Archive

The iPod, iPhone, and iPad are unequivocally considered to be profound and world-changing technological breakthroughs that forever changed the world we live in. They sell by the millions and account for staggering quarterly revenues.

The funny thing is, none of them really sold well on the first generation. The first iPod is barely a blip on the sales radar coming in well under a quarter million units.

To proclaim understanding of such a young tablet market is a fool’s errand, but I think there are some additional considerations to be made beyond Gassée’s article where he concludes that the iPad is a tease and it cannot fulfill the duties it promised to fulfill.

To evaluate the tablet, it is worthwhile to consider smartphones. Smartphones replaced their predecessors entirely, and with ease. It wasn’t a “good enough” solution and the way we use phones didn’t have to change. Sure we got all sorts of new ways to use phones, but the same old ability to make calls and send SMS usage was fundamentally still there. All of the things people needed to do, they could do.

The only undisputed champion of interaction models/devices since the mouse is the touchscreen. No contest. The trend and industry is trying, often too hard, to push the next frontier of interacting with devices toward voice. While I think voice interaction is crucial, I don’t think it is being thought of in the right way yet.

There are inherent problems with voice. Natural language recognition isn’t perfect, and likely won’t be for a while. If the system has “keywords” you’ve failed before you shipped and the biggest concern of all is probably privacy. I’m not talking about Google or government knowing your every move type of privacy, I’m talking about old fashioned privacy. “Don’t let the guy next to me know what I’m saying to my wife” privacy. There is a reason messaging is still king (cough, WhatsApp for $19 billion). Messaging is, and will be for the foreseeable future, a major player in how we communicate. Yes people will dictate messages, but often we’re in public or a quiet place and just don’t want to share what we’re saying with everyone. Expect a piece on this soon, but let’s leave it there for now.

This piece by Yoni Heisler is the most refreshing thing I’ve read in a very long time. Do yourself a favor and go read it (and don’t miss the embedded Louis CK video - so accurate). 

Apple does one thing, and it does it very well. In Yoni’s words:

Apple may be an immensely private company, but its modus operandi is hardly a well-kept secret. The company releases finished products that it believes will fundamentally have a positive impact on the way people interact with technology, and in the process, make them truckloads of money. 

Intel has branded wireless display as WiDi, Apple has AirPlay, Google has Chromecast, and now Amazon has entered the market. The value of platform lock-in is tremendous for these companies, so the incentive to move to a more open standard isn’t very high. But how much longer can that be the case?

This isn’t comparing apples to apples, with wireless displays the control has to be tighter since only one person can have control of the screen at a time (or perhaps a small subset of people) unlike WiFi which can handle huge numbers. Yet the principle is similar. A protocol to dictate who is in control as an admin, who controls the screen, how the bit rate and quality are negotiated, and more. This protocol isn’t unlike the 802.11 protocols that dictate the security, handshaking, and data transfer for WiFi.

I joined Twitter in February of 2009, and it seemed like I was late to the party – a party I wasn’t just skipping, it was something I was actively avoiding. If you are against joining Twitter, I ask that you consider what this article has to say with an open mind and we’ll go from there.

Twitter isn’t for everyone, but it probably isn’t what you think it is either. In short, Twitter is for you if you have a hobby, interest, friends who share content, or a topic you follow or share about. Sound hyperbolic? It really isn’t.

Facebook has been making waves lately, tidal waves in fact. After $19 billion for WhatsApp and $2 billion for Oculus, some are left scratching their head and asking some very good questions. Why? How are these related?

I think the answer is simpler than many have offered. I believe it boils down to Facebook wanting to stay relevant long term, no matter what technology or platform enables it.

WhatsApp #

Messaging is a (or the?) primary means of communicating for billions of people, and Facebook Messenger was largely a flop. In a sense, messaging is the simplest highly private social network; you share very specific things with very specific people. I firmly believe that messaging with reign supreme as a top, if not the top, use of mobile phones for the foreseeable future.

Thanks to ProductHunt.co I’ve been made aware of a site that embodies the passion for incredible design. Subjective-C, a wonderful word play on the software language that iOS apps are written in – Objective-C, is a site that finds little details of apps where the designers spent a tremendous amount of time to perfect a small detail.

These types of details enhance the user experience, though many people will never even explicitly notice them. The site is new, but hopefully will grow quickly. There are many apps that deserve the recognition and designers/developers that deserve the recognition for the time and passion they spent sweating the details.

Apple has famously flown a pirate flag, dismissed conventional business practices, and run the company in nontraditional ways. It seems to be working so far. This isn’t an argument that Apple is exactly like a startup, but there are some key indicators that highlight how Apple is run differently when compared to any other multibillion dollar technology company such as Google, IBM, or Microsoft.

The $475B Startup(ish) #

Focus #

The number of technology product categories that Apple participates in in shockingly small for a company that size. It could be argued that Apple’s focus on their products has never been better. Their newer products are selling in record numbers with their older products outpacing their respective industries. This focus is far more aligned with a startup mentality - “If we can just do this one thing perfectly…” The focus is very apparent, even to a fault in some cases.

UPDATE: Updated the title to be more representative of the content of the piece, will leave the link so previous links aren’t broken.

I’ve written previously that the current television market is antiquated and that no progress on the Apple TV (whether literally a television set or just a new set top box with far advanced capabilities) can be made until that changes. I strongly believe this to be the case and, if I had to guess, is the only reason we haven’t seen a new Apple TV that goes from being “just a hobby” to another leg on the Apple product “stool”.