the Mac as well.

What’s interesting about these developments is that in some ways, history is repeating itself. In 1984, Apple brought to market the Mac and introduced the world to graphical user interfaces and the mouse. It took Microsoft a couple of years and some real false starts until they finally got their own GUI right on Windows 95 and continued to ride this new OS and GUI into further PC domination. And during this period Apple had major changes in management and inconsistent strategies that played perfectly into Microsoft’s hands and Microsoft grew exponentially without any real competition.

But when Steve Jobs came back to Apple in 1997 and began crafting a strategy in which Apple would begin to drive the market beyond the PC and launch the post PC era, Apple soon emerged as the real powerhouse in the world of technology. Starting with the iPod and then with the iPhone, Apple saw their fortunes change from an also ran to the lead horse that is mining most of the industry profit today and is now the most valuable company on the planet. Now Microsoft and other competitors are playing catch up again.

From Microsoft and their partners point of view, they are really hoping that history literally repeats itself. Just as Windows was used to bypass Apple in the past, they are “praying” that Windows 8, with its ability to deliver a similar OS and touch UI experience across multiple devices can revive their fortunes and make them relevant again.

Related Column: Dear Industry History Will Not Repeat Itself

But this is a very tall order this time around. Apple’s lead with iOS and OS X, along with their stellar offering of products that use these operating systems is very large. And while Microsoft’s OS seems to be a solid offering, unlike Apple who owns the hardware, software and services aspect of their eco-system, Microsoft has to hope that their software developers, hardware partners and potential service providers can gel and execute in a way that allows them to actually gain ground on Apple. And, they can’t afford to have any missteps. While Windows on Intel X86 chips seems solid, their move to put Windows on ARM is only in its early stages and its success on this new processor platforms, which includes the need to have software written specifically for these chips, is not assured.

Also keep in mind that, while Microsoft and partners are scrambling to play catch up, they have no idea what else Apple has up their sleeves in the way of new hardware, software enhancements and services. If Apple continues to innovate and stay at least two years ahead of the competition, Microsoft and friends may always be playing catch up for the foreseeable future. And this time around, Microsoft will also have to compete with Google and the Android crowd and Google’s Chrome OS that is destined for the desktop. And with HTML 5 emerging as the future of software development and Web Apps becoming the means of delivering applications, Microsoft this time around has their hands full keeping up with a market that is moving much faster then it did in the past.

But now that the Windows crowd finally has an OS, UI and a strategy that is actually designed to compete with Apple, Microsoft and their partners can now look towards what they hope is a promising future and like in the past, are telling Apple that the game is back on.

Mountain Lion’s Gatekeeper Is Not a Slippery Slope

Apple’s announcement of Gatekeeper, an anti-malware component of the new version of OS X, has set off the predictable horrified reactions among tech bloggers. Many are warning that this is a step in Apple’s plot to turn the Mac into an iPhone-like walled garden. But the reactions seem to be made of up equal parts misinformation and paranoia.

Gatekeeper offers Mac users three options. At its most stringent, it will install only software downloaded from the Mac App Store. A middle setting allows downloads from anywhere, but will warn users against installing them unless the code has been signed by a registered Mac developer. The third option is essentially the pre-Mountain Lion status quo: Anything is allowed.

Much of the criticism focuses on the dialog generated by unsigned code when using the middle option. It warns that the code “has not been signed by a recognized developer.  You should move it to the trash.” At Gizmodo, Casey Chan writes: “But Gatekeeper could also be interpreted as Apple heavily discouraging less savvy users from installing non-Mac App Store apps entirely. It’s one step away from turning the current app freedom on the Mac into the app dictatorship of iOS.

At BoingBoing,  Rob Bechizza opines:

“At this point, the thing that unnerves me is not the prospect of Gatekeeper as a crude tool to herd OS X developers into a walled garden and crush freedom. It’s the fact that code-controlling technologies tend to have unintended consequences that harm, rather than guarantee, the quality of user experiences.

“The prospect of Apple becoming a desktop control freak, going full Sony on its own community to stop it using software the way it has for thirty years? Fun, but let’s wait until it actually happens.

“The truth is that Macs don’t currently suffer much from malicious software, and DRM-esque lockouts are always circumvented. So what’s the point of a DRM-esque system for malware prevention? A more pleasingly cynical answer is that it’s a marketing move, aimed as much at analyst-fed Mac malware hysterics in the tech press as it is at real threats. For everyday users, Gatekeeper’s more likely to echo the good old days of Vista’s “Cancel or Allow” than to save them from themselves.”

This is wrong on several levels. First, malware is a very real problem. It may not be much of one on Macs today, but the  increasingly murky swamp that is the Android app market should serve as a warning. Second, raising the issue of digital rights management is a complete red herring. Gatekeeper has nothing to do with DRM, whose purpose is to restrict unauthorized copying of content or to limit its use to specific devices. He is guilty of the very fear-mongering he accuses Apple of.

Give Apple a little credit for understanding  the difference between a Mac and an iOS device. At the introduction of the iPad, Steve Jobs compared the iPads to cars and Macs to trucks. His point was that a car is all most people need, but people who build stuff need trucks. As analogies go, this isn’t a bad one. And the people who need Macs need the freedom to choose their own software.

Another important point that seems to be getting lost: Developer approval, unlike inclusion in the App Store, does not imply that Apple has looked at the software itself. Anyone can become a registered  Apple developer by paying $99 a year and getting code approved for Gatekeeper’s middle option requires only that developers digitally sign their apps. This allows an app to be traced back to its author and lets Apple de-register developers who distribute bad code. Can this be abused? Of course. But it is on the whole a very good thing to add accountability to app distribution.

Finally, the “walled garden” charge is a bit silly because of how easy Apple makes it to change Gatekeeper settings. It’s just a click on the Security & Privacy system preference. This may sound  elitist but I am going to say it anyway. As I tweeted yesterday, anyone who cannot figure out how to change the setting probably needs the greatest protection. Anyone who doesn’t know enough about their Mac to change a simple preference needs someone to curate their software choices.