Tim Anderson's ITWriting » apple

Samsung Galaxy Tab – among the first of many iPad clones

tim — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:19:17 +0000

Samsung has announced final details and specifications of the Galaxy Tab, a tablet device running Android 2.2 “Froyo”.

It has a 7-inch1024x600 multi-touch screen, 1.00 Ghz processor, GPS, wi-fi, 3G internet, 1.4 megapixel webcam, 7 hours battery life if playing a video (I imagine much longer than that in normal use) and 16GB or 32GB RAM plus optional MicroSD.

Apple’s iPad has a 9.7-inch 1024 x 768 screen and better battery life – 10 hrs while playing a video, according to the specs.

So why would you buy a Galaxy Tab? Well, it is smaller and therefore handier, though you will squint a bit more. It has some freedoms that the iPad lacks, such as Adobe Flash, MicroSD, and FLAC playback. It has a camera. You will not need iTunes in order to interoperate with a PC.

I imagine the main reason, though, is that the Galaxy Tab will be cheaper – even though I cannot find prices anywhere, it is inevitable. This and other would-be iPads will be positioned as cheaper alternatives.

This will not harm Apple at all. It likes to occupy the premium ground and does so with great profitability.

But could the Galaxy Tab be better than an iPad? Well, it will be for certain tasks where the iPad is lacking – see above – but it will lack the careful design and attention to detail which characterises Apple’s device, and of course will not be compatible with all those iPad apps – though in some cases there will be Android equivalents.

Further, all the same doubts which were expressed about the iPad before its launch apply here as well. Do you really want a smartphone and a tablet and a notebook, and if not, which one will you abandon? Is it worth yet another contract with a mobile provider just to keep your tablet connected? It is possible that although Apple can make this category work, others will struggle.

When I played briefly with a Dell Streak, a 5-inch Android tablet, I found myself thinking that it will be a good deal when they sell them off cheap. Without that incentive, it is too big for a phone, too small for much else other than watching videos on the plane.

I would like to try one of these devices, of course, but whether they will succeed is an open question.

Review: Tapworthy – designing great iPhone Apps by Josh Clark

tim — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 07:35:19 +0000

Developing for iPhone is a hot topic. Many developers are not only having to learn Apple’s Objective C and the Cocoa application framework, but are also new to mobile development. It is a big shift. Josh Clark is a iPhone designer, and his book Tapworthy is about how to design apps that people will enjoy using. It is not a programming book; there is not a single snippet of Objective C in it.

His book illustrates the power shift that has taken place in computing. In the early days, it was the developer’s task to make an application that worked, and the user’s task to understand how to use it, through manuals, training courses, or whatever it took.

There are still traces of this approach in the software industry, but when it comes to iPhone apps it has reversed completely. The app creator has to build an app that the user will find intuitive, useful and fun; otherwise – no sale.

An early heading reads “Bored, Fickle and Disloyal”. That’s the target user for your app.

Clark’s point is valid, and he does hammer it home page after page. You will get the message; but it can get tiresome. His style is frank and conversational: some readers will love it, others will find it grating after a chapter or two.

Even if you are one of the latter group, it is worth persevering, because there is a ton of good content here. There are also numerous short interviews with developers of actual apps, many of them well-known, discussing the issues they faced. The persistent issue: we’ve got a complex app, a small screen, and intolerant users, how on earth do we make this seem simple and intuitive?

Constraints like these can actually improve applications. We saw this on the web, as the enforced statelessness and page model of web applications forced developers to simplify the user interface. It is the same with mobile. Joe Hewitt, author of the first generations of Facebook for iPhone:

There is so much stuff that is actually better on the small screen because it requires designers to focus on what’s really important.

So what’s in the book? After a couple of scene-setting chapters, Clark drills down into how to design for a tiny touchscreen. Be a scroll sceptic, he says. Chapter 4 then looks at app structure and navigation. Chapter 5 takes you blow by blow through the iPhone controls and visual elements. Then we get a chapter on making your app distinctive, a chapter on the all-important start-up sequence and how to make seem instantaneous, and a chapter on touch gestures.

The last three chapters cover portrait to landscape flipping, alerts, and finally inter-app communication and integration.

Throughout the book is illustrated in full colour, and the book itself is a pleasure to read with high quality paper and typography. 300 pages that will probably improve your app design and increase its sales; a bargain.

Google favours big brands over diversity

tim — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:57:34 +0000

Google has made a change to its search algorithm that means most of the results shown for a search may now come from a single domain. Previously, it would only show a couple of results from one domain, on the assumption that users would prefer to select from a diversity of results.

The example chosen by searchengineland is a good one. Search for Apple iPod and you get a page that is mostly links to Apple’s site.

If you search for the single word ipod you get more diversity – odd, since only Apple manufacture the ipod so you could argue that the searches are the same. Some people use ipod as a generic name for MP3 player, but that doesn’t seem to be reflected; all the results still relate to Apple’s device.

Personally I’d rather see diversity. I don’t see the need for this change, since the site summary with deep links works well when a particular domain closely matches the search term. You can see an example of this in the top result for the ipod search above. Note that it even has a link for “More results from apple.com”. What is the value of suppressing the results from other domains?

The overall impact is that big brands benefit, while smaller businesses and new entrants to markets suffer. It also makes independent comment that bit harder to find.

While to most of us changes like these are only of passing interest, to some they make the difference between a flourishing business and a dead one. Google has too much power.

Incidentally, I generally find Google significantly better than Bing, now its major competitor. However in this case Bing impresses, with categories such as reviews, prices, accessories, manuals and so on; and in the case of the Apple ipod search, a better balance between the official site and independents.

Apple iPad replacing PCs as well as paper?

tim — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 07:32:44 +0000

Now here’s an article to strike fear into Microsoft. Stuart Sumner reports on iPad trials at the BBC and in the Army. The BBC’s CIO John Linwood says:

We’re seeding the organisation [with the devices]. We put some iPads into production and some into management and other roles to see if people would be able to give up their desktops.

He goes on to say that the iPad may enable paperless meetings.

What makes an iPad better than a laptop or netbook for a meeting? I find it curious, incidentally, that the report refers to replacing desktops rather than laptops.

Well, one reason I have always liked tablets is that they are more interactive and don’t put a barrier (the screen) between you and others. A stylus is actually nice for meetings – good for quick diagrams as well as handwriting. Apple’s iPad lacks the stylus, but has other advantages over Windows tablets – smaller, lighter, instant-on, long battery life, and so on.

Still, the humble netbook at one third of the price will do the job too, better in some ways. You have Excel, for example. Unfortunately it lacks the elegance, usability and desirability of Apple’s device.

Any excuse to justify handing out cool devices, then? Maybe; but there’s no law that says business equipment has to be dull and unpleasant to use.

Stats that matter: Android grows in mobile, IE stops declining, eBooks take off

tim — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 08:43:59 +0000

This should be three blog posts; but you’ve read this news elsewhere. Still, I can’t resist a brief comment on three recent trends.

Browsers

The first is that usage of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer has levelled off after a long period of decline. Microsoft says it is increasing but the numbers are too small to say that with confidence. StatCounter global stats for May to July show slight decline for IE (52.83% –> 52.37%) and FireFox (31.54%->30.88%), with Google Chrome the main beneficiary (8.81%->10.32%).

On this blog Chrome has grown from 4.2% to 12.4% in the last year. IE is still declining: 44.9% in July 09, 39.6% in June 10, and 38.2% in July 10.

My guess is that the success of Windows 7 might have brought back a few FireFox users. The interesting story though is where Chrome will be when it stops growing its share. My second guess is that it will be ahead of FireFox, though that is speculative. It is WebKit though, and I think that will be bigger than Mozilla’s Gecko thanks to adoption by Google, Apple, Adobe and others.

Mobile

Next, Google Android. Nielsen reports that it has pulled ahead of Apple iPhone in the US SmartPhone market; both are behind RIM’s Blackberry though that is in steady decline. RIM is announcing Blackberry 9800, the first on OS 6, later today; but I doubt it will disrupt Android’s growth. The developer angle is that Android is now equal to Apple’s iPad/iPhone in strategic importance, which will be a relief to Adobe – Flash runs on Android but not iPhone.

Android owners lack the satisfaction of Apple iPhone owners. 21% of them are eyeing the iPhone for their next upgrade, whereas only 6% of iPhone owners want Android next. Only 42% of Blackberry owners intend to remain loyal. It is all tending to confirm my speculation back in April that Android is the new Windows.

So in two years time, what will be the market share for RIM, Nokia Symbian/MeeGo, Windows Phone, HP Palm WebOS? It will not be easy for any of them.

eBooks

Finally, eBooks. The Kindle vs iPad vs Nook vs Sony is one story; but the bigger one is that the eBook is happening at last. David Carnoy’s recent articles on Amazon give the background. One is an interview with Amazon’s Ian Freed in which the retailer says eBook sales have tripled in the first quarter of 2010 vs that in 2009, and claims 70-80% of the market. Another looks at what Amazon didn’t say. However the market shares work out though, what matters is that screen, battery and wireless technology are now good enough, and publishers and authors willing enough, for eBooks to become mainstream, with huge implications for the media industry.

Lies, damn lies, and Apple’s antenna-gate

tim — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:35:05 +0000

Apple’s iPhone 4 is still relatively new; and I when I pulled it out of my pocket at a social occasion last weekend someone said, “isn’t that the new iPhone?” and another, “isn’t that the one with the aerial fault?”

Another person then showed his iPhone 4, with shattered screen. His had been dropped, an expensive slip of the wrist.

So there we have it, the two worst features of Apple’s new phone – fragility, and a dodgy antenna – exposed to all.

I have first hand-evidence then that the antenna issue is well-known. But how much will it affect sales? I received an email today from Opinium Research. According to their survey of 2000 UK adults, 26% are less likely to get an iPhone 4 because of this widely reported fault.

Pretty bad for Apple then – a quarter of their market gone. Well, no. This is an example of “ask a silly question”. If you ask someone, “does the antenna issue make you more or less likely to buy an iPhone 4,” what do you expect them to say? In fact, 13% of them said it was a non-issue, while 57% said it was irrelevant because they are not in the market for an iPhone 4 anyway.

The right question would be: “Have you changed your mind about getting an iPhone 4 because of the reported fault with the antenna?” I expect many fewer would tick the yes box.

Useless survey then. In my view the phone is fine, the antenna issue is minor, and Apple’s free case offer will sort it for most people.

Going back to my social occasion, by the end of the party Apple had at least one more would-be customer, despite the antenna and despite the fragility; and given that the phone is still out of stock everywhere I don’t think the company need worry too much – though its reaction to this wave of bad publicity has been interesting to watch.

Incidentally, I also had a briefing on Windows Phone 7 today – more on that later.

Enterprise app development on Apple iPhone and iPad

tim — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:45:46 +0000

Apple’s iPhone is still perceived as primarily marketed to individuals rather than corporates. However, I was interested to see how much Apple is doing to attract corporate developers. First, Apple now supports some basic enterprise-friendly features, such as Microsoft Exchange (with a few caveats), VPN, remote wipe, and the ability to lock down iTunes to some extent. Without these capabilities, the devices would not be acceptable in many environments, making it pointless to consider them for custom applications.

Unfortunately iTunes is still needed for activation, deploying software updates, and installing applications. It is silly that Apple requires business users to install a music library to use its phone, I guess reflecting the device’s history as a music player. It is also a somewhat intrusive application especially on Windows.

If you then want to develop internal applications, you sign up for the iPhone Developer Enterprise Program. At $299 per year this is more expensive than the more general equivalent, but no big deal. Then you have to get a digital certificate from Apple. Next, create one or more “provisioning profiles” that install onto the device and authorize it to run your applications. Applications you create must be signed with your digital certificate. Finally, you can add the signed applications to an iTunes library, and users can then drag them to their iPhone or iPad. It will only run on devices that have the matching provisioning profile installed. Organisations can also revoke applications by revoking the identity used to sign the provisioning profile.

As Adobe pointed out to me, since these apps do not go through Apple’s approval process, there is nothing to stop corporate developers using the Flash Packager for iPhone that is available in Creative Suite 5.

There is more detail on Apple’s iPhone in Business page.

HP will not do Android or Windows Phone 7 smartphones – but what chance for webOS?

tim — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:16:34 +0000

HP’s Todd Bradley, Executive Vice President of Personal Systems and formerly CEO of Palm, was interviewed by Jon Fortt at CNBC. Fortt asks some great questions which mostly get woolly answers, but did get this statement from Bradley:

We will not do a Linux, Android phone. We won’t do a Microsoft Phone … we’ll deliver webOS phones.

I will be interested to see if HP sticks to this commitment. HP is Microsoft’s biggest customer and huge in business systems, but that does not necessarily mean it can make a success of a mobile platform on its own.

Mobile platforms stand (or fall) on several pillars: hardware, software, mobile operator partners, and apps. Apple is powering ahead with all of these. Google Android is as well, and has become the obvious choice for vendors (other than HP) who want to ride the wave of a successful platform. Windows Phone 7 faces obvious challenges, but at least in theory Microsoft can make it work though integration with Windows and by offering developers a familiar set of tools, as I’ve noted here.

RIM Blackberry is well entrenched in the Enterprise and succeeds by focusing on messaging and doing it well. Nokia and Intel will jostle for position with MeeGo.

It is obvious that not all these platforms can succeed. If we accept that Apple and Android will occupy the top two rungs of the ladder when it comes to attracting app developers, that means HP webOS cannot do better than third; and I’d speculate that it will be some way lower down than that.

You have to feel for HP, which has supported Microsoft’s failing mobile platform for many years – with the occasional lapse, remember when it became an OEM vendor for Apple’s iPos? – and now has decided it cannot rely on the company in this area. That is understandable. However, HP is heavily invested in Windows. It may be choosing just the wrong moment to abandon ship; or it may find that doing its own thing with webOS is no better. Google Android would have been a safer though less interesting choice.

BBC News app arrives on iPhone

tim — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:37:02 +0000

Today the BBC received approval from the BBC Trust to create apps for mobile devices such as Apple iPhone/iPad and Google Android. Wasting no time, the corporation published a BBC News App on the App Store today.

But what is the point? Is this really better than simply going to the web site:

It is worse in some ways, because there is a disconnect between content locked in an app, and content on the world web web where it can be linked and searched. There is also an argument over whether the publicly funded BBC creating apps for luxury mobile devices, instead of investing in more public content, though I’d imagine that the cost of creating the app is small relative to the cost of producing the content. The BBC no doubt feels under pressure to keep up with competitors such as Sky News, which already has an app available.

The BBC app becomes more interesting if you click the Live button, though you need a good connection, preferably wi-fi:

The app becomes a news-dedicated iPlayer for iPhone; a full iPlayer is also promised. A nice feature; though even this can be done on the web as long as you use Apple’s QuickTime format rather than not-invented-here Adobe Flash.

Why is there so much junk in Apple’s App Store?

tim — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 09:21:20 +0000

After 4 weeks with Apple’s iPhone 4 I’m mainly impressed with everything other than the call quality (I am in a poor signal area for O2). I’ve been exploring the App Store though, and while there are many great apps there, there is also a huge amount of junk. Here’s a review for an app I was looking at:

This app is such a con. The adverts are deliberately put in the most awkward places so they get pressed accidentally; there is no “would you like to make a call” dialog box, nothing, it goes straight to an 090 number and even if you cancel the call instantly you are still charged … Apple should be ashamed for letting this little con artist on to the app store!

Other users report frequent crashes, lost data and so on.

With over 200,000 apps available, it’s not surprising that some are duds. However, given Apple’s insistence on checking every one, I’d expected the overall standard to be higher. Apple cannot easily judge how useful an app is, particularly in a niche area, but things like instability or unfair advertising practices should be caught.

Another odd thing: if you browse the store on the device, you cannot sort by rating, as far as I can tell, making it hard to find the better apps quickly. I guess this could be designed to mitigate the “winner takes all” factor: if one or two apps in a common search category achieve high ratings, it is difficult for newcomers to get noticed sufficiently to drive up their own ratings. Still, give the amount of dross in there, it would help to have this as an option, even if it were not allowed to be the default sort.

The existence of so many poor apps also puts into context the Thoughts on Flash posted by Steve Jobs. I kind-of understand why Apple wants to exclude the Flash runtime from its device platform; but that does not explain the ban on Adobe’s Packager for iPhone, which compiles a Flash application to an iPhone binary. That might make sense if Jobs could point to the consistent high technical standard of iPhone Apps; but that is simply not the case.