Posts Tagged ‘platforms’

Why Microsoft won’t do to tablets what they did to netbooks

A lot of early netbook models ran Linux, but over the last couple of years, Windows has emerged as dominant in the netbook market as it has traditionally been in the desktop/laptop markets. Could the same thing happen in the tablet market, once the ARM version of Windows starts shipping?

No.

It’s fairly clear that touch-based computing just doesn’t work very well with desktop user interfaces. Microsoft, however, still seems to be pretty much out to lunch about the idea that they need to provide a more appropriate UI. They’ve been selling tablets for 10 years, and they’ve made no serious attempt at this.

Microsoft’s primary strength in the market, with Windows, is application compatibility. Anything that significantly disrupts that, like requiring developers to design new UI, or even possibly just requiring them to compile for and test on a different architecture (like ARM) severely undermines the one big thing going for Windows.

Particularly in this instance, where Windows/ARM tablets, by the time they actually make it to market, will be competing against established competitors. There are already 60,000 iPad apps. How many apps were there that were optimized specifically for Linux netbooks? Essentially none. They ran the same desktop apps as other Linux systems, which end users just don’t seem to find especially compelling relative to Windows-based offerings.

Additionally, it’s very unlikely Microsoft has the guts to do anything like requiring developers to create new user interfaces if they want their apps to run on a hypothetical Windows/ARM tablet. Now, the geek brigade might not see a problem with giving users a ‘choice’ to run apps with non-optimized interfaces, but the real-world consequence of such permissiveness will be lots of half-assed ports that destroy the platform’s user experience.

Even worse, Microsoft probably lacks sufficient internal coordination for a full-court tablet push, if such a push requires the redesign of major Microsoft products across multiple divisions. See here, for instance.

When we were building the tablet PC in 2001, the vice president in charge of Office at the time decided he didn’t like the concept. The tablet required a stylus, and he much preferred keyboards to pens and thought our efforts doomed. To guarantee they were, he refused to modify the popular Office applications to work properly with the tablet.

OK, I assume Microsoft has gotten rid of that guy by now, but such problems appear endemic to Microsoft’s organizational culture, which is why you see Microsoft still chasing off in several different directions in the mobile space.

A Microsoft that was likely to be a serious competitor in the tablet space would have already announced a tablet operating system based on Windows Phone 7, and they’d have the confidence to back that system as their sole tablet platform. The Microsoft that exists in our world is still clinging to the notion of running desktop versions of Windows on tablets (despite a decade of market rejection — with this ARM announcement, it seems they’ve decided that was all Intel’s fault), and when it eventually does occur to them to do a tablet version of Windows Phone 7, they’re unlikely to have the level of commitment necessary to deliver the product they’d need to deliver to be relevant.

Of course if Ballmer goes, this whole assessment is right out the window. There are clearly a lot of talented people working for Microsoft. Microsoft’s vast resources, under the right leadership, could put Microsoft back in the tablet/smartphone game pretty fast.

Is Android winning?

The real question is, winning what? Take a look at this mobile industry profit share data.

Where on that chart do vendors who have adopted Android start seriously stealing profit share away from Apple? Nowhere.

The key thing to understand about Android is that its market share growth has been driven almost entirely by handset vendors who where never able to field serious mobile operating systems of their own, who are now ditching the systems they previously used in favor of Android. Though it’s often framed very differently, this in-place substitution has very little direct relevance to Apple.

To give a more concrete illustration, imagine that the handset market consists of four companies, A, B, C and D, each with 25% market share, and each selling a single model of phone (call these Phone-A, Phone-B, etc.) that runs an OS developed by the company that makes the phone (call these OS-A, OS-B, etc.). Now, let’s say companies C and D decide “Hey, OS-C and OS-D are actually kind of terrible. Let’s both switch to using OS-E, this new open source mobile OS”.

OS-E will immediately have 50% market share, while OS-A and OS-B still have just 25% each.

What the pundits declaring Android victory right now are doing is stepping in at this point and declaring that OS-E has “won” over OS-A and OS-B because it now has twice as much market share as either one. But you really have to ask the question… has anyone won anything? If so, who? And exactly what have they won?

As far as I can see, the answers to these questions are “no”, “nobody” and “nothing”.

I suspect some pundits are having so much trouble understanding this because if OS-E were a licensed commercial product, there would be a winner, namely the company that owned OS-E. They’re conceptualizing this market as Google = Microsoft, HTC = Dell, Samsung = HP, etc. But this is wrong. There is no equivalent of Microsoft in this market. There is no discrete entity that owns Android (in any useful sense) and aggregates benefits from all Android handsets sold by all vendors.

Balmer Talks Tablets

See here.

Microsoft’s behavior here is entirely bizarre. They’ve been pushing desktop versions of Windows on tablets with absolutely no mass-market success for over a decade. Apple releases a tablet with a much more lightweight OS, with UI redesigned from the ground up for a touch device, and has instant mass market success.

And Microsoft’s announces that they’re taking this very seriously… and their response will be to keep pushing desktop versions of Windows on tablets, but… what? Hope that people notice this time because Apple got people paying attention to the tablet market?

Right, good luck with that. The reason people didn’t pay attention to those Windows tablets is because they sucked, and they’ll be perceived even more negatively now that there are better products on the market to compare them with.

Here’s how I see this going: some time in the next 18 months, Microsoft will finally come to terms with the fact that they’re barking up the wrong tree trying to stick a desktop version of Windows onto a tablet. They won’t actually abandon that approach, because internal corporate politics won’t let them and they lack the discipline to actually focus on things that matter. But they will announce an additional project to create a tablet versions of Windows Phone 7, which might even turn out to be a credible technical effort.

Only problem is, by the time that gets market, it’s going to be going up against the iPad, Android tablets, WebOS tablets, and the newly announced Blackberry tablet, some or all of which will be quite well established by then and will be on their second or third generation. And few or none of the value network effects Microsoft benefits from in the Windows market will do anything for them in the tablet market. So, basically, they’re screwed.

Google’s release of VP8 codec changes little

I’ve previously discussed the dustup over Ogg Theora vs. H.264. Today Google announced it is releasing the VP8 codec as open source. VP8 is an ostensibly patent-free codec which, unlike Theora, is said to be as good, technically, as H.264. But it won’t change much.

Most of the case against Theora didn’t come down to its technical quality, but the fact that H.264 is a standard that extends far beyond just web video on desktop platforms, and there was no way Theora plausibly had a chance in that larger world. The same logic applies to VP8.

The Mozilla Foundation and Google can implement VP8 in Firefox or Chrome or whatever. But let’s look at, say, Netflix. Right now, they can serve the same H.264 streams up to desktop platforms via Silverlight, to iPads (soon iPhones and iPod Touches), to the PS3, to the Nintendo Wii (as of this month), to Roku boxes, to the Xbox, to various Blu-ray players….

Most of those devices implement H.264 decoding in hardware, and their vendors couldn’t add VP8 decoding to them if they wanted to. And they mostly don’t want to, because H.264 licensing is pretty cheap, and they don’t care about the ideological arguments against it. It uses the same kind of licensing regime used by MPEG-2 (DVD), Audio CD, ATSC digital broadcast… the industry is very comfortable with this model.

So, what is a company like Netflix supposed to do? Keep two copies of its entire library, one in VP8, for Firefox, and one in H.264, for every other client platform in the world? Because the Mozilla Foundation has some ideological objections to software patents, and so refuses to implement H.264?

Right. Good luck with all that.

Had VP8 been around (and open source) five or six years ago, things might have been very different. But H.264 has already achieved critical mass. It simply won’t be displaced by another current-generation codec. If people want a patent-free codec to eventually emerge on top, they should start thinking about how to build a patent-free next generation codec, and get it ready for prime time before H.264′s inevitable MPEG-LA-licensed successor is ready.

Adobe’s JooJoo reaction validates Apple’s flash stance

Engadget’s review of the JooJoo Linux tablet:

But what about Flash? This is supposed to be the big differentiator, right? The iPad killer! In an interesting move, Fusion Garage coupled the Atom processor with NVIDIA’s Ion graphics to aid in playing full screen Flash video (or for doing… something). Unfortunately, the software just isn’t there yet. Currently the device is running Flash 10.1 beta 1, and won’t have hardware-accelerated Flash video for a good while now (the timing is partly reliant on Adobe support, and is labelled as a “work in progress” by JooJoo). That means some regular-sized YouTube and Hulu works, as decoded by the CPU, but full screen Hulu is jittery, and a 720p YouTube clip is like watching a slideshow. In one of the biggest moves of irony, JooJoo has actually implemented a hack for YouTube where you can view a video in Flash or in “JooJoo” mode which is a straight playback of the MPEG video file every YouTube video harbors. What does this remind us of? HTML 5, albeit with a less elegant implementation. This of course only works on YouTube right now, though JooJoo says it plans on supporting other sites in the future.

They’ll probably eventually get hardware acceleration working and get this straightened out, but there’s a larger point here. Platform vendors shouldn’t have to rely on the good graces of an outside company to make key elements of their user experience not suck. Even if this gets fixed on Linux/Atom tablets, it will only crop up again with some other new platform in the future.

The notion of a key piece of web infrastructure being proprietary software controlled by a single vendor was only sustainable within the homogeneity of the traditional desktop world. Now that computing is seriously moving beyond the desktop — now that the industry is actually interesting again — it’s all falling apart for Flash. Apple is just hurrying things along a bit.

Why the iPad is a big deal

In terms of long-term large-scale impact on consumer computing, the iPad is the most significant new computing platform to launch in over 20 years, with the possible exception of the Web, depending on your definitions. Really. Even if the iPad itself ultimately ends up as a minor player in the tablet market, it will likely be the device that takes tablets mainstream, like as the Mac did for the GUI. Why is this a big deal? It’s a big deal because this form factor has been anticipated for over 40 years both in fiction (see, for instance, 2001) and by human/computer interaction designers (see, for instance, the Dynabook), and will likely have a major impact on the shape of computing over the next couple of decades.

In terms of how users interact with computers, the iPad is the most significant thing since the mouse and the modern GUI. You could credit the iPhone for the multitouch revolution, of course, but I think the the phone form factor is just too limited to develop the full vocabulary required for touch-based UI to really come into its own. The iPad is the first platform that will enable that.

And there’s even a bit more to the iPad than that. The iPad isn’t just a new device built along the same model as traditional computers but with a new form factor and primary interaction mechanism. Put together the simple model lineup, the lack of focus on geeky tech specs, the elimination of the file system as a user-level concern, the system-level automatic application installation, removal, and updating… and the iPad is also clearly a major push toward the sort of appliance-like personal computing that many have tried for over the years, but none have previously achieved.

Now, I understand perfectly well that these kinds of predictions are easy to dismiss. That’s sort of the nature of the thing; if this were all obvious, there wouldn’t be much point in writing about it. But large chunks of the web get archived, and we’ll see in five or ten years just who saw what was coming, and who didn’t.

Steve Jobs slams Adobe, Google

From a Town Hall meeting for employees, via Wired

About Adobe: They are lazy, Jobs says. They have all this potential to do interesting things but they just refuse to do it. They don’t do anything with the approaches that Apple is taking, like Carbon. Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy, he says. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it’s because of Flash. No one will be using Flash, he says. The world is moving to HTML5.

On Google: We did not enter the search business, Jobs said. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them, he says. Someone else asks something on a different topic, but there’s no getting Jobs off this rant. I want to go back to that other question first and say one more thing, he says. This don’t be evil mantra: “It’s bullshit.” Audience roars.

Apple hasn’t had any really serious rivalries for a while; the Apple vs. Microsoft thing lost its fervor in the ’90s and since then has played out according to well established ground rules that make the whole thing sort of boring.

The next decade sure is going to be interesting.

Does the iPad doom the Mac?

There seems to be much discussion about this in some circles, both by Mac users (some of whom have longstanding paranoia about Apple’s success with non-Mac products) and by some of the Mac’s detractors, who would really rather have Apple go off and build consumer devices and leave “real computing” to Microsoft.

The quick answer: not a chance.

It is the existence of the Mac that has allowed Apple to do virtually everything it has has done over the last 10 years:

  • The iPod, iTunes, and the iTunes store launched as Mac-only; without the ability to initially establish themselves there, they likely would have made little or no headway in the market.

  • The iPhone, of course, runs a version of OS X. One of the reasons it has been so hugely successful is because its technical similarity with the Mac allowed it to draw on the Mac developer pool, which is far larger and richer than what existed for any other mobile platform. (And the Mac tends to select for higher average developer quality than Windows, because developers who care about user experience are attracted to the platform by Apple’s relentless commitment to user experience.)

  • The iPad, as a platform which allows more serious applications than the iPhone, will benefit even more heavily from its technical similarity with an established desktop platform with a talented and highly innovative developer pool.

Kill the Mac? Does the phase “Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs” ring a bell?

It is also, I think, a very serious error to assume that there is some kind of zero-sum resource competition within Apple between the Mac and the iPhone/iPad. Desktop computing has been somewhat stagnant lately, yes. But this doesn’t just apply to the Mac — Microsoft has trouble getting people to grudgingly admit that maybe Windows 7 might be a little better than the system they shipped nine years ago.

The reason desktop computing has stagnated is simple — it has reached a local optimum. In the ~25 years since the Mac shipped, firmly establishing the current desktop paradigm, that paradigm has been explored from end to end, and what we have now basically represents the best of what was discovered. The only way to open up new territory, and make more than trivial incremental progress beyond what we have now, is to change some underlying assumptions and see what falls out of that.

This is precisely what Apple is doing when Apple takes OS X and adapts it for devices like the iPhone and iPad, and the innovations that come from this will flow back into OS X, just as the benefits of years of Mac-based OS X development flowed onto those platforms.

One could see a slow eventual merger of the Mac with Apple’s new touch platforms. But this wouldn’t be the death of the Mac any more than Windows XP — Microsoft’s merger of the Windows 9x line with the Windows NT line — was the death of Windows.

Apple sees iPad as major new platform

Unless you’ve been living in a cave that doesn’t get 3G reception, you’ve probably heard by now that Apple has a shiny new tablet called the iPad.

As far as I can see, the announcement does largely validate my earlier analysis. It’s not just a media player, it’s a device designed to do 75% of the useful things people do on the desktop computers, in a new and better way. And the long term goal of such a device can only be to try to shift the center of the computing universe away from Wintel.

There are specific indicators that this is what Apple is after.

  • iWork was announced along with the device. I said this would be a key early indicator. Creation of word processing, presentation and spreadsheet documents is the keystone of desktop computing. Isn’t the web more central to computing now? Yes, perhaps. But the web was already a multi-device platform; to the extent that the web is central to computing, that was already an example of the industry moving away from traditional desktop computing.

  • It runs iPhone apps. For some companies, this sort of compatibility would be taken for granted, but that’s not the case for Apple. iPhone apps are not going to provide the world’s best user experience on a device with a much larger screen. The typical Apple approach would have been to favor user interface purity over practical compatibility considerations. The fact that they went the practical route indicates they’re trying to remove as many barriers to adoption as possible.

  • The keyboard. I’m positive the optional external keyboard lies outside of Apple’s vision. As with the previous point, I think this is an example of Apple sacrificing its principles a bit to remove objections people would otherwise have to using the device.

  • The structure of the AT&T deal. Apple cut a deal with AT&T for reasonably priced wireless data services. But the iPad is only sold unsubsidized and unlocked, and even if you sign up for an AT&T plan, there’s no contract. Apple doesn’t want carrier lock-in to be a barrier to the adoption of this device, and doesn’t want to be beholden to outside parties for anything basic to the device. This kind of independence is essential to a flexible general purpose platform (imagine if Macs only worked with one kind of Internet access), and Apple probably had to negotiate pretty hard to get it.

More iPad analysis soon.

Tablet about redefining media, not computing?

One of the really stunning things about the App Store has always been its ability to get users to actually pay for things — so effectively that some Mac developers have abandoned or are considering abandoning the Mac for the iPhone.

In a way, the app store is sort of the antithesis of the FOSS movement. It seems to be designed around the theory that if you make revenue generation for third-party developers a fundamental feature of your platform (and Apple confirmed in Monday’s earnings call that their acquisition of mobile ad company Quattro was yet another way to “offer developers a seamless way to make more money”), then you get lots of great developers writing lots of great apps for your platform, and great apps attract users. Even if they have to pay for some of them.

Based on the success of the iPhone platform, this theory appears to be a pretty solid one.

We seem to be seeing increasing indications that rather than being a device intended to redefine computing, as I have been speculating, the tablet might instead be primarily be part of an effort to bring the same sort of revenue generation potential to digital distributed textual content, in a way that nobody has been able to do within the context of the web.

(Of course there’s no reason the tablet can’t redefine computing and media. Though the focus we’re seeing on the latter means that if the tablet is also going to attempt to do the former Apple might, as I previously speculated, not be very obvious about this up-front.)