![In Defense of Root [Android]](http://tbottle.com/tb/wp-content/themes/suffusion/timthumb.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Ftbottle.com%2Ftb%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2Froot-150x150.gif&w=80&h=80&zc=1&quality=75&type=m)
![Droid 2 Specs Confirmed [Android/Verizon]](http://tbottle.com/tb/wp-content/themes/suffusion/timthumb.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Ftbottle.com%2Ftb%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F11%2Fandroid-300x300.gif&w=80&h=80&zc=1&quality=75&type=m)
When I started this blog in November 2009, I wrote a post entitled, “Dear Google, Please Allow Users to Merge Accounts or Build Account Switching into Chrome.” Well, chances are good that nobody read it because the blog was new. However, it appears that others had similar wishes. Google is now testing a system that allows users to log in to more than Google Account without running two different browsers (or an Incognito window in Chrome), according to Google Operating System blog. This is a simple solution to a problem that has been bothering me for a long time. I user various Google services on two different Google accounts. Some of the services can be used by both (e.g., calendar) but others cannot (e.g., Gmail and Adsense). Logging in and out of accounts is time consuming and aggravating. Hopefully this feature rolls out to everyone soon. “Dear Google, Thanks in Advance.”
You may have noticed that I have been blogging less often. Before I was averaging around two posts a day and now I’m down to a few per week. (During this slow down, page views and unique visitors have held steady. Thank you, Google.) The topic I covered the most frequently was mobile devices (mostly smartphones) and that will continue. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to cover mobile devices for a few reasons:
- Information overload makes blogging phones difficult. It seems like a new phone is announced or leaked almost every few days. Virtually every major tech blog now covers mobile devices heavily. Bloggers who rely on reading other blogs for post ideas need to sift through thousands of posts a day to stay on top of the latest developments. If you have interests in other topics too, you can expect thousands of additional posts to show up in your RSS reader. Unless you blog full time, it is difficult to stay abreast of current topics.
- The mobile device blogging space is becoming increasingly saturated; is it possible to have a unique view of the iPhone 4 reception problems? I suppose but it’s unlikely. Is it worthwhile to write the 1,001st post about the HTC Evo 4G’s battery life? Hell, there’s probably an entire blog or two dedicated to the HTC Evo 4G’s battery life.
- Products are less differentiated because Android is spreading like wildfire. Let’s face it, comparing an Android 2.1 to an Android 2.1 isn’t the most exciting thing in the world. If they’re running the same OS, then the phones will produce a somewhat similar experience. Sure, processing power, camera quality and other factors matter but high-end mobile devices seem to have much more in common than in the past. Frankly, it is difficult to remain interested in comparing somewhat similar devices, e.g., a Droid 2 and a Samsung Galaxy S Pro. Maybe Blackberry OS 6.0 will shake things up a bit but I see it more of a copycat OS than something revolutionary.
- The “leaked” photos scene is the modus operandi of the industry. Almost every major manufacturer and carrier seems to intentionally leak photos and specs far in advance of launch. (One notable exception is Apple.) This is becoming increasingly transparent and Jonathan Geller (a/k/a Boy Genius) estimated that 70% of leaks are planned. So, if you want to be in the inner circle of reporting phone leaks, then you need to cozy up to device manufacturers and carriers like Geller. Bottom line: you’re not going to get your hands on a Droid X before Engadget. Of course, you can go the remaining 30% route and hang out in German beer gardens located near Cupertino, CA hoping for the next Apple slip-up.
These are just some of the reasons why I’ve been blogging less. Other reasons include being busier with other activities and shifting my blogging to Buzz ratio in favor of Buzz.
I probably bit off more than I could chew when I launched this blog in November. The idea was to write about anything tech that interests me. By doing so, I have become interested in more and more tech topics. Going forward, I expect to continue at my current blogging pace but to try to come up with unique posts and share more personal opinions (instead of regurgitating a bunch of leaked photos and planted rumors). I’m my own editor and can shift the direction of the blog at any time without running the decision up a flagpole. That’s one of the things I like best about blogging.
By now, you’ve probably seen that unlimited data plans on U.S. carriers are about to go the way of the dinosaur. Recently, Verizon’s CFO confirmed the inevitable:
We will probably need to change the design of our pricing where it will not be totally unlimited, flat rate.
This spawned a flurry of blog posts and struck fear in the hearts of smartphone users across the country. However, a piece in FastCompany takes a different view. Should someone who uses data casually be required to “buy” as much data as someone who streams movies all day and all night? That’s what flat rate data plans do. Presumably tiering data plans can result in fairer apportionment of the fees the carriers collect.
Dan Nosowitz, author of the article, points out that AT&T and other carriers are trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to tier data plans which suggests that you pay for what you use, in a general sense. However, if you decide to use the same amount of data but divide it among multiple devices (i.e., tether your computer to your smartphone), you’re hit with additional fees. It is difficult to justify these tethering fees because tethering itself does not drive up the carrier’s expense.
I really like the FastCompany article but it misses one critical component. Consumers who want to stay in the lower data tiers can rely on Wifi signals to install apps and download massive files. Many home internet providers do not cap bandwidth and public Wifi is becoming widespread.
I tossed a picture of Sprint’s HTC Evo 4G at the top of this post for a reason. Sprint has a $10/mo. data surcharge (on top of the standard data charge) for the Evo. It was assumed that this charge related to the use of the 4G WiMax network. However, Evo owners who live nowhere near a 4G lit area are required to pay the surcharge. Official word eventually came out of Sprint that, basically, the Evo is so cool that Evo owners are more likely to use more data than other Sprint smartphone customers, even on a 3G network. In other words, Sprint is already trying to tier its data without officially saying so.
I wonder if people who have recently signed up for or renewed unlimited data contracts will be offered incentives to dump their existing contracts for tiered data plans. Early equipment upgrades? My pure guess is that we won’t see that but it’s an interesting possibility.
CNet is reporting that Google’s Music service could launch this Fall. This comes just days after TechCrunch reported that URL manipulation revealed that the service will be called… I’ll give you three guesses… “Google Music.”
In my 2009 year end post on this blog, I cited several ways Google and Apple would lock horns in 2010. I understated the music battle that was brewing but I wrote:
This is a relatively minor attack but Google now streams music through its web interface. If you Google for an artist, some songs will appear and you can stream them in their entirety. In some cases, you can purchase the tunes as MP3s through the providers of the streams. I speculate that Google is merely dipping its toes in the water at this point but you can expect a full blown music search and billboard rankings in the not-so-distant future.
The Fall launch of Google Music rumor almost certainly has to be true. Why? Because Google Chrome OS, which launches this Fall lacks the ability to install software and cannot, by itself, play MP3s. Current rumors suggest that the music service will support cloud-hosting and music purchases. This is somewhat similar to GrooveShark or the service formerly known as Lala that was acquired by Apple and hasn’t been relaunched yet.
I expect that Google Music will be tied tightly into the Google ecosystem. Perhaps it will be intertwined with YouTube, Buzz, Orkut and other social aspects of Google.
One of the best sources for rumors about upcoming phones is The Boy Genius Report. Boy Genius and his team of bloggers seem to get their hands and cameras on everything mobile first, long before traditional media does. The shroud of secrecy surrounding the person behind the blog was lifted in late April when the blog was sold for millions of dollars. Boy Genius himself is named Jonathan Geller and he’s 23 years old, reported the L.A. Times. Now, who cares, really? Well, the Geller was a pioneer and the BGR model is replicated across the blogosphere.
In my opinion, the most interesting part of the L.A. Times piece is the following:
Geller and his team of three bloggers have been credited with contributing to a major change in how the digital hardware business handles product leaks and marketing. Four years ago, it was an industry of secrecy, with prototypes closely guarded from competitors. Now, Geller estimates that 70% of leaks are planned — because he’s been on the disseminating end of many.
BGR succeeded and sold for millions because it had a unique product to offer. Geller had mysterious access to mobile phone trade secrets in an era when other bloggers and reporters didn’t. Perhaps he sold the blog at the right time because the underground media campaigns with planned leaks made the product he offered more commonplace. Now, we see mobile phone leaks originating on several dozen blogs. BGR, although still a terrific source for this information, isn’t always the first any more.
I’m curious if a bunch of MBAs have decided that the underground campaign produces the largest bang for the buck. Surely, the campaigns are not very expensive. A blurry photograph goes a long way. Look at all the Motorola leaks over the past couple of weeks… Droid 2, Xtreme, etc.
However, I was wondering why more formal announcements about upcoming products aren’t made more often. How difficult would it be for RIM to issue a press release with screenshots of OS 6.0 instead of pushing a couple shots to BGR? In this regard, Apple seems to stand out from the crowd. Other than a mistake by an employee at a bar, Apple rumors tend to be minor and never appear to be planned leaks. Instead, Apple announces big news at big events. At this point, I’m just thinking and typing out loud but maybe the Apple model is a better model. Information that spreads tends to be official word from the company and it’s reliable.
Some notable blogs are setting up a false dichotomy between “social” and “search” for finding and consuming information. They suggest that Facebook is the “social” alternative to Google’s “search.” This is fundamentally wrong, I argue below. Instead, what we have is a war between two “platforms” neither one of which really fits purely into one of those categories. Both want to attract your eyeballs to their advertisements.
What is Google?
It’s a conduit through which advertisers reach people who have shared their personal preferences with Google. While Google was initially purely a search engine, that is no longer true today. As I wrote yesterday, Google wants to know everything it can about each and every person. Reiterating yesterday’s musings:
Whom do you phone? Google Voice.
To whom do you write? Gmail, Google Wave and Google Buzz.
What do you buy? Google Checkout and Google Product Search.
What do you watch on television? Google TV, which is anticipated to launch with Sony next month.
What do you read? Google Reader and Google Scholar, despite some bumps in the road.
Where do you eat? Google Maps, 800-GOOG-411, Google Places.
What ailments do you have? Google Health, although it appears to be a flop.
Where do you work? Google Profiles.
Where do you live? Google Maps.
What do you look like? Google Profiles and Google Visual Search, perhaps tied together one day.
Where are you? Latitude, Google Buzz and Google Places.
Where did you go and where will you go? Google Calendar.
While the search business fits into this overall picture, it is important to note that very little of the preference harvesting today relies heavily on it.
What is Facebook?
Similar to Google in a sense. Facebook is a conduit through which advertisers reach people who have shared their personal preferences with Facebook. This really begs the question, what do we share with Facebook? Not much when compared to Google. Facebook is far less efficient at harvesting information and has fewer tentacles. These are the questions Facebook may be able to answer about a particular user:
What is your name?
What do you look like?
What is your birthday?
And so on. Facebook also knows what social games you enjoy playing and what you “Like.” Facebook cannot answer most of the questions above that Google can answer. Facebook doesn’t have an email client, a calendar, mapping software, voice transmission, video transmission, etc. Google is much more efficient at harvesting information because it has many more web properties and, not surprisingly, they happen to be the best in most areas.
As an aside, this is where Facebook has truly gone off the deep end: Facebook is giving away the crown jewels. It is now divulging your preferences (“Likes” cannot be made private, for example) to third parties who can archive them indefinitely. This is contrary to the Google platform that seeks to obtain everything tidbit of information about you but tries to lock down that information for Google’s use only. (Buzz was a notable, accidental exception but that mistake was remedied within a couple of days.)
Implications
Search vs. Social is bullshit. Google is social. Google services allow me to communicate with friends and family by Gmail, Wave, Buzz, Voice, etc. I can read their thoughts in emails, hear their voices, see their faces, etc. What makes Facebook more “social” than Google? The fact that someone I went to elementary school with posted about her breakfast food and that she spilled orange juice on her new shoes? Now, there’s the “search” issue. This deserves emphasis:
Facebook does not have a map of the entire internet; Google does.
Google is a better platform for other reasons. It is better organized. I know where to find information I seek. My appointments are on my calendar, my emails are in my inbox, etc. I can archive everything. Facebook provides us, primarily, with a stream of crap that tells me about my friends’ virtual farms, mafias, fish, etc. I see a bunch of happy birthday posts too. The Facebook stream is entirely disorganized and it is not archived in a useful way.
The argument that Facebook will somehow whip Google in the near future baffles me. Google is way out of Facebook’s league in so many different areas. It harvests information better. It protects information it harvests better. It offers utility to its users. If provides us with services that Facebook cannot even come close to providing any time soon. So, this Facebook > Google argument that is being tossed around the internet seems like nonsense to me. I put my money where my brain is. I’m holding my GOOG stock and maybe building the position especially since some people were recently fooled by the blogosphere into believing that Facebook is a serious threat to Google. It isn’t right now and couldn’t become one for a very, very long time.
In terms of the interwebs, the last decade could aptly be described as the search decade. Google ruled the day. As newbies came online Google was the launchpad where they all began. The company grew to a massive $170 billion market cap. It fended off competitors and, in the process, put more than a few out of business. By any measure, Google won the search war.
I predict that the next decade will be less about one single theme and significantly less about search. Obviously, I am on the outside looking in but these are my thoughts: Google is keenly aware of the fact that this transition is already occurring. To counter this anticipated reduction in traffic, Google has diversified into, well, just about everything relating to your preferences. Google continues to focus on its mission of organizing the world’s information. To do this, it needs to collect information. Where is lacks information, it devises a solution for obtaining it. In no particular order:
Whom do you phone? Google Voice.
To whom do you write? Gmail, Google Wave and Google Buzz.
What do you buy? Google Checkout and Google Product Search.
What do you watch on television? Google TV, which is anticipated to launch with Sony next month.
What do you read? Google Reader and Google Scholar, despite some bumps in the road.
Where do you eat? Google Maps, 800-GOOG-411, Google Places.
What ailments do you have? Google Health, although it appears to be a flop.
Where do you work? Google Profiles.
Where do you live? Google Maps.
What do you look like? Google Profiles and Google Visual Search, perhaps tied together one day.
Where are you? Latitude, Google Buzz and Google Places.
Where did you go and where will you go? Google Calendar.
And, I’m sure I’m missing more than a few fronts where Google is amassing information. As we all know, Google collects this information to sell advertisement space on your screens and mobile devices tailored to you. The genius of this all is that people actually trust Google, perhaps rightfully so. Advertisers do not have access to the answers to every question above, only Google does. Google has been and will be fundamentally an advertising intermediary. The game has changed: it’s no longer about finding something.com hidden away somewhere in the deepest depth of the internet but it’s more likely about giving you what you want, often for free, in exchange for your preferences. What do we receive for free? Search, email, voice transmission, video transmission, web apps, operating systems (albeit not directly but, rather, by eliminating the OS “tax” on devices), news, financial information and the list goes on and on. Most of the world has decided that we benefit from this exchange of preferences for free services. It’s really a unique and fascinating model. Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, recently used the term “platform provider” to describe what Google wants to become. It’s a unique type of company unlike any other.
[As an aside, contrast the Google model with Facebook which simply wants to collect your preferences and share them with the world. The Facebook model is a far less comfortable compromise for the person the least bit concerned about privacy.]
Google is diversifying in other ways too. Google Apps, the enterprise version of the free online office suite, will probably meet with tremendous success. This arena is monetized differently. No business enterprise wants to share its confidential information with Google in exchange for advertisements. Instead, for a reasonable cost, companies pay for the cloud-based services. Google Apps fundamentally differs from just about every other Google property in this regard.
Google sits on a boatload of cash right now and could diversify into other areas as well. It dipped its toes into the hardware water with the Nexus One but I do not anticipate a significant push in the hardware direction. Google simply wants more, better information and faster. By diversifying, Google has solidified itself as the conduit through which we deposit our preferences and information and donate some eyeball movements and mindshare to advertisements that we might find appealing.
[I will likely write a follow-up piece regarding competition in the "platform provider" business with a focus on Facebook.]
What’s Facebook up to with all this “like” stuff? I’ll begin by assuming that you are as confused as I was about this idea. Basically, Facebook is attempting to get every website to implement a Facebook “Like” button. When you click a Like button, your Facebook profile will be updated to include your new Like. If this catches on, then the entire internet can be ranked, in a sense, by Facebook users. This information about Likes is relevant in two ways. First, the data can be used on the micro level to target advertisements to you on Facebook, the stickiest and most popular website on the internet. Second, the data can be used on the macro level to perform a popularity ranking of the internet.
Crowdsourcing is the outsourcing of tasks to a large community. An example of crowdsourcing is a cellphone app that reports gasoline prices and asks users of the app to report back prices they observe. Facebook is attempting to crowdsource the internet. Instead of crawling the internet with sophisticated spiders that follow every link, they shift the task to the website owners who must install a “Like” button and to the Facebook populance who must click the buttons to make the system work.
This fundamentally differs from Google’s approach to indexing the web in a few ways. Google spiders the web to detect new content. This approach is changing somewhat through advancements like PubSubHubBub (say that ten times fast) which allow content providers to push their updates to Google and burn real-time RSS feeds. Google also crowdsources the internet in a way but it does so seamlessly and, more importantly, privately. When you search for pages on Google and click links, Google learns both what you like (without clicking a button) and also uses this information to target advertisements and even rank pages in your own search results. In the aggregate, this information (your clicks) is used to rank pages.
So, what’s the difference? Facebook has slowly chipped away at users’ privacy. For example, Facebook updates are now public by default. Perhaps Twitter paved the way for that change but it was not a welcomed change by many. Now, Facebook users are being asked to essentially display their internet preferences and browsing history to their “friends” and the general public. The privacy implications of this scheme are profound. Imagine if Google’s Chrome browser or Google.com asked users to opt-in and make their browsing history public (even on a per-click basis). People would be, rightfully so, outraged. Facebook is being raked over the coals by privacy groups and many people who actually understand what is being proposed. However, the cuteness of “Like” concept and the appeal of the Facebook brand have blinded some people from questioning the entire concept. Frankly, I don’t plan on clicking Like buttons and I believe that people should really think critically about the system that is being implemented.
Somewhat uncomfortably, this website has a Facebook button in the upper right. This enables those who click to see posts in their Facebook stream. This button was created long before we were asked to rank the entire internet. It was intended to serve an entirely different purpose and it wouldn’t bother me one bit if you choose to unlike Tech Bottle but follow the posts another way (by e-mail, Buzz, Twitter, RSS readers, etc.). While on the topic of unliking, I have read that unliking something might pluck the logo off of your profile but there will be other ways to determine a user’s past likes. So, if you Liked Coke last week but want a job at Pepsi this week, you might have sunk yourself.
P.S. Another major issue with the Facebook scheme involves sharing your personal information with other Facebook partners across the web. You probably saw a small box about this at the top of your Facebook stream. This is another somewhat confusing change to Facebook and I have opted out of it. I don’t think it is clear what data will be shared and exactly how it will be used. Perhaps I will become more comfortable with a personalized internet and opt-in at some point but for now, I prefer the internet the way it is.
UPDATE: Matt Cutts, a high profile Google employee, just suspended his Facebook account. http://searchengineland.com/matt-cutts-deactivates-facebook-account-40543
I started Tech Bottle six months ago and I find myself now blogging about blogging. I did a quick Google search for reasons to write a blog and it returned 44.2 million hits. I’ve opted to write about my own experience and not parrot back what others have suggested.
Blogging was once seen as a “look at me!” activity involving only the most self-absorbed people. I think that subset, like nearly the rest of world, has moved to Facebook. It’s definitely become the preferred platform for narcissists (but not all Facebookers are narcissists, of course). I considered blogging anonymously back in November and decided against it. I never intended to write anything controversial on Tech Bottle and I didn’t see a need to pretend to be someone else. Although I write under my own name, I blog for the reasons given below (not to draw extreme attention to myself) and I think they’re compelling reasons for people to consider writing a blog.
There are probably around 200 million blogs in the world covering virtually every topic imaginable. I chose technology as my primary theme but some people blog restaurant reviews, photography, travel, karate, knitting (5.6 million Google hits for “knitting blog”), etc. Last year, I found myself renewing my interest in technology. I like tinkering with computers, mobile phones and other gadgets. Right out of the gate, I knew I’d have fun playing with WordPress and creating the infrastructure for a blog. I’m frequently tinkering with the blog. Also, I found myself talking people’s ears off in “real life” about technology. I was more interested in these topics than some of the people with whom I associate. I decided to blog to find other people with similar interests (geeks, I suppose) and share my thoughts. I also “mashup” or repost items that I find interesting from other sources with attribution. Between the various social networks, primarily Twitter and Buzz, I have been able to meet people throughout the blogosphere who also share some of my interests. I discovered new blogs to read and we don’t talk each other’s ears off. Blogs are entirely on-demand; you can tune into things that interest you and tune out to things that don’t. The blogosphere is something like the world’s largest newspaper with every blogger serving as his or her own editor-in-chief.
Blogging is a good recession activity. WordPress (start at WordPress.org, not WordPress.com) and other blogging platforms are completely free. Domain names and hosting are cheap. If you’re willing to allocate a little bit of space to advertisers (Google AdSense is pretty easy to set up), you’ll come out ahead even with a modest following. In my first few months of blogging, I’ve covered my annual expenses.
I’ve enjoyed blogging more than I thought I would. If you’re passionate about something or willing to become passionate about something, you’ll likely enjoy blogging too.
The Apple “lock-down” on the iPad is bad for consumers. The closed App Store that Apple rules with an iron fist is not the future model of computing that I would like to see.
I’ve been reading a lot about the iPad, primarily because that’s all there is to read in the tech world at the moment. In particular, I just read Jesus Diaz of Gizmodo’s post on MSNBC entitled, “ Apple’s iPad is the future. This is why.” It’s a worthy read but the headline suggests that the iPad will conquer the competitors. I hope not. This is why.
Apple products are undoubtedly inventions. When I think of revolutionary inventions, the automobile comes to mind and some analogies are apropos. Think back to the days of Henry Ford. In 1909 he remarked about Ford’s latest invention, the Model T, “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.” This is exactly what Apple is telling us by bolting the iPad to the App Store. Apple also goes one step further and prohibits you from repainting your car. You can only run Apple approved apps, pay commissions to Apple for their app blessings and customize the system within the framework Apple allows. The childhood game of “Mother May I” comes to mind. HackerNews ran a headline that read, “The iPad is a LEGO set that can only be assembled into what’s drawn on the box.”
Would you purchase a computer that could only run software that the hardware manufacturer approves? This is where I believe Apple is heading. The distinction between a tablet and a computer will be blurred as we add peripheral keyboards to tablets. Will the next MacBook support the installation of software?
Android tablets have more appeal to me because they will not be locked-down. You want a red car? You can have a red car. You can customize your system to your heart’s content but there’s a catch. Apple has been on a patent frenzy lately and Apple v. HTC shows that it may attempt to enforce some of them. Will Android tablets have pinch-zoom in the aftermath of Apple v. HTC? Imagine if Henry Ford patented the car stereo. If you wanted one, you’d be forced to drive a black Model T. Toss in patents on floormats, leather seats and virtually anything else slightly innovative. This is Apple’s playbook. They want to control your experience. Some people are willing to make accept the bargain, pay the so-called Apple “tax” mark-up prices and let Apple control their computing experience.
The patent system has its merits and without it companies wouldn’t innovate, so the argument goes. Perhaps the life of patents should be shortened, especially in light of the speed with which technology advances and the profits that companies can reap in such a short period of time. Recovering R&D expense happens over a shorter horizon than it did in the past. Instead, we have a patent system that helped propel a company that was once on the verge of extinction to the third largest U.S. company by market capitalization. Back to the point…
Is the “Apple-makes-decisions-for-you iPad” a product you really want? I’ll go with an Android tablet or just stick to my netbook that runs two linux variants and Windows 7.
This is a follow-up post to one I wrote two weeks ago entitled, “Bad News for Blackberry [Survey].” I use a Blackberry Tour and I have been less than satisfied with it. Both the hardware and software disappoint. I have been quite open about my disappointment. Nonetheless, I don’t really have a dog in the fight between mobile platforms but I intend to switch to Android soon, probably on an HTC manufactured phone. Obviously, I haven’t been alone in my whining about the Blackberry platform and Research in Motion generally. However, I was surprised to read Brett Wyman, the founder and owner of BlackberryOS.com, post to his site a searing rant against RIM. He cites the terrible web browser and inadequate app development among the reasons he sees RIM failing in North America.
This is the third time I’ve written this but the only scenario that could save RIM is releasing a industry-leading browser and a shift from installation-based apps to browser-based apps. I don’t think either of these two events will happen within a reasonable period of time. RIM is notoriously slow to release apps and I don’t see the browser project moving along at lightning speed. Its Twitter app development has moved along at galacial speed. It still hasn’t been released, not even in the new beta testing area of the RIM website. Frankly, they should have purchased BitStream a long, long time ago to acquire its BOLT web browser technology.
In the mobile industry news breaks hour by hour and significant advancement in devices occurs every few months. Already, we’re seeing prototypes of 4G phones like the upcoming “Supersonic” HTC Evo 4G. RIM, however, has products in the development WAY too long. People have been talking about Mr. T (the Blackberry Slider) for more than a year. Yet, what do we have? We have some crappy photographs of the phone. When will this product launch? Some have said April. I highly doubt it. It’s supposed to sport a flashy new OS and the new WebKit browser. I can’t imagine RIM having either one ready for the market in time for an April launch. Expect delay, delay, delay… maybe we’ll be
“blessed” with some more crappy photographs along the way. If RIM thinks that will keep users salivating for Blackberry, they’re very wrong.
I think RIM might want to consider a Plan B, specifically the following: ditch your crappy OS for recreational consumers (as opposed to business customers) in favor of Android. This would immediately result in a better browser and better app development. They could try to code a proprietary Blackberry Messenger client for Android. Admittedly, keeping it locked down on RIM-made devices would be difficult. Frankly, I don’t think they have the foresight within the company to go this route but I say, “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” Capitalize on the RIM brand but offer the best technology has to offer. It’s something short of plainly giving up but they’re hardly in the running among recreational consumers, as survey data shows. Ardent RIM supporters invested in RIM’s success like Brett Wyman are becoming former RIM fans.
Versatility could be Android’s greatest strength but also its greatest weakness. At this point, Android has only Apple as a significant competitor. Blackberry, Palm and Nokia’s platforms are significantly lagging in app development and mass appeal. All the hype coming out of CTIA revolves around Android and Android alone. As of mid-February, 60,000 Android handsets were shipped per day. Now we’re seeing demos of tablets that run Android, cars based on Android and even home appliances. So, what can be wrong with an operating system this versatile?
Compare Android with Apple which has tightly controlled its user experience. Apple designs the hardware and software. It now rules the App Store with an iron fist. This approach, distasteful to some, has created a consistent user experience. Apple has dominated marketplace in terms of apps and hardware sales (especially if you lump together iPod Touch sales with iPhones). Contrast that with Google’s approach with Android.
Android is primarily an outgrowth of Google’s “openness” doctrine. It’s a way for Google to insure that it can get its advertisements to your eyeballs. The development of Android was ingenious because Google has virtually eliminated the risk of being shut out of the mobile market. While it appears likely to lose the Apple faithful’s eyeballs, it will clearly clean up on the rest of them. The central question remains: Will Android rule the world as Google intends?
Some have criticized Android for “fragmentation,” which means that different handsets are running different versions of Android. While this has been a serious problem, it appears that most newer handsets will launch with Android 2.1 and the underlying OS will be consistent across manufacturers and carriers.
I believe the single biggest threat to Android is simply branding. Unlike Apple, which controls the user experience, Android can be molded into just about anything. The ability to mold Android is a great strength, on the one hand, but a serious weakness, on the other hand. Awful Android hardware is bound to make it to market (like the upcoming Kyocera cheapy phone demoed today at CTIA). Say a person purchases an Android phone with a defective antenna. That person may become soured towards Android even though the fault was unrelated to Android. Or an Android car made in China is known for engine fires, etc. I’m not saying the public is dumb enough to blame the OS for every hardware failure but this “open” user experience could actually harm the Android brand vis-a-vis a closed Apple-like ecosystem.
Further, the “open” user experience leads to significant inconsistency. When Android is molded, the software can take on completely different forms. A Sense UI experience on an HTC handset varies considerably from an experience on a Sony Xperia 10 which differs from an experience on a Kyocera cheapy phone. This further diminishes the brand.
Android was probably primarily developed to keep the pipeline open between Google services and phones, just as the Chrome browser does on the computer. Nonetheless, the brand remains centrally important to its widespread adoption. This leaves Google in a dilemma. It could regulate the Android experience and regulate the ecosystem (i.e., toss out traditional “openness”). This could lead to better branding and a consistent user experience. Perhaps Google would have better marketshare if it took this approach. However, the “do no evil” company would probably drive up the cost of handsets, alienate the open source community and slow the adoption of the OS in favor of marketshare. Instead, Google chose a completely different approach but primarily out of necessity. It released its own hardware with HTC that satisfied Google employees who rigorously tested the Google Nexus One. It set the bar by which other Android devices are measured. Google wasn’t looking to necessarily outsell the upcoming HTC Incredible, for example. I believe it was simply looking to protect the brand by demoing Android on well designed hardware and avoid regulating the ecosystem it has fought so hard to keep “open.” Think of the Nexus One as the model by which Android should be measured. That’s what Google wants you to do.
It seems like most of the buzz about the Microsoft Windows Phone 7 series has been negative lately. Most writers are focused on its deficiencies. It won’t support full multitasking (apps hibernate unless more RAM is needed and then they are terminated) nor copy-and-paste out of the box. These features may be added later. Do we need to be reminded that the current iPhone didn’t support these features either upon release and still doesn’t truly multitask? For those who haven’t see videos of Windows Phone 7 Series, you might want to view Microsoft’s official video. Also, if you haven’t see the home screen “tiles,” click the thumbnail below.
Click to Enlarge
I almost never write about Microsoft products (once or twice I have) but I think Windows Phone 7 Series looks very promising. Maybe the mid-to-late 1990s antitrust issues with Microsoft have permanently soured some towards the company. Are people still bitter that Microsoft effectively killed Netscape? I was recently reminded that a decade has passed. Microsoft could have a different ethos. Afterall, we’re going to get a cloud-based version of Microsoft Office later this year. Who would have thunk it? Windows 7 wasn’t such a disappointment either. One problem with Microsoft is that it still relies on the “old” model. It still primarily sells things in boxes. It doesn’t give things away in expectation of recouping the cost in advertising revenue and good will. Nonetheless, I think if you approach Windows Phone 7 Series objectively and disregard whatever beefs you may have with Microsoft, it looks like a revolutionary, new phone OS. It’s not the dated WinMo that’s been patched and updated over the years. It might do cool things and do them well. We’ll know more after the CTIA this week.
I’m not really sure why I’ve seen 20+ articles dedicated solely to the copy-and-paste issue this past week. Some are writing that Microsoft Windows 7 Series doesn’t have a place in the market. I wish more people would be open-minded about this OS. Favorable reviews won’t mean that Apple, Google and RIM have “lost.” Competition benefits all of us and monopolies often become complacent. If this new phone OS were designed by a start-up, I think we’d see more excitement and fewer people ripping on it. Windows Phone 7 Series looks pretty darn good to me. (I just hope it integrates well with Gmail or I can’t even consider it. :))
Some analysts are now projecting that Palm stock will go down to zero. This perplexes me because WebOS and the patent portfolio alone are worth something to somebody. There’s even speculation that Google will acquire Palm to obtain the patent portfolio. The writing was on the wall that the downward trend would continue for Palm when it decided not to attend the Mobile World Congress 2010. I was writing about Palm “slipping further into oblivion” in early February.
Nonetheless, I’m not in the business of predicting stock prices and I want to clarify a remark I recently made about RIM (which included a stock chart for Nasdaq:RIMM). In my post about the Crowd Science survey, I commented:
Perhaps if RIM’s stock is beaten up badly (it still has a market cap of $42B), it could become a takeover target.
While I stand by the remark, I don’t mean to imply that RIM has no hope for the future. RIM is executing a strategy that could work.
As any Blackberry user will tell you, app development for the Blackberry plainly sucks compared to iPhone and Android. I don’t foresee this changing and I don’t think RIM does either. Instead, RIM is betting that mobile apps will be replaced by platform independent mobile web apps. RIM’s energy is focused on its WebKit web browser which was demoed at the MWC 2010. While it wasn’t included in Blackberry OS 5.0, it will almost certainly be a highlight of OS 6.0. Recently, images of the OS 6.0 interface leaked (via BBLeaks.com) which appear to me to be authentic. They include:
Click to Enlarge
Click to Enlarge
In my opinion, the biggest take away from the photos is the use of widgets and feeds. Useful widgets could make Blackberry competitive even if traditional app development significantly lags other platforms. Also, current Blackberries have no native support for RSS feeds. In fact, at holiday time, Crackberry.com sponsored a petition to request Google to develop an RSS reader for the Blackberry which evidently failed. If Blackberry had native support for RSS feeds, this would be a huge plus. Many Blackberry users use the very popular Viigo app but it has limitations and cannot run in a widget mode.
RIM is updating its Blackberry Internet Service (BIS) service on March 28th which will, among other things, improve Gmail integration. This is a significant step in the right direction for non-corporate customers.
The leaked photos of the Blackberry Slider (Codenamed “Mr. T”) were poorly received in the Blackberry community but the device could be a surprise success. While the Palm Pre never really lived up to expectations, the Blackberry Slider has a larger screen and better branding. Some are speculating that the device will be released in April. I doubt that it will. As I mentioned before, BGR reported that the Slider has been failing internal testing. RIM employees should be working day and night to work out the problems because many of Verizon’s Blackberry customers, me included, are seriously interested in the Android phones. Both the Nexus One and HTC Incredible will be released for Verizon within the next few weeks. Perhaps I’m stating the obvious: The later the release of the Blackberry Slider, the less likely it is to penetrate the increasingly competitive smartphone market.
In other RIM news, a new Blackberry manufacturing plant will be opened in Latin America soon.
Unlike Palm, which basically curled into the fetal position and died, RIM has a strategy. Its success depends on many factors but it could succeed. I’m not betting money one way or another.
This post was inspired by Stan Schroeder’s post on Mashable entitled, “Bing takes on ‘Goliath’ Google with Huge UK Advertising Campaign.” Apparently, Microsoft will spend up to $2.0B on an advertising campaign in the U.K. To put this “huge” campaign into perspective, Microsoft current has a market cap of approximately $253B.
65 Google buzzers replied with comments. I commented: “Microsoft is pushing Bing prematurely. Wired ran a very good article about Google which, among other things, compared the accuracy of results between Google and Bing. Bing was pathetic.” The Wired article is entitled, “Exclusive: How Google’s Algorithm Rules the Web.” In that article, Google’s accuracy is compared with Microsoft Bing’s.
I have no doubt that Google will dominate internet search, perhaps in perpetuity, but this has less to do with the algorithm Google uses than the Wired title suggests. Google is womping the competitors because it has something they don’t… better data and a steady flow of it. When I say better data, I don’t mean that Google knows about web pages that other search engines don’t (although it’s quite possible). Google search is the smartest around because it has a phenomenal algorithm, no doubt, but also because it has been collecting data generated by humans (clicks) for a very long time. Between the data and the algorithm, Google can predict what content you want to view. In a sense, Google search is the high watermark for artificial intelligence. It can predict human behavior based on a person typing a word or two.
According to the Inside Google special on CNBC, Google saves everything typed into Google indefinitely. Your own search results are identified with your Google account and IP address for a period of 18 months and then anonymized. This information makes Google smarter. Now, a full 20% of Google searches are actually tailored to you and differ from Joe Schmoe’s search results.
Enter Bing. Bing is an outgrowth of MSN Search. MSN Search was never a dominant player in the search business. AltaVista, Yahoo and others were Google’s chief competitors. In the early days, search was dominated by who had the biggest map of the internet which was a function of the “spidering” software. Another factor was the algorithm used to produce results. Google won the search war but it did it by being innovative and leveraging data. It learned if you clicked the what you were looking for and didn’t return to Google for another X seconds.
Microsoft is trying to play catch up. It needs to brand Bing but it also needs Bing to accurately predict what you want to click. How can it accomplish this when Google has virtually monopolized the search market? Maybe spending $2.0B in the UK will bring in $2.0B+ worth of data (clicks). Then again, maybe it won’t. It will be difficult to leverage this localized data because Google will generate more and arguably better data in the same period of time globally. It’s data where Google excels; even if Bing had precisely the same algorithm and the same map of the web, it would lose the search war on data alone.
Bing’s strategy seems somewhat outside of the box. Colorful graphics and promotions seem to be in Bing’s playbook. These seem like mere window dressing to me. When it comes to getting accurate results, Google wins. It knows what I want to click. Will Bing ever be smart enough to be a viable alternative? I’m not sure but spending $2.0B in advertising off in the U.K. won’t propel it ahead of Google.
