I go back to this argument: Why exactly do we need this device. Aside from the fact it's cool technology, I'm still wondering if you have a laptop or netbook and if you have smartphone/iPhone, I'm still not clear why you need this. And how many of us can afford to have a phone, a laptop, netbook and tablet/iPad? Do we really need a device for every situation?
See my post: Does a Tablet PC Market Exist for Apple and Others?
Last night during the Oscars, Apple debuted its first iPad commercial. Steve Jobs was even at the awards ceremony and reportedly walked the Red Carpet. The iPad is due out the first of next month and many folks have already announced plans to run out and buy one the second it's available, but is that really a smart move? The fact is this is Apple's first whack at a larger platform touch device and there are probably a lot of kinks left to be worked out. I'm not saying you shouldn't ever buy one, I'm just suggesting it might be a good idea to wait for the first refresh.
Here are five reasons you might want to wait:
1. Never buy 1.0 technology, regardless of the manufacturer.
The fact is it's never a good idea to buy 1.0 technology. The company could change the device substantially and you will be stuck with the early model. Engineers learn from their mistakes and there are always going to be issues with a first generation device. Waiting for the first revision is just prudent.
2. Wait for the camera.
You know that people are going to want to use this device for Skype-type video calls, and it just doesn't make sense to me that they would release it without a built-in camera. I know this won't be a deal killer for many champing to buy one, but if you can wait, chances are Apple …
caperjack:
Thanks for the links. It looks like they are trying to push this message hard. Interesting.
Thanks again,
Ron
genemaster:
Thanks for the comment. Sounds like you simply don't trust cloud computing, whether it's Microsoft or anyone else, but a lot of people believe it's the future. As I wrote, you are not alone and many IT people feel the same way as you, but my guess is that we will see more software in the cloud over time as people get more used to the idea on a consumer level.
Ron
InsightsDigital:
Absolutely right. Facebook is out to make money and has little concern for its users or their privacy.
Thanks for the comment.
Ron
I was driving down the highway the other day, and it ocurred to me that Facebook sucks. No, really it does. Sure, it lets us connect with friends and we all put up with it, but think about just how bad it is.
Why do we put up with it? I'm guessing because it's convenient and it's free. Everyone you know is on there and it provides a suitable environment for connecting with old friends. So even though it's highly flawed, we use it anyway. As I drove on, it occurred to me that just about all of the technology we use on a daily basis is highly flawed, but we put up with it because we have so few good choices.
How about your cell phone?
Did you ever think clearly about your cell phone. You have to pay to answer the phone. Think about that for a minute. You don't control who calls you, but if you get a call, you have to pay minutes for it. The phones sometimes don't work if you aren't near a cell tower. The calls can be …
Instead of installing the software locally on your own computer or on your company's servers, you use the software on the supplier's servers. It saves you from installing and upgrades, but it also places your data in the hands of a third party. Google Docs is an example of a cloud service.
Ron
Steve Ballmer dropped a bomb shell in a speech the other day at the University of Washington, letting it be known that the desktop software company was basically betting it all on the cloud. In a report on the speech on PaidContent.org, Ballmer reportedly said the company was committing as much 70 percent of its employees to cloud projects, a number he said could reach as high as 90 percent in the coming years. As I interpret it, this doesn't necessarily mean they are abandoing the desktop, or that these employees are working exclusively on cloud projects, but they are at least spending some of their work time on cloud-related ventures.
Regardless, that's really an astounding statement, and even though Ballmer often seems to be a bit clumsy when speaking in public, I'm quite sure he doesn't say things like this without some thought beforehand (at least I would hope not). If this is true, it means a large percentage of the software giant's focus has shifted completely, a massive cultural and corporate adjustment, the likes of which we might never have seen before in the technology industry.
What is Microsoft?
You have to remember that Microsoft is really several companies:
* Consumer operating systems and desktop software (mostly Office)
* Enterprise software
* Phone operating system
* Games and Zune
I can see how Microsoft could commit to the cloud for all but the enterprise users, many …
Steve Ballmer, speaking at the Search Engine Marketing Expo this week, credited Google with being the first company to get internet search done right. Google certainly wasn't the first internet search engine. Yahoo!, InfoSeek, Excite and Alta Vista to name but a few, came along long before Google emerged in the late 90s. What Google did was provide relevant results in a way that no other search engine had done before. It simply had (and still has) an uncanny way of finding the information you need in the first few results.
Amidst all of the expansion at Google from search into applications, a browser, an OS, a phone OS and even a phone; it's easy to forget that Google has always been first and foremost, an internet search engine. It's what it did first and it still what it does best.
The Value of Incumbency
Ballmer could be a bit frustrated, a bit jealous and bit tired of Google's success. Specifically, he said, "The number one thing that Google benefits from in search is that they did it right, first. There's value to incumbency." Well, yes there is. As users we have a tendency to use a tool until we have a reason not to use it anymore. I've written before, that no matter how good Bing may be (or not be), it doesn't really matter to most users. Some will try the new thing because it's new, but …
The other night my son had a homework assignment asking me how technology had changed since I was a child. I started rattling off the the devices and technologies we take for granted today that didn't exist back then. Sounding like my parents talking about the old days, I told him about how we had no cell phones, PCs, MP3 players or flat screen TVs. There was no CD, DVD or Blue Ray. Nobody had a DVR. There weren't even VCRs. Heck we didn't have a color TV in our house until I was in high school in the 1970s.
Let's take a quick a look at a couple of technologies and see how far we've come.
Cell Phones
Have you ever noticed, you can easily date a movie by the phone technology? When you see someone go to a pay phone, you know it's before cell phones were in every pocket or purse. There was a time in the late 80s when a cell phone was fixed in the car (and appropriately known as a "car phone"). My first real memory of cell phones is from the X-Files TV show. I really loved how Agent Muldar snapped open his cell phone and called his partner Sculley. My first cell phone wasn't so slick, however. Purchased in the late 90s sometime, it was a solid brick and although it fit in my pocket, it wasn't necessarily comfortable to carry.
You can get …
And that JGPetty is the conundrum we all face in a nutshell. :-)
Ron
Just calling it like I see it, Patrick. Fact is that Google does make many excellent free tools and it's impossible to ignore that, but I also have to point out the trade-offs involved in using those tools.
As for your other concern, the fact is that a company like Google has data centers all of over the world and it's impossible to know which one is holding your data (or if any one center is ever holding all of your information at one time).
Thanks for your comment.
Ron
Google Buzz was not a great moment in the history of Google. It seemed to bring to the surface a lot of lingering bad feelings that people have been having about Google for some time. The botched Buzz release only made it worse, confirming people's worst fears that Google didn't give a fig about your privacy. More than one writer suggested it was time to stop using Google tools. Then the news hit yesterday that Google was getting sued by the European Union for anti-competitive practices. Last week, the US Justice Department approved the Microsoft-Yahoo! deal stating the deal could help check Google's power in the search market.
Once a company reaches a certain reputation with the public (and with government regulatory bodies), it's hard to change that perception, a lesson Microsoft learned the hard way. It's never easy being the top dog. It's human nature to want to see you taken down a notch. It's common in sports and business. People get tired of the same team/company winning, but there could be something deeper at play here, something more fundamental, and Google would be wise to pay close attention.
Google Is Everywhere
I know I'm not the only one who is uncomfortable with amount of data Google has been able to collect about us. The thing about Google is they offer good tools online for free, but there is really no such thing as a free lunch. Google's price is …
I realized last week that somehow inexplicably, Microsoft has become the underdog. Want proof? The US Justice Department *and* the EU approved the search deal with Yahoo! That the United States approved the deal is not really news because Justice has rarely met a deal it didn't like no matter how bad it might have looked, but the words it used suggested that this deal was necessary to check Google's growing power in consumer internet search.
The question is how did we get here and how did Microsoft, a company with more than $40 billion in the bank suddenly find itself in second (or even third place) in the on-going battle for technology dominance?
Bing
Mac World reported on the Justice Department's statement:
The Commission said its investigation shows that market participants expect the Microsoft-Yahoo deal “to increase competition in Internet search and search advertising by allowing Microsoft to become a stronger competitor to Google.”
So Bing is suddenly the big hope against Google's growing dominance? What's interesting to me is that if you look at data from Comscore, Google search traffic has basically held steady, while Bing's has increased slightly and Yahoo's has decreased slightly. What does that mean? It means that Bing is capturing traffic, but not from its rival. It's taking traffic from its partner.
With Bing running its backend, it also makes you wonder, exactly why anyone would use Yahoo! moving forward. One of Bing's strengths is …
Ah, you think I'm blaming Buzz users for Google's errors. If that's the way it reads, I apologize. That was not my intention.
The fact is you search for anyone on Facebook and a lot of information about you and your friends is exposed by default now. You search for someone on Twitter and you can see their Tweets, their followers and who they follow. If you go on LinkedIn, you can see a person's work history and very often the people they link to. Google screwed up in this instance, but they were trying to make the system work like other social networks tend to work.
Google should have been more careful about how they implemented this. They messed up by their own admission. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm saying that information on the internet is very vulnerable and people should definitely be aware of this.
Ron
I'm not excusing Google, David and I don't believe anything I wrote suggests that I was. I'm stating the cold hard facts about life on the internet. There are people who can access your information at will whenever they want (and do). Information on the internet is up for grabs whether you like it or not and you should be aware of that and deal with it or just unplug.
And for the record, if you are a cheating spouse or a criminal, your letters could be used against you and your phone lines could be tapped. Journalists are of course using the internet, but when dealing with confidential sources, they might want to take minor steps to hide their identity by using a dummy account as I suggested. It's just prudent. Remember, Deep Throat met Woodward and Bernstein in a dark parking garage for a reason because even back in the 70s prying eyes were everywhere. The internet makes it easier to listen in.
While citizens should have a reasonable expectation of privacy in private correspondence whether on the phone, the mail or the internet; the fact is, that it's fairly easy for people to intercept these communications. Google deserves criticism and I clearly state that in my post, but anyone who uses the internet, has to know that companies may expose some of their information either accidentally or on purpose and you have to be prepared for that.
If you took a poll and asked …
When I signed up for Buzz, it didn't pull my entire address book. I found it chose people rather randomly-not even the people I necessarily corresponded with most often. Your mileage may have varied on this, I grant you.
For the record, I'm not excusing Google's actions, I'm merely stating that maybe people should be careful about the information they share on the internet, whether it's Google or anyone else.
Someone sued Google the other day for violating her privacy with the original implementation of Google Buzz. You see, when you first opened Google Buzz last week, Google looked at the people you most frequently email or chat with and used that list of people to seed your followers list. They made this list public too, which is apparently what got privacy advocates in an uproar.
Since then, Google has fixed the problem, but that hasn't stopped lawyers for a woman named Eva Hibnick from filing a law suit. Critics have said that the privacy hole could have hurt people who were trying to hide certain information from public view. Here's a bit of advice:
If you're trying to hide information from public view, DON'T USE GMAIL!
Would a Journalist Really Talk to Sources on GTalk?
Apparently some journalists were upset because this "public" list outed some of their "confidential" sources. If you're a journalist, maybe you should have had the good sense to follow my rule above, but if you insist on using Google to talk to your sources, maybe you should set up a dummy account to talk to them. Google accounts are free and simple enough to set up.
Same goes for cheating spouses. If you're going to use a public channel like GMail to communicate with your lover, set up an account under an assumed name.
Is Google Blameless?
Google clearly could have given this …
A couple of weeks ago, I had the great pleasure of seeing Steve Garfield speak at Pod Camp Western Mass. Garfield is the author of Get Seen, a practical book on the ins and outs of web video production. He has been working with video on the web since well before most of us even considered it as a possibility. As Garfield spoke, he talked about using an iPhone 3GS as to capture and share video. Unfortunately, I own an iPhone 3G, which doesn't have such capability, or so I thought.
Just as I was formulating a strategy to convince my wife why I needed to upgrade my iPhone, Garfield came to the rescue. You see there really is an App for that. For just $1.99 U.S. you can buy Qik for the iPhone 3G and turn your ordinary iPhone into a video capture device. I'm here to tell you, it works.
Just that Easy, Just That Quick
While I sat there, I downloaded the application and started capturing video of Garfield's presentation. He's an excellent speaker, by the way; relaxed, funny and full of practical advice. Qik proved to be a great find for me.
After you capture video, you can share it by email with a friend, send it as a link via SMS or place the video on your Facebook page. You can also access the video in a browser on your desktop computer if you are …
David,
I just did a search for you in the Follower tool in Buzz and was able to find you straight away. I haven't seen the iPhone client yet. Have to check that out.
But there does seem to be confusion about how to find followers in this tool and it's something that Google needs to straighten out sooner than later.
Ron
Thanks to everyone for contributing comments. Always great to hear a range of opinions.
Ron
As I make my way around the internet today, I'm not finding a lot of love for Google Buzz. In fact, people have been downright hostile to it, from what I can figure. Here are some Tweets from my knowledgeable friends:
* @theskypirate: I tried Buzz for a day, was unimpressed, and turned it off last night. I'll wait for it to bake just a little more.
* @DavidAKnopf: I don't hate #Buzz, but it brings very little new to the party, and some of the new stuff is annoying!
* @techcommdood: You'd think the smart people at #Google could design #Buzz better. #usability #accessibility #fail
That's a lot of criticism from several smart people, and it makes me stand up and take notice, but I don't completely agree. I think there's a lot of potential and I expect the fact it's open will lead to some interesting uses. Patience people, just a little patience.
The Public Followers List Tempest
People went ballistic almost as soon as Google Buzz went live yesterday because Google seeded Buzz with followers from what it saw as your "Frequent Mailers" list in Gmail. Some folks saw that as a gross violation of privacy. I'm not sure I agree, but you have to respect people's concerns and there is a quick fix for hiding your lists, so everyone can take a deep breath on that one, please.
The …
Buried in all the Google Buzz hype today was a little story on TechCrunch that Google is planning to offer 1 gigabit-per-second, super-duper, high-speed fiber-optic cable in up to 50,000 homes in the US shortly. This is more significant to me than Google taking on Facebook. Think about this for a second, OK? In my town we have "high" speeds of around 8 megabits per second. The very fastest Comcast service available anywhere is 50 megabits per second. This is one GIGABIT per second. I mean, we are talking about unheard of speeds. Do I want it? Hell yes, I want it!
Google Wants to Change the Conversation
According to the post on Google, this about changing the way we even think of how we use the internet. They suggest the idea of actually downloading a full-length high definition movie in under 5 minutes. Yes, that's fast. That's beyond belief fast. What Google would be doing is giving ordinary earthlings like ourselves access to the Google backbone. For now, they plan to limit to several communities and between 50,000 and 500,00 initial users. That's not many in the scheme of the internet, but those lucky communities that get this speed will be getting Start Trek-style internet access.
In Case You're Worried About Them Doing Evil...
I know Eric Schmidt would have us believe that Google won't ever do any evil, but hey you may be worried about giving the company that …
Google is reportedly coming out with a Twitter-like tool this week. Google's tried social a few times, but it hasn't done very well. Why are people so excited about it this time?
It's important to remember that everything Google touches doesn't turn to gold. Sometimes they screw up. Sometimes they overestimate their own abilities, and sometimes they are just late to the game.
Do We Need a Twitter Killer?
Everywhere I look tonight, I see people calling this unknown quantity a "Twitter Killer." Bing is a "Google Killer" and Nexus One is an "iPhone Killer" and now Google has a "Twitter Killer." But usually these things don't turn out to kill the reigning champion because people are satisfied with what they are using.
There are millions of happy Twitter users out there. What is their motivation to move to Google? Micro Blogging is not sexy. It's 140 characters. Google would need to come up with something amazing to undermine the entire Twitter eco system, no easy task.
Google Wants a Piece of Social Real Bad
It's clear that Google has seen the future and its name is social networking. To that end, in the last several months Google has moved Google Search to be more social. When you search now, you see Twitter streams in real time in the Google interface. Marissa Meyer has talked about adding social results from your friends in the results stream (a set of trusted results).
…
I was debating with my friend David A. Knopf on Twitter recently about the iPad's target market. He was sure that iPhone and Mac owners like himself were the key targets, while I argued that it was precisely the opposite, people who didn't own these devices already. We went back and forth as we often do, but what was really interesting, is that both of us made valid points with links for backup about whom we believed Apple was targeting with this device.
Marketing 101
When a company like Apple creates a device like the iPad, they must have a target market in mind. Nobody creates a device like this, least of all Apple, without knowing a lot about the people they want to buy it. So who is it:
* Grandma who rarely uses a computer?
* Gear heads who love gadgets?
* Kindle owners who want more than a one-trick device?
* iPhone owners who are comfortable with a touch screen, but want something bigger?
* Mac owners want a middle ground device for the coffee table that's bigger than an iPhone, but smaller than a laptop?
A Look at the Literature
Well, if you read the literature, you will find that people believe it's all these people.
Daniel Tenner wrote on TechCrunch:
But geeks and assorted Macheads constitute a relatively small percentage of the computer-using people around the world. The vast …
Lenlin:
I don't appreciate you using my blog as a forum for your personal homophobia. Products are not gay, people are and you insult them when you use the term in this manner.
I'm not suggesting Google doesn't make good products by the way or disparaging Google in any way, and I'm not sure, how you took that from my post. What I said, if you read it, was that Google has made some big enemies and it could cost them market share. If it does, it costs them and their shareholders money.
They have every right to compete in whatever markets they want. I haven't seen the Linux tablets yet, but I do own a Linux Netbook and it's a nice little machine.
Ron
Actually, politics and business make for strange bedfellows and stranger things have happened. Fact is, that reliable sources are suggesting that Microsoft and Apple are in serious talks about bringing Bing to the iPhone. There are big egos involved here, and even if aligning with Microsoft doesn't appear to be in Apple's best interest, don't think they wouldn't do it if they think Google is after their business. It may be absurd to you my friend, but trust me, stranger things have happened in this business.
Thanks for your comment.
Ron
They aren't going to go away. I'm exaggerating, of course, but as a free service, Google operates in a different sphere than other businesses like WalMart and of course like governments. By competing directly with Apple, it could conceivably result in them forming alliances with Microsoft, and if this cuts market share, it costs them money. They aren't going away tomorrow, I grant you that, but every percentage point of market share lost is ad dollars lost.
Thanks for your comment.
Ron
When Google developed the Nexus One, they might not have figured on one huge unintended consequence. They pissed off Steve Jobs big time.
"We didn't get into the search business," he reportedly barked, at a Town Hall style meeting, following the iPad announcement last weekend. "They got in the phone business! Make no mistake they want to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them."
Alrighty then--Steve is, a bit, ahem, passionate about this subject, touchy even. Sounds like Google made itself a very powerful enemy when it decided to get into the phone business, one that has run into the waiting arms of Microsoft.
Consider the Possibilities
One estimate I read pegged Bing grabbing half of all iPhone search traffic. That's only one phone of course, but it's a VERY popular phone and it will have at least some impact. Suppose half of all searchers on the iPhone started using Bing and they liked it, so they decided to use it on the desktop too. Suddenly you could start seeing Bing make some progress in its seemingly Sisyphean task of trying to overtake Google in Search.
What if Others Follow
Let's not forget that Google has some other powerful enemies too. There are lots of publishers, who rightly or not, believe Google has stolen their content. Some like Rupert Murdoch, have suggested they will leave the Google index. I've written in Mark Cuban's Plan to Kill Google, …
Amazon didn't waste a lot of time answering the challenge of the iPad. The New York Times is reporting this morning that Amazon has acquired Touchco, a touch screen company, and plans to incorporate its engineers into the Kindle division.
It doesn't take a PhD in analysis to figure out that Amazon is threatened by the upcoming release of the iPad and other eBook reader competitors, which already have touch screen versions of their devices. What surprises me, is how quickly Amazon responded to the challenge.
Amazon Had Early Success
Amazon benefited from being a big book seller and being early to market with an electronic book reading device. It also didn't hurt that Oprah gave the Kindle a huge push on her show. With the Winfrey blessing, sales of the Kindle took off, but like many early leaders in technology, while they reveled in early success, competitors crept in. First there was the Sony Reader, then the Nook from Barnes & Noble. The iPad is the biggest threat to date, and even though this announcement is not quite official, it makes all the sense in the world.
Time To Move On
The Kindle can't hope to compete at a high level with these other devices without a touch screen. People expect it, and buttons are just awkward. Amazon's move is not strictly defensive though. It appears that the technology they purchases is considerably cheaper than the type used on the iPad. …
StudentX:
Thanks for your great comments. You've given me a lot to think about and I appreciate you taking the time to share your ideas (and links) with me. Perhaps this is something I need to rethink.
Thanks to all who have pushed back and challenged my thinking.
Ron
David,
I've heard you sing the praises of Adobe Live Meeting as being a great tool. Well, that tool is built on top of the Flash platform. Adobe is doing lots of interesting things like that using Flash. That doesn't sound lazy to me as Jobs suggests does it? Have you seen some of the cool things they've done around Flash and online help to provide 3D drawings in a manual, for instance. I think it's extremely interesting and programs like this aren't going away.
Thanks for your comment.
Ron
Louis,
I'm not suggesting that I'm "blaming" Apple for anything. I'm simply making the observation that Adobe tools, and particularly Flash are too firmly entrenched in the web experience today to expect they will suddenly go away tomorrow when the new flavor of the month comes along (no matter how much better that flavor may or may not be).
For the record, I'm not sure Apple is even promoting HTML 5 (as much as their rival Google is). Dont' forget that Apple benefits when people use Apps from the App Store on the iPhone and iPad, which are themselves proprietary platforms. I'm not sure, that Apple wins should HTML 5 win (if win is even the right word). Jobs just seems annoyed with Adobe.
I think you underestimate the power of Flash and the slow pace of change. Just because the folks who tend to use DaniWeb tend to gravitate toward the cutting edge, most folks are using older machines, running older OSs and browsers and won't be able to run sites using HTML 5. That means having multiple versions of sites running across multiple browsers, creating a mass of confusion in the coming years.
HTML 5 may be better, but the best tools don't always win (and certainly not right away).
Thanks for for your comment.
Ron
Studentx:
First of all, Adobe makes Mac and PC versions of most of its products. Second of all, 90 percent of Flash is not video. That's a common misconception. There are whole web sites built on Flash, and you probably don't even have a clue that it's Flash. Flash is much more than animation and video, it's a whole complex development platform. HTML 5 could at some point take away from Flash's dominance as a video streaming tool, but as I wrote, it's far too ubiquitous to think that it will simply kill that part of the Flash market. So many people use older browsers that don't run HTML 5 and so many will for years and years. Past behavior has proven this. I think you will find that rumors of Flash's demise will have been greatly exaggerated.
Thanks for your comment.
Ron
Hi Red Devil
Thanks for the comment and sharing your thoughts. I think it may be possible to share ebooks. The Nook has this capability if I'm not mistaken, but you're right that the dynamic wouldn't be the same, that's for sure.
Ron
Word came out this past weekend that Steve Jobs held a Town Meeting with his employees after the iPad party. Among the topics were Adobe and the Nexus One, which apparently both have Jobs more than a little riled. According to a Wired article, he had this to say about Adobe and Flash:
They are lazy, Jobs says. They have all this potential to do interesting things but they just refuse to do it.
Seriously, Steve?! I would say, Adobe has done all kinds of interesting things with Flash in spite of what Jobs may think. Yet it seems that many pundits feel with the advent of HTML 5 next year, it will mark the end of Flash era of domination. HTML 5 has the ability to generate streaming video (which is only part of the Flash experience) and Google has even demoed (according to this article) a version of YouTube using HTML 5 instead of Flash. It could very well be that HTML 5 could represent a sea change on the web, but I'm guessing that it will be a slow evolution. Flash is too enmeshed in the Web experience to just fall off the face of the earth.
Silverlight Didn't Do Squat
Microsoft's Silverlight was supposed to challenge Flash, but it really hasn't. You would think with all of the resources that Microsoft has put behind it, it would have made a dent in Flash's domination, but you have …
Let's not forget the concept of Print on Demand moving forward, which could provide a means to print small runs of books based on the number ordered. A number of companies are creating relatively low-priced printing presses that could put this capability within reach of smaller boutique publishers who create specialty paper books for a small audience.
Thanks for your comment.
Ron
I love books. My house is full of bookshelves overflowing with them. I have countless cabinets stuffed with them and they pour off my wife's and my night stands. We have spent many a night in book stores just perusing the shelves, spying the new releases and I've discovered some of my favorite authors just wandering through the stacks at my local library pulling random titles off the shelf. When my daughter (now 18) was just a day or two old, I sat her on my lap and read her a little plastic book called Donny Dolphin.
I also love gadgets. I'm fascinated by the Kindle, the Nook and the Sony Reader. I'm enchanted by the iPad and the new electronic book shelf and book store. Yet part of me fears that I'm witnessing the beginning of the end of my beloved paper books as these devices become more pervasive. I worry that future generations will not experience the same joy I've had browsing, collecting, holding and reading the paper book.
Should I be worried? Are we witnessing the inevitable march toward electronic media or is it just another chapter in the long history from Gutenberg's press to the present day?
The Market will Shift
eBooks do not have to mean the death of the paper book, but it very likely could begin to take a back seat to the electronic variety. Over the next 10 years, I'm guessing as devices like the Kindle, iPad and …
Sheva249,
I think we have to wait and see how Amazon responds to the new competition. If they can update the Kindle and compete with Apple on price and functionality, it will be a battle. If they sit around and do nothing, they will become an afterthought in gadget history.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Ron
Hi TechMom:
Thanks for the comment. I'm sure that's not an angle that many people have considered. Be interesting to see if it turns into a special needs education device.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
Ron
Yesterday, after the iPad announcement, many folks Tweeted that it's the end of the line for the Amazon Kindle as if it were a fait accomplis. I'm not convinced that's true, but it does raise questions about the utility of the single-purpose device, and whether you want your eBook Reader to serve up more than just books.
Kindle Experience Looks Blah Now
Both the Kindle and the Nook from Barnes & Noble suddenly look a little pedestrian now next to the iPad. Apple has a funny way of making other devices look second rate. It's one the company's core strengths. Although I haven't seen it, based on experience, you just know the iPad is going to have a killer display, and it's full color, so it already has something going for it, that at least right now, neither of those devices have.
Blogs and web content look horrible in black and white eBook Readers, especially if you use pictures in your posts. The fact is, the Kindle and Nook have been designed with a single purpose in mind, and that's to read books (and of course sell books for their respective manufacturers). There is nothing inherently wrong with that. In fact, interface expert Jakob Nielsen absolutely loved the book reading experience on the Kindle 2, which is high praise indeed.
More eBook Readers On the Way
The Kindle, Nook and Sony Reader are also about to be joined by
But as I wrote, it's not just an eBook Reader. I've found the reading/viewing experience on the iPhone to be surprisingly good. We shall see, David. We shall see. I'll be the first one to admit I'm wrong if this thing sells, but as I said, I'm not so sure it will.
Thanks for the comment.
Ron
The long-awaited iPad, the tablet computer from Apple had its coming out party this afternoon and for a while, I wondered if the event was even worth watching. For the first half hour, Jobs droned on about web pages, video and email like they were some fantastic new phenomena we should all be wowed about. Finally, he got to the good stuff, the specs, the content, the apps, the price, the price!
But ultimately this an oversized iphone. It has some sweet little touches that Apple always manages to put into its devices, and it supports a keyboard, which is a must if this going to be a business device (I think it will be), but is it enough? Will this thing sell like iPhones? I'm not so sure.
It's Not Really an eBook Reader
While the device, has an ebook application, and it introduces an iTunes-like store for books (powered by a deal with several major publishing houses), it's not an eBook Reader. It will encompass many different functions into a single device, something that could push buyers who were on the fence about an eBook Reader. Analyst Michael Gartenberg said this device will put pressure on single-purpose devices like the Amazon Kindle. "The iPad challenges dedicated devices. It leverages multiple devices, and therefore it will be attractive to buyers."
Dude, Where's my iPhone
I think there's some truth to what Gartenberg says, but I also think I already …
We seem to have reached one of those pivotal moments that come along every so often where the big three--Google, Microsoft and Apple-are fighting particularly hard to gain a dominant position. Of course, this is a constant battle, but for some reason it feels more acute to me lately.
Maybe that's because the mobile space has taken on a new sense of urgency for all three companies. For the time being, it appears that Microsoft is a step or two behind, while Google and Apple battle for the spoils, but as we know, Microsoft has the resources to catch up in a hurry.
With this back-drop in mind, I thought it might be interesting to look at the strengths of each company.
Microsoft: Kings of the Desktop
Microsoft has always been a desktop software company. Its key products are Windows and Office, and even though, it's moving to the cloud, the company's core business remains focused firmly on the desktop. Microsoft also has a big advantage over Apple and Google in the Enterprise software business with popular offerings like Exchange and Sharepoint. So far at least, neither Apple nor Google can compete with these products.
Apple: Consumer/Retail Leaders
Apple knows how to build attractive products that work well. Consumer products like the iPod and iPhone fly off the shelves, even though they cost substantially more than competing products. Apple Stores have also been tremendously successful and the company's marketing machine is the envy of …
According to various reports, Apple has approached Microsoft about making Bing the default search engine on the iPhone. I'm sure it's all enough to make Steve Ballmer come out from behind his desk and do a happy dance.
His little search engine that could is being portrayed as the anti-Google, but before we get too ahead of ourselves, let's not forget this is Microsoft we are talking about. There are no white knights in big business, only shifting alliances that suit the needs of the various parties.
The Eyeball Wars
In search, it's all about eyeballs. And Google is winning the search battle hands down. According to search engine market share statistics released by comScore in December, Google leads all search engines with 65.7% of all search traffic. Yahoo! was second with 17.7, followed by Microsoft at 10.3. Did you notice Microsoft is way back in the pack? Yes, they gained .4 from November, but let's face it, Bing has a looong way to go before they even catch Yahoo! in second place.
Yet Apple apparently wants to hitch its immensely popular phone to this search product? If Apple really wants a change, why not go to Yahoo! or even Ask (which is actually a darn good search engine). Going to Bing is purely about giving Google a slap in the face.
It's the Perception
Rupert Murdoch, CEO of Newscorp, has made a lot of noise in recent …
A little over a year ago Barack Obama surged to victory using social media to drive his energized base to the polls. Tonight in Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown turned the tables and used those same tools to help defeat Democrat Martha Coakley and win the Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy for almost 50 years. His victory proves the true power of the web to define the very fabric of our political process moving forward.
Brown Was Everywhere
I had an inkling this election wasn't going to go well for the Democrats when over the last several days I saw Brown's ads everywhere I traveled on the web. This showed he was well financed and that his campaign could use IP addresses to target ads to people from Massachusetts. I don't pay much attention to ads, but I couldn't help but notice his picture everywhere I looked, and it had to have a cumulative if subtle effect to keep the candidate on top of minds of voters as they moved around the web.
Contrast that with Coakley who had far fewer ads, and mostly on sites where you would expect to see them like Boston.com.
The Social Media Factor
The other day, David Meerman Scott, author of World Wide Rave and the New Rules of Media and PR, wrote a piece on Huffington Post on the social media numbers game. Unlike last year when when John McCain knew little about social …
NoName:
AOL was dead for all intents and purposes long before Google ever became a force. As for MSN, they were never a factor, certainly not in search. Google beat Yahoo with its core strength, that being search. But again, there is nothing in post that suggest I don't take Google seriously. If you read my body of work, you know that I do. This post is merely suggesting that a war between Google and Apple wouldn't really be a good idea for either company and they would be better off working together in strategic partnerships, rather than fighting each other.
But I do believe it's a bad idea for Google to sell phones especially in their Web-only model. I believe companies do best when they stick to what they do best and Google doesn't know retail. Apple does.
Thanks for your comment.
Ron
Sothatsit:
Thanks for commenting, but must disagree with your first point. This was an extremely high profile launch and attended by press, top-name bloggers, analysts and other industry movers and shakers. It was in fact very Apple-like in its approach.
The iPhone was launched at an invitation-only Apple event. I don't see how that's different.
As for the choice points, nobody is suggesting that there should only be one phone. I totally agree that choice is a good thing and there are features on the Nexus One that should push its competitors including Apple and others to innovate. That's all to the good (and something I write about frequently in this blog).
My point in this post was to point out Peter Burrow's argument about a brewing war between these two very powerful companies and to suggest that working together in strategic partnerships might be a better way to go than battling each other.
I think Android is a great platform and I've written I think the Droid is a great phone. By all accounts so is Nexus One.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Ron
Random Guy
Thanks for all the great points. Appreciate the comment.
Ron
Salem:
Thanks for the comment, but I don't see the connection between Apple and 1980s IBM as clearly as you do. They have a rabid customer base that loves their products and continues to buy them in large numbers. Phones are already commodity items, but Apple somehow manages to avoid the commodity trap and make large margins on products on the higher end of the price spectrum.
Regarding the App store, the high entry barrier of which you write, doesn't appear to have limited its growth in any way I can see. The App Store is a huge and growing success. You simply can't argue with the numbers.
As for whether the customers are new or old, what does that matter? If Apple can compel a current iPhone owner to upgrade to the newest version, a sale is a sale is a sale. It really doesn't matter.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Ron