Couldn't resist!

Back-from-the-blogging-dead for just 1 post!

For the last few weeks, it's been full-on with the rumour mill on the Apple iTablet/iSlate or whatever. Let's just call it the iTablet here though I doubt (hope) tablet or slate will be in the name.

There have been some really intelligent things written by the usual commenters (oh, if I could write and think like Gruber!), and there's been the usual useless prophesying of doom, me-too, etc.

What the naysayers still haven't realised after years of being proven wrong is that Apple hasn't just been lucky, it's been incredibly smart for years and years. The only area where Apple has arguably not delivered a success in the Jobs-era is the AppleTV - and this is the one thing that Steve Jobs described as a hobby around the time it was released. If you haven't figured out this guy is smart yet, it's really about time you stopped "analysing"? I've interviewed with him before, and believe me he knows what he wants and he knows the people who can make it happen (I DIDN'T get the job!)

Has Apple's success happened overnight with just a few clever ideas? No. Look at the small pieces that have to be put together one component at a time to deliver the whole experience. It is this attention to detail in terms of the overall experience that takes each individual product above its competitors and keeps it out ahead. At the same time, Apple would rather leave out a feature than do it badly or have it create other problems that they KNOW, but the "analysts" don't. Does it now look like a stupid move to have a 2G iPhone as the first model?

So, with this in mind, we enter this week in the expectation that Apple will completely re-invent another area of our lives that we didn't even know needed re-inventing before the rumours started. Just as Apple killed the successful iPod mini with the iPod nano, I expect it this week to announce the product that begins the long-term decline of the laptop. Of course, many people will still need a laptop and/or prefer one (I'm likely to be a long term user for many reasons, but I would probably be considered unusual), and these people will generally be the ones that pour scorn on the new direction. Other people will say it wasn't Apple that did it, but that Apple is just responding to the netbook companies that started it.

But, Apple will do it in Apple's way - using user interface paradigms that initially we'll be unsure about, but will begin to appreciate as we see it demoed, as we see it being used, and as we begin to use it ourselves. Irrespective of the absolute form factor and other features, it will be the way we interact with it that will make THIS product introduction be the defining way such devices will work in the long term. Think Mac GUI and mouse, iPod clickwheel and iPhone multi-touch here - defining moments in the consumer electronics industry.

Could Apple get it wrong? Possibly. Newton 1.0 wasn't ready for primetime. Newton 2.0 was, but never got over the reputation of 1.0. Jobs is smarter than the people around Apple at that time. He has been waiting until it all comes together to do it right (iPod required small disks, firewire and clickwheel to do something revolutionary; iPhone required touch, SSD, high power tiny chips).

Apple have been sweating these details for years. I've read a rumour that the iPhone came out of the tablet development, and it's not an unlikely scenario. Multi-touch was not sufficiently developed or even understood to be used in something revolutionary beyond a small device with limited gestures. As MacWorld contributor Dan Moren wrote, this device will succeed or fail based on whether people BELIEVE they can INPUT stuff into it quickly and accurately - whatever stuff they want, but especially the stuff they are used to putting in their laptops via a keyboard. Any additional inputs (e.g. dictation, recording) will be bonuses. But the basics are a REQUIREMENT.

If Apple CAN get the input side right (early reactions will no doubt include the same people who condemned touch on the iPhone), then it has several advantages over the situation in mobile when it jumped in. Here, they were a late entrant into a theoretically competitive and maturing market - a market that was supposed to swallow up the iPod line as this functionality became just an extra app built into a mobile. Also, there was the gateway managed by restrictive telcos to negotiate - what was the most Apple could put in the device that would still allow them to partner with one or more major telcos? The iPhone remains below it's true potential today for these reasons (e.g. VoIP on 3G), but has blown a big hole in many of the restrictive models that were around before - something rarely appreciated by Apple's critics, but which has benefitted all handset makers and consumers.

In this case, we have an immature market, with no gatekeepers - and that is even giving some credit to the tablets already out there that are really nothing more than windows pc's with a stylus. With the iPhone, there were NO apps when it was released, and the best we could get were a limited number of web apps. Apple will release the tablet with a rich set of applications already there to demonstrate it's usefulness, and the existing iPhone developers will jump on ship quickly making use of possibly the best application delivery platform ever available (I do not see this as just a big iPhone - that would fail, but I do see many of the developments being carried over to the iTablet. I guarantee, there will be no shortage of apps very quickly - perhaps even day 1. Let's just hope that the good ones rise to the surface quickly. I believe the key in widespread success will be how quickly the ecosystem of hardware add-ons and software develops to produce compelling uses that were never before possible with either a laptop or a tiny phone. That will create the barriers to entry allowing Apple to profit from the device over the long term.

That brings us to two other key success factors. The first is how much Apple can open up this device when compared with the iPhone. I've no doubt this will be an openly multi-tasking device (not just limited to certain Apple-designed apps) - but how this is done without compromising performance, reliability and security will be key. I also think Apple will have to allow alternative application delivery methods here - at least in the medium term. Central control has served it (and its customers) well for the iPhone. But this model will be too restrictive in the longer term for a device like this, constrain new business models and entrants into the ecosystem. I don't believe Windows will develop fast enough to offer good alternatives, but Google can take either ChromeOS or Android into this area quite quickly and give a more open proposition if Apple doesn't do it fast on the back of release.

The final issue comes down to cost. Apple is known as the high cost company - something I feel is grossly misrepresented by many in the media and the anti-apple brigade who can't understand basic specification sheets or look at cost of ownership - but let's face it, plenty of companies will come up with something cheaper that purports to do a similar thing. Can Apple deliver this best-of gadget at a compelling price - much as it has with the iPhone - by both quantity production and perhaps viewing the device as a gateway to content consumption and application purchase for which it's getting a cut?

If these things are on Apple's side, then this device becomes the main device we carry around with us as we work, play, travel, etc. THE primary device on which content is consumed, communicated and collaborated (but less so, created). Sure, we'll still need our phones - and for many this may still do - but how often will most people need their laptop? It's not even going to be one device per family - this will be intended to be a one-per-family-member product much as the iPod has become - with you in the kitchen/breakfast table, a companion to watching tv, on the train, in meetings, at conferences or lectures, as we go about most aspects of our jobs and our leisure activities. There will be a steady shift back towards the home computer/desktop computer as the place it all comes together and for heavy lifting (e.g. photo/video management) - as well as (or maybe just) the cloud for the actual storage of our data.

The notebooks have tried to destroy the laptop market by cheapness. Can Apple destroy it (an area it makes much of its profit) by building something BETTER than a laptop for most of what we do? I personally think it can and I think Steve Jobs is on a mission to do this (remember the comment "the PC wars are over. Done. Microsoft won a long time ago"? Is that not a motivator for him to change the game?). The mainstream media have set this as a (perhaps an unfairly) high hurdle, but Wednesday's announcement will probably be judged on whether the new product meets this challenge (while being criticised for attempting to take the challenge on and not delivering in every single possible area!). It is a measure of Apple's achievements that this is even being talked about so enthusiastically BEFORE a product is released - where's the excitement from Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc who should equally be capable of this sort of development, let alone the Redmond machine which will once again be left looking foolish and void of ideas. It will be a true measure of greatness if Apple can deliver something that yet again inspires a new round of innovation.

What an exciting week ahead!

Tags: Apple, iTablet, iSlate, iPhone, Microsoft

New Google Public Transport Info Sucks!

Got my iPhone 2.2 software loaded and thought I'd check out some of the new features.

I haven't been able to get Google Street View to work yet for London, but I did come to try the new travel directions feature. Unfortunately the results are embarrassing - for Google, and I think this needs a lot more work on it.

Here's what I got for a simple route from Piccadilly in London to Battersea SW11. It's a route of about 4.5km or just under 3 miles, walkable in about 55 minutes. A single London bus (19) will do the journey in (hopefully) about half that time.

Google's instructions were as follows:
1. Walk 1.1km to Hyde Park corner (fair enough).
2. Take the 702 bus towards Ascot but getting off at Victoria station - 1 stop on. (For my American friends this journey is like getting on a greyhound bus in Manhattan and going 5 blocks down 5th Avenue).
3. Get the the 025 bus towards Eastbourne (a town on the south coast), but getting off at Gatwick airport.. Note, no suggestion about the much faster train service from exactly the same place also to Eastbourne and also stopping at Gatwick airport. Gatwick airport is about 25-30 miles from central London.
4. Now take the airport bus from South terminal to north terminal!.
5. Get a bus EB4 from Gatwick to Fulham Broadway back in Central London.
6. Finally walk 2.4km to SW11 (total walk of 3.5km).

This public transport version which saves just 1km of walking, takes 3 hours and 15 minutes and appears to travel at least 60 miles! There is no cost given, but I suspect it is substantial.

Google claims (on it's website) to use the travelinesoutheast.org.uk data. However, using this service throws up several London bus routes (though not the best ones). It would seem that Google has ignored 98% of the available alternatives (including all London buses, and all trains).

A year ago, we used a government service to find the best route to drive to Hastings on the south coast, and it threw up a route going via Ashford and over 90 miles in distance. The direct route (which google itself gave) was around 55 miles. The government site then added further futility by suggesting speed should be no more than 55mph to limit CO2 emissions! Sure, your CO2 emissions might be 10% less than they would have been, but their stupid route would have increased it by 50% over what it should have been anyway!

It seems we've still got a way to go in making these services useful. I'd hate to see what a tourist would have done with Google's information, and I'm glad I use my bike to get around London.

Tags: Google, iPhone, Transport, London

Free Speech In Danger

Just a small post in support of the very valuable site The Quackometer.

This is a great site debunking all the ridiculous snake oil, wu-wu claims of the increasing numbers of people/companies who are putting down good science for their own personal gains, spreading fear, uncertainty, doubt, illness and even death. There are many other sites giving more information about this situation, here's a few links:

One
Two

But, irrespective of the arguments involved, we should be most concerned at the failure of important companies to guard the net and ensure freedom of speech. Unfortunately, even Google have succumbed to this, which is very scary indeed (check the first item in the search results). As for the Quackometer's hosting company - Netcetera - they should be truly ashamed at their behaviour in this episode. I have written to them. Why not do the same?

Well, "Dr"/"Prof" Joseph Chikelue Obi, you can just fuck yourself. As a disgraced professional and fraudster, you should be ashamed of yourself. What you have done to your patients, what you're claiming to do for them, how you're trying to recruit more snake oil salesmen to your clan, AND what you have done in an attempt to shut down people who merely bring attention to your failings is truly despicable.

I think it is important that those of us who value free speech make efforts to bring attention to this outrage. So, please post a link to the Quackometer on your site to support this or write a comment of support.

Tags: The Quackometer, Netcetera Google

French Follies

I wrote back in April 2006 about the foolishness of Chirac trying to take on Google with a French (and German) competitor funded by the state, known as Quaero.

I read in a recent Ars Technica post that this project has already run into severe difficulties and that France and Germany have gone their separate ways on it.

I'd hardly take credit for an insightful post as I'm not sure any reasonable business person thought any differently than me. But, really, what was he thinking and why do the French let him get away with this?

(As an aside, my partner points out that in her subject area the whole world uses the term "DNA", except that is, the French, to whom it is "ADN". Can anyone tell me how such practices really help defend the French culture, increase it's influence abroad, and enhance it's competitiveness in the global economy?)

Tags: Jacques Chirac, Quaero, Google

Microsoft's Vista will be a humongous success

You may not have expected the title to come from me, but really I wanted to state the obvious.

According to the FT, there are 8 times the number of PC's in use compared to when Windows95 was released (800 million vs 100 million). Furthermore, it has been a full 5 years since the release of Windows XP. That has to provide a pent-up demand itself. Previously, Microsoft had updates every few years, so many Windows 2000 users didn't upgrade to XP for instance, even if Windows 98 users did.

So, there is little doubt that Vista will break all records that Microsoft chooses to use to publicise its success, and we will see plenty of such mentions over the next year. And anyone fighting such statistics is basically delusional. (The only question will be whether it is "phenomenally, fantastically successful", or just "successful"; and that will depend on personal interpretation).

But Vista's release is important in many, many ways beyond just number of installations, including:
- It lets Microsoft plant a stake in the ground saying we DO understand security and we've SOLVED it - calm down. You can trust us, after all.
- In the past, you had to have strong reasons NOT to go Microsoft - you were shutting yourself from all sorts of compatibility and functionality. Nowadays, the proliferation of devices including mobiles, laptops, media extenders, and general consumer electronics, blurs the boundaries of the past. The internet and the general "connectedness" of everything means that the average user no longer HAS to go Microsoft. They increasingly have a choice again. Whether Vista is on 80%, 90% or 98% of PC's may not matter when there are many more devices than just PC's.
- It is the basis for Microsoft's one shot at dominating the living room. More than any other company, Microsoft's home strategy needs people to welcome Vista AND to actually use it the way it was intended.

Vista is MS's best shot (and a compromised, late one at that) at keeping and extending it's virtual monopoly on devices that are primarily computers. But Vista enters the market at a different time than XP. A time when a new set of competitors and new technologies have emerged. A time when we use many devices that each have a processor inside running an OS of sorts and providing various bits of functionality. A time when the OS itself no longer provides the true differentiation or, particularly of concern for Microsoft, the lock-in.

In time, Vista will be considered as the last great hurrah of the proprietary OS. There will never be a software release as significant to so many people and businesses. Even Microsoft, by all accounts, never wants something so big again. Reading some recent blog posts about how it took a team of 24 people plus managers (for a total of 43) to decide and code the Shutdown/Sleep functionality, is evidence enough that such an approach is unsustainable.

From here onwards, Microsoft's financial success will be based around how it milks it's huge (and still-growing) installed base, how it maintains the massive intertia and slows the switch away from it's dominant software, and whether it can truly make profitable it's newer initiatives. (My own views are that on 1 and 2 it will do well, and on the 3rd will continue to disappoint).

The next key battleground is in the Office software space. With Office 2007 released simultaneously with Vista, this is symbolic. Until now, anyone who wanted to co-exist in the business space would have been forced to use Microsoft Office. I know that without Office for Mac, I would not have been able to hold out on the Mac platform. The key to this was not unparalleled functionality but closed file formats. If you could not receive a Word document, edit it and send it back to be read without issue by the sender, you would be considered IT-defective. While OpenOffice has made some inroads here, and allowed Linux users some ability to co-exist, it has not been a good enough substitute for many business users for many reasons. With the Office file formats now becoming open, this barrier will now be significantly reduced - a key reason why Microsoft resisted it for so long. Between Google, OpenOffice and other similar initiatives, if the monopoly that is MS Office is broken, then that is the last key blockage towards true interoperability and collaboration across hardware and software platforms (Microsoft came close to establishing both IE and also Media Player as similar monopolies, but has probably failed to do so).

Microsoft has proven itself ruthless and astute at building monopolies and virtual monopolies, and maintaining those in the face of new competition. It has done this on the back of two dominant franchises - DOS/Windows and Office. Both were more than just compelling products - they caused problems to users who did not assimilate. That is not a way to win long-term friends and supporters. But there has been no major new technology from Microsoft that is truly outstanding and field-leading since at least XP, and possibly before that. The parallels are greatest perhaps with IBM - that indisputable champion of the late 70's and early 80's, but that remains a strong, profitable and influential company today. That is Microsoft's fate. It's timing will depend as much on it's competitors failings (e.g Sony's failure with PS3 giving XBox360 a window), as it's own management of that decline. It will no doubt have many successes in the future, but hopefully nothing that is so dominant and that results in such mediocrity from itself and the rest of the IT world hangers-on or leads to grudging acceptance from the worldwide PC userbase at large because they have no alternative.

For me personally, I expect I will buy a copy of Vista eventually to run on a Mac under Bootcamp or Parallels for the same reasons that I had an on-off relationship with VirtualPC at times. I also expect to buy Office 2008 for the Mac. But I truly expect and hope that these will be the last pieces of Microsoft software that I ever HAVE to buy.

History may well look back and see IBM as THE hardware monopoly and Microsoft as THE software monopoly. Let's hope that history doesn't write about a services monopoly, as there's only one name in the frame for that at this time.

Welcome, Vista, may the best man win (but not win big enough to be another monopoly).

Tags: Microsoft, Vista, Google, Apple