Not Your Father's Bubble

For several years now, a sizable portion of the technology investor and news dialogue can boil down to "There's definitely a bubble!" and "There's definitely not a bubble!"

Far be it for me to weigh in here, I'm no investor, and feel far more comfortable giving my money to Betterment (not an ad, I just really love what they do) than investing (all of it) myself. With that being said, I do think I've got enough of a hold on the technology side to participate on the periphery of the conversation.

I am NOT declaring that there isn't a bubble, let me get that out of the way right now. Startups have been getting scooped up for 100s of millions or billions of dollars for several years now, and sometimes it feels more like people with money to burn desperately trying to get their ticket on the next gravy train. Is it sustainable? Who knows. Is it reasonable or justified? I think that's a mixed bag. Since I'm not sitting on a mountain of billions, I don't think my two cents means much here though.

It seems like a continual case of, and I almost hate myself for saying it, FOMO. With how fast technology can scale right now, a hot new startup can become a behemoth of industry a hell of a lot faster than ever before. A few thousand percent return is a good incentive to write a check; I'm sure it only takes missing out on one or two Facebooks or Ubers to realize that. 

Anybody with a a few weeks to throw together an app can go from a nobody to printing tens of thousands of dollars per day, consider Flappy Bird. So while he didn't go on to get millions of VC funding to stock a $10,000/month office with $4/bottle coconut water, he probably could have. It demonstrates how these ideas are, whether by design or as a result of current VC strategy, lottery tickets for the ultra-wealthy. (Side note: this is not a statement on income inequality - no one should feel entitled to anything and should expect to work hard for everything, anything extra is a bonus, but I realize I'm fortunate to be able to hold this privileged position.)

The last dotcom burst had some startups with good ideas – grocery delivery was introduced and everyone was sure that would be the next frontier; it failed spectacularly with so many losing sums of money the rest of the world only dreams to know. Digital entertainment, music and video, were attempted and we didn't have high resolution cameras with us every second of the day with high speed internet to connect people. Others attempted digital currencies, and again fell short of realizing their dreams. TNW put together a fun list to look through of 17 failed dotcom companies and their modern counterparts.

So why, when valuations appear to be based so heavily on someone adding some zeros to their just just so they don't miss out, would there be any argument that there is not a bubble?  

To oversimplify, it is the first time in human existence that we've had this kind of reach and instantaneous market. We have over a billion potential customers throughout the world on any given platform, double that (or more) when you go cross-platform. Furthermore, the access we have isn't to a shared home computer, it is to the most personal device that this world has ever known, with the extra upside that we carry it with us at all times. The experience of ordering groceries by logging into a website, finding a store, placing an order, typing in your credit card information, and waiting, is vastly different than having your phone on you, know your location, have an app custom designed for doing exactly this, algorithmically determined options based on purchasing patterns, a near-instant Apple Pay transaction, and city infrastructure that is designed to fulfill the order. 

To be fair, the website would also be designed for this task, credit card and location information can be saved, and the hundreds of millions of dollars were being invested to overcome the last mile problems, but that difference matters. The smartphone enables speed and convenience to go from an idea to an order which ultimately provides the escape velocity for these ideas this time around. Think of Uber without the phone, think of social without a good camera and location capability, it just doesn't add up to the user experience momentum that we're currently experiencing. 

Lastly, we now have the computing power and data collection capabilities to really take this to the next level. Location awareness and a rich browsing and purchase history give retailers a much more accurate view of what we want. Retailers can now view these patterns and anticipate things then tailor our experience to drive higher sales. A lot of this existed, or technically could have existed a decade ago, but it either didn't exist or didn't exist at the "hit the ground running" scale that was required. That difference matters. All of these differences matter. They add up to, as only hindsight will be able to confirm, what appears to be the perfect storm for this to be real, and not a bubble.

I don't know if this time will crash and burn like last time, but it is plain to see that this time is different. The phone changed everything, and so it stands to reason it will be sufficient to prevent the fallout we saw in the first bubble. 

Managing Endpoints in a Connected Life

I first noticed a few years ago that as more items are getting connected, the management of that connection becomes a burden. You've got companies putting SIM cards in watches now which seems unnecessary today, but soon we'll look back at it and wonder how we ever lived without it. There are SIM cards in phones of course, but also tablets, cars, home security systems, and more.

Do you manage each of these individually with their own account? Maybe, but probably not. It's a bit scary to think that if the devices are all on one account, a hacker could obtain power over all of the accounts that connect and secure your entire life; but realistically this is only one entry on a long list of horrible things that could happen if you don't take security seriously.

Unfortunately, the billing methods haven't really caught up to our demands on the carriers. For example, I want a SIM card in my iPad for travel, but I don't travel often so I don't enable it most of the time. If I put the iPad on my Verizon account with my phone, I share my phone's data and I have to pay $10/month for something I rarely use. As a result, I have a separate account for my iPad. Then you've got family sharing issues where there's a single primary account holder, how would one of their children add a device to that plan without being a burden on the parent? They can get authorized on the account, but even then the power is limited.

The solution isn't crystal clear yet. Though eventually carriers will have to take a big step forward with much more clear online accounts with easy permission controls so that each user can add/remove devices at-will. The billing needs to support flexibility and non-permanent device additions – even though the carriers have a large vested interest in you adding your iPad to the account then never using the data plan on it.

Another option is for each endpoint to be it's own account with the carrier and carrier billing being invisible to the user. For example, imagine a next generation Nest thermostat with a SIM built in (to guarantee remote control capability in either a vacation home with no wifi or when wifi is down at home). Perhaps I can just pay Nest $25/year for that capability (it is a negligible volume of data, after all). They handle the carriers on their end and the user doesn't have to worry about it.

This is only going to get worse in the short term, and I don't think the carriers are properly motivated to really solve it. People are complacent by their nature, so if you can lure them in, the odds of them ever proactively seeking change is shockingly low.

Next of Kin in the Digital World

There are few things more challenging for a family than losing a loved one. Historically, that person's digital existence was of lower importance relative to everything else going on during the painful transition. However, as more vital processes move online, the problem of a next of kin in the digital world will need a cleaner solution.

Right now, your best bet is to use a password manager and make sure your partner or chosen family member/friend has the master password. This isn't the worst choice, but most people don't even do this much. Furthermore, it does nothing to address the wishes of the deceased. Do they want accounts deleted? Ignored? Made into memorials?

A more thorough thought experiment would be required to design a complete solution, but this is touchy territory. Aside from the dark nature of the topic, there is risk in any single company's solution here. If someone provides a "take care of your digital existence" solution, what happens when they don't get that last payment? What happens if they go out of business? That risk holds true any time, but when the originator of the request for services is no longer available, it passes the burden to someone who might not be equipped to handle it or fully understand the nature of the situation.

An open standard might be the solution here. On top of the standard private companies and services can and should be built, but this would allow you to not get totally locked into a single service for example. Companies could try their various sales models, "free", cheap but minimal, expensive and full featured, subscription, etc.

It's an interesting discussion to have and I suspect will eventually be a thriving industry. Only time will tell how this problem is solved and what services flourish to meet the needs.

Look to the Wealthy People, But Not For the Reasons You Think

Wealth is frequently mistaken for success because they often go hand-in-hand. So when I say "look to the wealthy people" I am not giving life advice on attaining success. I simply mean to look at the wealthy people in the world today and consider the fundamental advantages they have. If you're able to distill these advantages and learn how to streamline them and decrease cost with technology, you might want to start picking stitching for the leather on your yacht. Still not following? 

Since hindsight is 20/20 let's take a look backward in time and extrapolate. 

Not long ago only wealthy people had phones in their cars, they were available around the clock and could get business done while on the move. Now you and a few billion of your closest friends have a super computer while you're in the bathroom. Similarly, only a few years ago, having a luxury sedan at your beck and call 24/7 was only for those who wouldn't waste time to pick up a $100 bill if they dropped it. Now we've got Uber and Lyft in most metropolitan areas on the planet.

You can pick any two points in history and be able to find this pattern emerge. Cars, trains, huge televisions, medical care, air conditioning... the list goes on. Yesterday's unattainable comforts are tomorrow's standard for living.

Smart homes are exciting, but I think there's a bigger one looming in our not-too-distant future. What does every wealthy person have instantly available to them around the clock to take care of anything they need, yet the average person couldn't hope to afford? An assistant. The biggest gain to be realized in a successful instance of this pattern emerging is when technology can scale for next to nothing and replace an otherwise costly human resource. 

Interestingly, the biggest problem with this breakthrough might not actually be the technology. I suspect it will be the public perception and acceptance of this technology. An assistant knows every detail of their boss's life. They know their most personal information, they know intimate things, they know where they are the vast majority of the time. Most crucially, a good assistant can piece all of this together and make logical inferences to anticipate the needs of their boss. Therein lies the power of the dedicated assistant.

When this assistant is a person, there is an opportunity to develop a trusting relationship. There is accountability. If something is leaked, you've got a human being to point the finger at and that human being will take responsibility. This doesn't transfer well to the digital realm. When a leak takes place some executive might get fired, but that doesn't repair the personal damage done. You can't easily develop a trusting relationship; instead to fully realize a digital assistant you will need to to relinquish your most intimate information while accepting the associated risk.

Taking this leap will not be easy, and there will be many people who refuse to do it. There are still people who disable location services on their iPhones so they can't realize the immense power in maps or any number of the thousands of location based services.

There will be several options when it comes to how this sensitive information is handed over. This discussion is too nuanced to cover here, but the over-simplified version is that you will have the Apple version where you pay for the service directly or through "costly" hardware, then you'll have the Google version where the services are "free" and the ways in which your data will be used for Google's profit will be detailed in legalese on page 182 of the Terms of Service that we each read so thoroughly. Neither one is right, neither one is wrong, but a choice will have to be made if you decide to opt in at all.

I know three things for certain: 

  1. I will be opting in.
  2. I will be willing to pay a modest price for a service I consider worthwhile.
  3. If the depiction of wealthy people in movies is a preview of where we're headed, then I am particularly excited having seen the Iron Man movies.

A Few Thoughts On Jony Ive's Promotion to CDO

I want to preface this that I hold Jony Ive in the highest regard and his work is what gave me an appreciation for beautiful things. These are just a few "what if's" and thoughts that went through my mind on the news of Jony Ive being promoted from Senior Vice President of Design to the extraordinarily rare (for Apple) C-level Chief Design Officer.

Work and Family

I don't know Jony or his family, but if there is any family pressure to return to the U.K. then he is in a really tough position. The number of people that count on him, the number of people that directly benefit from his work, and the overall impact he has is profound. How do you balance that with a family who (hypothetically) want's to move? Of course, this "move to the U.K." is all rumor at this point. If the world is lucky, it is nothing more. 

I believe it is right to pick your family over your work, but as a beneficiary of his work, I can say I will be deeply saddened when he leaves Apple.

On Replacing Jony

You can't replace Jony Ive. Just like you couldn't replace Steve Jobs. When Steve passed there were two strong rails for the Apple train to run on: the culture at the core of everything Apple does, and Jony Ive. That is how it looks from the outside, of course I don't actually know. So what happens when Jony leaves? Without Jony or Steve I think the culture will remain on autopilot for a while. It's tough to say if that will be a year or twenty years, but I think somewhere in the 3-5 year area with no un-Jony product changes is a very safe bet.

Over time culture adapts. The culture of Apple is even to adapt at its own short term expense (think iPhone cannibalizing the iPod). Inevitably the nuanced impact that both Steve and Jony have in the seemingly irrelevant details will fade. I suspect this will lead to changes in directions akin to going from skeuomorphic to flat design, and that is a good thing, this evolution is necessary.

Let's hope the rumors are wrong so that we can be selfish and bask in the benefits of a Jony Ive designed life for at least a little bit longer.


Again, this promotion could very likely have nothing to do with him leaving any time soon, but when the notion was brought up I couldn't help but consider it. I am eternally grateful for the work Jony has done and wish him nothing but happiness, whatever that means for him. 

Android vs. iOS: Revenue Per User Won't Catch Up and That's Okay

The metric of choice for comparing iOS to Android is average revenue per user, or ARPU (spoken phonetically exactly as you'd guess). This is fine, it is certainly technically accurate, but it isn't exactly relevant for most of the discussions where it is used as ammo. It's like comparing the average revenue per user of all car buyers vs. only Ferrari* buyers – it tells you what you already know.

Notice how I didn't say Hyundai vs. Ferrari, that would be a hyperbolic falsity, I specifically said all cars because that's much more aligned with the reality of Android. You need to understand the Android spectrum to fully appreciate the volume, human impact, and glory of what they've pulled off.

This graphic shows the ARPU comparison between the platforms, it is interesting data, but remember to keep perspective on the topic (source article).

Android vs. iOS ARPU vs Deepak Abbot on Medium

Now some considerations and perspective:

  • Note the ARPU difference and relationship in app sales vs. ad revenue. 
  • Android has been installed on a lot more phones than iOS. I am basing this on data that is getting old, but I don't think enough has changed to change the blunt fact that Android dominates on pure install base – Android had (Q4 2013) 78% market share to iOS's 18% worldwide. The data above shows a 74/26 split purely between these two platforms. Before you get angry at the mention of install base metrics...
  • Install base doesn't mean much of anything for any discussion aside from install base discussions.
  • There are many millions of Android device owners that don't own a computer or have another source of Internet in the home, the phone is their first and only computer and their connection to the web.
  • There are Android users who don't have running water, plumbing, or electricity at home. Communities have communal charging stations on the side of the road. Benedict Evans does a great job of tracking and tweeting (or retweeting) data and anecdotes about this. Can you imagine walking a day or more just to charge your phone?
  • Android devices are connecting people from the third world to services and communities that allow them to catapult their communications capabilities forward by decades.

There isn't one smartphone market. You can make it look like a single market on paper, but the reality is there are several markets. I would love to see data on premium device ARPU broken out by region, this would be a more valid comparison to make. There are hundreds of millions of Android devices that are in the same premium segment as iPhones, and there are old hand-me-down iPhones that are in a similar segment to lower end Android (though I don't believe even the bottom of the iPhone spectrum reaches the price points/capability of the low end Android phones). These devices have changed the world overnight unlike anything most of us have ever seen.

Next time you pull out your device of choice and think that you can't live without it, remember that there are millions of people for whom their smartphone is fundamentally changing the entire trajectory of their family's livelihood. Apple and Google have enabled extraordinary things with their platforms and there is no question about our love for and dependence upon our phones. However to compare the two platforms outright as one market is a fool's errand without maintaining perspective on the extraordinary differences between what the platforms (or even subsets of each platform) enable.

*I picked Ferrari because I originally picked Audi and then started questioning whether the revenue from super cars would actually be enough to offset the lower end cars and render my analogy dead in the water. Rather than picking Audi and doing the math, I went with a car I knew would represent a huge ARPU that the car industry as a whole couldn't touch.

Two Factor Authentication Matters - iMore's Guide to 2FA

I am a firm believer in two factor authentication; I can't imagine a better way to keep yourself secure than enabling 2FA on any service that supports it. Contrary to popular belief, there is minimal inconvenience. For any site or service that you care about, the benefits outweigh the cost by several orders of magnitude.

It's worth taking a look at who all supports it and noticing the pattern that that so many "old dogs" (companies that are huge and have been around for a long time) don't support it, but newer companies do. This shouldn't come as a surprise, but might help you decide who gets your business.

The Safe Mac

If you use iOS or OS X and missed the Mac Power Users podcast this week with Joe Caiati, I highly recommend checking it out. One highlight for me (as the default tech support for a growing circle of people) was the mention of The Safe Mac. The website is "retro" (to put it nicely), but the adware removal tool is top notch – and free (donations recommended). 

It is worth checking out as an option for your loved ones who find themselves installing Flash from some bogus website (something that's shockingly easy to do).

Twitter's New User Problem

Twitter's growth numbers have been a disappointment among investors and a large group of the company's enthusiasts. On one hand, having hundreds of millions of users is an incredible accomplishment. On the other hand, they are having tremendous difficulty bringing new users onto the service and keeping them there, especially for a company whose brand recognition is off the charts.

There are a handful of fundamental issues with both the perception of the service and the new user experience that will prevent this reality from changing. Make no mistake, I am bullish on Twitter and wouldn't think twice about declaring it my favorite thing on the internet, but these roadblocks must be overcome to see any meaningful change. Twitter has the potential to be the central hub for how people experience the digital world around them. It is social, it is news, it is entertainment, it is educational, it is anything and everything you want it to be. So why aren't more people signing up and sticking with the service if it is so versatile and powerful?

The Public (Mis)Perception of Twitter

Twitter has completely lost control over the perception non-users have of the service. People see hash tags on TV shows, periodic mentions of the company on the evening news, and sometimes a scandal or two. To someone who doesn't actively use Twitter, they can't even define what it is for or why they should use it. I frequently ask non-users why they aren't on Twitter and the response is always (I literally mean 100%) some version of, "What would I use it for?"

It is difficult to portray your company clearly when it is so many different things to so many different people. A cohesive message about the service they provide will either only apply to a subset of users, or it will be so miserably vague you will end up with something like Twitter's official Strategy Statement. Even asking the most enthusiastic users what Twitter is doesn't consistently yield a reply that inspires people to sign up. You can describe it as I did earlier, "It can be anything you want it to be," and scare them away because it sounds overwhelming. You can describe it with specific examples that are in line with the inquirer's interests or career and you might have more luck, but then you have to tailor an answer to every person and you will give them a skewed perception of what Twitter actually is. You can say, "Let me show you!" and quickly learn that your Twitter feed is probably only interesting to you while you overwhelm them rapidly navigating the lingo and stream. 

I don't pretend to have the solution to this problem, but I can say with confidence that there is tremendous power in giving potential users the perception of your company that you want them to have. Consider the Apple Watch event where the most common criticism is their lack of their famous "why you need this product" speech that has so famously been an integral piece of all new product releases from modern Apple. 

When users don't understand the need for what you are offering, you're going to have a very tough time getting them to spend time, money, or effort on your product. Twitter is overwhelming, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Perhaps by fixing the daunting onboarding process Twitter can gradually change the public perception by converting the uninformed into enthusiastic users.

Twitter's New User Experience

Along with the breadth of possibility comes the abundance of complexity and ample confusion. If you can get people to sign up, which is a big if, they now have to navigate turbulent water as they build their network. Start with a few friends, maybe a favorite TV show or sports team, sprinkle in a couple of hobbies, and they've at least got something to look at.

Let's be honest though, the official Google account isn't the interesting source on Twitter for all things Google. Likewise official sports team accounts are usually boring and generic. Products, services, or TV show accounts just spam you with promotions and prompts to retweet content and spread the word. This isn't what makes Twitter great, not by a long shot.

There needs to be a smarter, simpler, and much faster way to show a new user valuable content that they care about. It seems safe to assume that most people who don't use Twitter today would sign up with skepticism, if they signed up at all. This means that every moment matters, every fraction of a second works against you if you aren't providing value. This is the new user experience, and right now Twitter is failing in a big way. 

There is an opportunity to automate this initial experience by leveraging one of the largest data sets in the world to algorithmically determine what a user might be interested in. With some kind of seed to the profiling algorithm Twitter can present the user with high-level topics; then as selections are made, narrow the focus slightly. From here, you give the user a sense of the tweet volume and allow for adjustment via a slider or perhaps even automatically. Based on the frequency the user launches the app, what they do in the app, and how they have it open, you tailor the content in the stream to appeal to them. Very quickly, assuming subtle UI hints (not tutorials) show the user how, the user will hide the auto-followed accounts if they don't like them and start following accounts they do like – both of which improve the algorithm. Depending how good it is, you could even omit the tweet volume slider to simplify the process, just present great tweets on a valuable topic. If you're providing tangible value to the user, they will want to curate a list of people to follow, they will want to spend time on the service getting more value, and they will want to spread the word.

The fundamental point is that in less than 30 to 60 seconds, the user needs to be immersed in Twitter, and not just the app, but a version of Twitter that is valuable to that individual user. The friction experienced between launching the app and gaining value from it will overwhelmingly determine whether this person will remain a user. With every tiny hiccup, extraneous question, or mundane tap the user has to indulge for the sake of Twitter rather than themselves, the less likely they are to stick.

I mentioned it briefly above, but there will need to be some kind of seed for this algorithm. It doesn't seem likely that you can safely rely on people linking their Facebook profile, and even if they do link it, most people use Twitter so fundamentally differently that you don't want to scare them into thinking this is just a weird version of Facebook. You could ask for access to their contacts and seed it with their friends and who their friends follow, but that isn't a golden ticket either, not to mention the growing disdain for allowing access to your contacts within apps. This strikes me as the hardest problem to solve without having the user fill out some type of survey of their interests, which not only takes time and effort for no immediate apparent value, it's just a generally terrible first launch experience.

Maybe there is some solution in the huge pile of data Twitter has for this, or maybe not, but even a slightly uglier sign up process that generates a meaningful stream of content is better than the new user experience today. There are services like WeFollow and Twtrland that can help you to find people to follow based on search terms, but the average user won't invest this much in building a follow list until they've uncovered the value they get from their effort, if they ever do.

[UPDATE: Twitter has improved this process over the last year or so, but it still feels generic. I am pleased to see a very brief survey of the user's interests yield some suggestions that extended beyond the boring major brand accounts. Unfortunately, at no point during the signup process do they attempt to give the user any kind of idea what Twitter can be to them; nor is there any automated way to refine the list of who a user follows based on their activity. This is definitely a step in the right direction, but not enough to change the minds of people who have previously written off the idea of using the service.]

Now What?

Experienced users have a list of complaints and requests about the service too, many of which I would agree with. However, the public perception of Twitter and the onboarding problem strike me as two major flaws that most directly impact the growth outlook for Twitter. 

Clearly this isn't a simple solution, or Twitter would have done it already. However, there are very basic and obvious roadblocks for the new user experience that prevent Twitter from growing like investors want and enthusiasts imagine. Twitter is one of the greatest services and inventions in recent history, but they're far from realizing their full potential. The overwhelmingly emphatic supporters of Twitter, like myself, are large in number and I believe highly justified in their beliefs, but we seem to be running up against the limit of how widespread the service can get without addressing these basic concerns.

Messaging: Speed or Consistency, Not Both

Messaging is king, especially text-based messaging. Voice is fine, video has its place too, but there is nothing today that can replace the rapid and highly private aspects of text-based messaging – no headphones required. Given this, it is no surprise that iMessage has been a hit, but other cross-platform apps have been even bigger hits (judging by user count). WhatsApp, Telegram, Hangouts, and others are all trying to be the go-to app for messaging.

This isn't a roundup or definitive review. I want to address the (admittedly first world) problem of getting speed or consistency, but never both. What do I mean by that? Let's take iMessage and compare it to Hangouts for the demonstration, but "Hangouts" could just as easily be replaced with WhatsApp or others.

iMessage – Brilliant but Inconsistent

When you open iMessage you immediately get your conversation content because it is stored right there on the device. There is no permanent copy on the cloud (details here). Messages are delivered securely to a device and that's the end of it. The result is a lighting fast feel and a negligible launch time, it doesn't even have to ping a server until you send/receive a message or compose a new one (it checks if they're an iMessage user).

Unfortunately, with iMessage you also get inconsistency if you have more than one device with iMessage activated for the account. When my wife sends me a message and she sees it gets "Delivered" she has no idea which of my devices actually got it. You would hope they all did, but that isn't always the case. Technically each iMessage results in the server having N secure and isolated copies where N is the number of devices on your account. Each copy is treated independently and is only removed after it has been confirmed as delivered or it reaches the 7 day expiration. Although this is how it supposedly works, in practice there must be some logic that only confirms a message was delivered to a device and after a certain (very short) period of time it treats all N copies as delivered. Far too many times have I come back to my iPad after a day of missing iMessages on my phone only to find them on my iPad for my assumption to be patently false.

I will stop here and say iMessage usually handles this correctly (far better than it used to), but not always, and not everyone's experience is as good as mine. Messages showing up out of order or some messages never showing up at all are all common problems if you've got more than one device connected to an iMessage account.

Hangouts – Slow and Steady

Hangouts, on the other hand, never shows messages out of order (or effectively never) and they always show up. Sure you might not get a push notification, but if you open the app they will be there. The main reason behind this is that the master copy of a conversation is on the server, not the device. So if you never get a push notification for a message (which is annoying) the server likely thought you read that message on another device already. This model of having the server as the master means that every time you launch the app it has to ping the server and download updates. Even if you got a push alert with a message, when you launch the app it still pings the server and re-downloads that content that it just showed you in the alert. In iOS you can have a push notification trigger a background download of the message content, but Hangouts doesn't take advantage of this, much to my discontent.

It seems small, perhaps even insignificant, but given with text-based messaging I want to be in and out as fast as my fingers can tap. I will often go in and out of conversations many times in a single minute. Hangouts, despite only requiring a few seconds of my time, feels unusable as an iMessage replacement because of the lag. WhatsApp has similar launch lag and every new message has to be downloaded when the app launches instead of being ready for me when I open the app, unlike iMessage.

Note: I know this launch and usage experience is different on Android, it is far less of an issue there. I still believe iMessage to be a superior experience within the limits it imposes, but it is worth pointing out that these shortcomings are based on the iOS app.

Solving the Problem

There is a level of complexity to this problem, as simple as it may sound. You don't want to push alerts to 3 devices for every single message if a user is carrying the conversation on one of them. At the same time you don't want to miss message delivery entirely. None of this even matters if the user experience isn't good enough for the messaging app in question to gain the necessary popularity.

How do you solve it? Keep a master copy on a server? Have a "primary" device option? Have behind-the-scenes read receipts? 

I think a combination of fail-safes built on top of the current iMessage strategy is likely he way to go. Avoiding the server-as-the-master solution is the only way to get a truly fast experience. If there were logic to actually check for per-device delivery as well as read receipts  for the server (without having to turn on actual read receipts), most of the issues seen with iMessage today would likely be avoided. It would also make sense to have a primary device either automatically determined based on usage or manually configurable. This could mean that with 100% certainty a single device would always get every message no matter what. There are issues with that device not being connected, but there are solutions beyond the scope of this piece.


Text-based messaging is private, convenient, and fast. The private nature makes it intimate and on a personal level makes us trust it and love it in many cases. It is fast, it is reliable (mostly), and it is simple. Anyone can do it regardless of their device or platform; and while we're seeing the proliferation of apps and methods, it has never been more convenient to use text-based messaging to communicate. I believe that the speed and reliability of the experience are key which is why I vastly prefer iMessage to alternatives, the above average level of security helps too. With that being said, I think iMessage has a long way to go for me not to caveat my otherwise emphatic endorsement of it.

Drones: Some Quick Thoughts

There has been no shortage of coverage on drones lately, especially around the holidays when the cheap ones were selling fairly well as toys. I think the industry leaders have a very different view of why drone technology matters, or at least I suspect they do, because there is a drone revolution closer than many people think. The biggest hurdle in the United States is the FAA, but that's outside the scope of this piece.

So what do I mean by a revolution? Much of the common hype is largely misaligned with where the large scale profit opportunities are because the mass market messaging is most easily conveyed when they speak the consumer's language. The message, "a toy your kid can play with" hits home for nearly everyone. The more profound opportunities are the infrastructure applications where something like Amazon's drone delivery service research announcement is only the beginning.

One of the trends we're staring to see, most readily portrayed by the Internet of Things, is the attempt to close the gap between the digital world and the physical world. Drones could help play a large role in this transformation. Drones are highly mobile, they're capable of executing tasks, they are filled with sensors (including cameras), and (of course) they're connected.

This means that we can "be somewhere" without being there and without anyone having ever been there for that matter. Drones allow real time information to be easily transmitted – imagine a group of smart drones that using traffic analysis go to points of congestion and and provide live feeds. One effect is that we no longer need traffic helicopters, but the more interesting options include more advanced rerouting options, entire traffic light grids that re-calibrate to alleviate congestion and learn, better snow plow routes, and of course better criminal tracking capability.

I wouldn't expect most homes to own their own drones, though they might, but I would expect them to use drone based services. Whether that's drone delivery, "eyes in the sky" capability, home or business security, or even seeing how bad the line is at the Apple Store after a new iPhone launches, there will be entire industries that pop up around the shared drone capability model.

All of this discussion is based on our mindset today. People used to say "Who needs a phone with them all of the time?" and now most of us can't imagine life without the supercomputer in our pocket. We're at the early "no idea what is going to hit us" phase of the drone industry lifecycle, this is the beginning of the beginning. Don't be the person everyone is quoting in a decade like Ballmer is with the iPhone saying it had "no chance" of gaining substantial marketshare.

The FAA would be foolish to stand in the way. I know there are problems related to safety, congestion, privacy, ownership and responsibility for accidents, and more. It isn't a simple problem to solve, but it will be solved, and it will be a tremendous commercial success – I can't imagine an America where we bypass that opportunity.

From Back Page to Dock – The Ultimate App Promotion

A few records have been broken today thanks to a little app called Acompli. That's right, the app that Microsoft accidentally leaked their intent to purchase this week. So what do I mean by records?

  • The first time I've promoted an app from the back page to my dock.
  • The first time I'm strongly considering replacing the native iOS email client entirely.
  • The first email client I've ever opened and been unable to find any glaring shortcomings.

I am picky with my email clients. I was not a fan of Google's new Inbox and it only took me about half a day to download, adopt, then delete Dropbox's Mailbox. Email doesn't have to be terrible, and as surprising as many "power users" find it, I found the native iOS email client to be a top tier solution for my phone.

There are several reasons for this:

  • Unified inbox (if you want, I do)
  • Actionable notifications
  • System integration
  • Keeps Safari as the browser
  • Basic swipe gestures that make sense
  • No frills, feature complete
  • Ultra-responsive – I don't want to be waiting for a webpage to load to see my inbox

So here are some quick thoughts on why Acompli is likely to remain in my dock (note the overlap on the first 6 bullets with the list above).

  • Unified inbox (if you want, I do)
  • Actionable notifications
  • Keeps Safari as the browser by default, but is configurable
  • Basic swipe gestures that make sense
  • Feature complete, including excellent calendar integration
  • Responsive – not quite as responsive as the iOS email client, but almost indistinguishably slower
  • Push for Gmail – ever since Google stopped supporting Exchange I'd managed to remain lucky and keep my push Gmail, until recently. I've been heartbroken by this loss. Not just for the push email but also...
  • Calendar event RSVP support – When your Google Calendar is a CalDAV account on your iPhone, invites don't show in the "Inbox" of your calendar, so RSVPing (which can't be done from the iOS email client) is a huge pain in the ass. This was never the case when we had Exchange for Gmail.
  • Featured Inbox – I remain skeptical as I generally prefer a single inbox with everything in it from all accounts... however so far the algorithm to determine what is featured and what is "other" is quite good. I like that these are both unified across accounts, so I have a single featured inbox and a single other inbox. Plus, if I decide I don't like it, I can turn it off.
  • Email creation is a breeze and allows you to attach anything or create an invite from within an already-composed draft.
  • Attachment support is extensive and powerful, though admittedly this is somewhat rarely a requirement for me.
  • Scheduling – Boomerang/Inbox-like message scheduling is crucial to effective email management and attaining inbox zero without overlooking commitments or missing messages.
  • There is a search bar to quickly find folders/labels when moving messages, it is fast and works very well. If you've got a lot of labels or folders you know what a pain it can be scrolling through them to find the right one.

The only primary drawback so far is logging into some of my most critical accounts (email, cloud storage) within a third party app. As you would expect, the list of permissions you grant the app can be daunting. If Microsoft acquires them, it'll bolster my faith in their commitment to security.

Frankly, I'm still in shock. There has never been an email client that has even come close to replacing the iOS client. The most highly regarded apps, the most praised apps, the most downloaded apps... none even came close. Until Acompli.

After starting on the back page, Acompli has received the ultimate promotion and will remain in my dock until further notice. I'd like to extend my sincere thanks and congratulations to the folks at Acompli on an extraordinary app!

[Update] - The acquisition is now official. I am curious to see what happens regarding the future of the Acompli app. Will features be rolled into Outlook then the app retired? As long as they support the base of email services that they currently support, that might not be a terrible outcome. Microsoft has stated:

We’re excited about what’s possible as we build on the app’s success and bring it together with work currently in progress by the Outlook team. Our goal is to deliver fantastic cross-platform apps that support the variety of email services people use today and help them accomplish more.

Either way, a huge congrats to Javier and the team on a well deserved victory!