My Blog

Will Mac apps iLife & iWord be in the Cloud?

Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:52:57 -0800

Some have speculated that at Macworld today, Apple will introduce Cloud versions of the Mac applications in iLife (iPhoto, iMovie) and iWork (Pages, Numbers and Keynote). One prognosticator went so far as to begin the discussion with iMovie. He was quickly shot down by commenters who know arithmetic who pointed out that uploading files as large as hundreds of megabytes to edit them on the web was not very workable. At the time, it occurred to me that while editing home movies or business videos on the web is silly since Macs to this just fine, I did think of one area where iMovie on the web would make sense. If the iPhone/iPod touch gained the ability to record short videos, those files would upload reasonably well, could be edited a little through a web version of iMovie and then appear on Mobile Me or youtube.com. Perhaps Apple has a video recording iPod in the works--think a Flip MinoHD and iPhone/iPod blend. Maybe. But there’s actually a neater train of logic to take to reach the idea of iApps on Mobile Me.

There’s a persistent call for robust editing of documents and spreadsheets on the iPhone. I don’t think anyone seriously wants to write a novel on their iPhone/iPod touch but taking notes and customizing business proposals, letters and spreadsheets while on the go has a lot of useful appeal. If Apple made the apps Pages, Numbers, Keynote available on Mobile Me, along with an iPhone interface tuned for editing these documents, then mobile users could draft or customize their documents via the iPhone/iPod touch and have the new versions synched with their other Macs in real time. This could work, and would be in line with Apple’s previous path to iPhone apps which first provided web apps before the release of the SDK for native iPhone development.

The ultimate sales tool would be full support for Windows users to access Mobile Me and try out key Mac Apps as part of a free trial. My experience is that Windows users don’t choose to remain with Windows, they just have no ability to imagine a better way to do things.

I don’t know if Apple will follow though on this idea, but it isn’t a bad idea at all.

An iPhone nano? Could be, follow me...

Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:45:55 -0800

Will Apple introduce a lower priced iPhone nano at Macworld as some rumors claim? The visuals posted by various news sites show a smaller phone and therefore a smaller screen.
Since no one has been complaining that the iPhone is too big in any way (size or weight) and a smaller phone would have a smaller battery and offer less talk time than an iPhone, why would Apple do this? Also, the rumor source: XSKN, a Chinese case manufacturer's product page (see screen capture above), says the iPhone nano will lack 3G data connectivity. This sounds like a pretty oddball product. Yet, maybe not.
To see how an iPhone nano could work for Apple, let's look at what Apple actually does with products.
• They tie each product to some killer usability
• They drop "features" everyone else says are sacrosanct
• They shoot at, and hit, a market that isn't visible to competitors.
The original iMac had no floppy drive, but set a new standard in design, ease of setup and use. The MacBook Air abandoned the CD drive and a cluster of legacy ports in favor of what travelers really need: a large screen and multi-touch keyboard in a sturdy yet light weight form factor. So Apple has a proven ability to eliminate hardware while maintaining or improving the user experience. But to grasp why Apple might offer an iPhone nano, we have to look at the iPod shuffle. People think the iPod shuffle was created to make a really small iPod and to achieve the small size, Apple had to drop the screen and most of the controls. That's sort of true. But I think the goal was not to reach consumers who wanted fewer features on a music player, but a different group: people who wanted to join the ranks of iPod ownership but didn't want to drop a couple of hundred dollars on a regular iPod, which they'd then have to fill up with music. So the iPod shuffle allows anyone to wear the white earbuds, signifying iClub membership, but with a device that doesn't require a high purchase price or on-going fiddling with massive lists of songs that they may not care about. As a side benefit, the iPod Shuffle is a rugged, ultra-portable iPod that you don't have to look at to use. It's an inexpensive ticket to the iPod community, a great second iPod device for current owners an eyes-free iPod and a killer gift. Everybody wins. How does this inform our thoughts about an iPhone nano?
Up until yesterday, I would have guessed that Apple's next portable device would be a 6” x 9” sized iPod touch; the larger screen being the same size as a hardback book page. As an ebook reader, this device would kill off the Kindle and all other single-taskers ebook readers in no time. I think Apple should make one and I'll be ordering it before Tim stops talking if they do, but there's a bigger market that Apple can grab. For everyone like me, who wants to read ebooks on a larger screen than the iPhone offers, there are thousands of people who just want a phone that makes phone calls. They may admire "the internet in your pocket" and other appeals of the iPhone, but for them, a phone alone will do. A simple grunge phone that works on lots of networks. If they want music and games, they can pick the iPod model they like. If they want some internet in their pockets, they can and do, buy the iPod touch and have the internet wherever there's an open WiFi network.
I then looked closely at my own iPhone. The core phone related applications: Contacts, General (setup), Photo Library, and iTunes, all offer between seven and nine items in pick lists before you have to scroll. That is, when looking up a Contact you can see nine names at once, or eight iTunes playlists or song titles at once. Would a smaller iPhone nano that only offered five items at a time, be equally appealing? Probably. The iPhone's iPhoto library presents twenty thumbnails at a time in its picture browser. Would an iPhone nano that only displayed a dozen photos at a time be that much less desirable? No, because no other simple phone alone offers the nifty touch, pinch, flick interface to see similar information. Here's what I think an iPhone nano might be:
• It’s a phone alone; no broadband Edge, or G3 data service, but it makes calls on any network.
• No visual voice mail because that requires a data service.
• Offers all the interactivity of the iPhone interface to do phone related things. Apps still work on a smaller screen without scaling down the whole screen; the user just scrolls sooner to see all the items in lists.
• The screen is still bigger than the screen of an iPod nano; it's an iPod that plays music and games and makes phone calls.
It might access the internet if you're in a WiFi spot. Apple doesn't normally offer products that include inferior experiences to products they already have. Most people can't feel the speed difference between the fastest model Mac and the slowest doing the things most people do: send email and surf. An iPhone nano with a smaller screen would be visibly inferior to the iPhone and iPod touch at doing real web work, but this may not matter to people who want a phone alone.
An iPhone nano would allow Apple to sell a zillion units to people who would pay a little more to get the iPhone interface on a simple phone.
An iPhone nano, if sold unlocked, would allow all phone companies to offer an iPhone. The interest in jailbroken iPhones who lose the AT&T services like visual voicemail shows there's a willingness to have fewer features to have an iPhone. An iPhone nano would appeal to consumers and improve business at all phone companies.
An iPhone nano actually helps AT&T a lot. It gives them the opportunity to "sell up" to a regular iPhone in every AT&T store at every point of sale. AT&T retail staff don't like the iPhone because there's no chance to engage in sales-manship and get personal recognition in the organization. iPhone buyers are pre-sold and can't be switched. Everyone who enters an AT&T store to look at an iPhone nano is a prospect to be upsold softly with no risk.
If Apple does an iPhone nano, the model lineup would look like this:
iPods - music and games differentiated by storage and size
iPhone nano - a small iPod touch that makes calls
iPhone nano+WiFi - a small iPod touch that makes calls and does email and surfs the web via WiFi on a multi-touch screen similar in size to many simple phones from many vendors
iPod touch - a large multi-touch screen iPod model that adds email and surfs the web via WiFi
iPhone - the original: phone, with multi-touch email, games, Apps and web via 3G, Edge or WiFi
This looks pretty good to me. Apple does create a competitive decision for the buyer but the choice is among Apple models. Apple's non-sales driven retail technique works perfectly and the more sales-driven AT&T retailers get to flex their skills. The consumer choice is "Which Apple model?", not "maybe an Apple or something else."
In my model of Apple thinking, we can see that the iPod touch was not a device to offer web connectivity on an iPod, but a market test to see if people would buy a portable WiFi only internet device to use along with a simple phone. I'll bet 100% of iPod touch owners have some cell phone. Once Apple knew the answer was yes, it becomes possible to offer an iPhone nano that makes regular calls and (may) access the net without the battery draining broadband data services. We will see what happens at Macworld.
In preparing this essay, I made no use of leaks, rumors (other than the iPhone nano rumor mentioned) or other sources. This is strictly based on an empirically derived model. No psychic powers were involved and no cats were harmed during divination.

Why Apple will not offer a Netbook

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:31:55 -0800

Today I'm going to add to the commentary on the likelihood of an Apple Mac Netbook device and show why Apple will not do one, at least not the way other vendors have done Netbooks or the way analysts expect. John Gruber has already made a nice case for refuting the strongest Netbook rumor at Daring Fireball. I will address the issue of audience, purpose, and the semiotics of Apple design that make a Netbook unlikely, while showing what a product that lies between the iPhone/iPod touch and the MacBook would have to do.
My argument rests on three aspects of Apple products. Apple undertakes a product when:
• It looks distinctive
• It offers a unique user experience
• Seeing/touching is believing
Apple products will blend their elements into one iconic form that makes them instantly recognizable and obvious. They will exhibit no single flaw that can become a no-brainer negative. For example: the iPod fits the hand, is shiny white (at least the first models), has white earbuds, one handed operation, and personalization (unlimited choice of music and organization of playlists). As a result, the iPod is its own icon and symbol, and appeals by ostention--showing it is enough, you don't have to explain it.
MacBook family laptops are similarly distinctive.
To appreciate why Apple won't do a Netbook, we need to look first at the MacBook Air. For years vendors had been offering small and smaller laptops without much success. The goal was to produce an ultra-portable with a carry weight around three pounds. To do this, tradeoffs had to be made, but every other vendor chose to reduce the screen and keyboard size and retain the CD drive and as many traditional ports as possible. The vendors were hardware lovers not people-people so they gave up user satisfaction to keep the gizmos. Enter Apple; who optimized around the two things that form the user experience: the screen and the keyboard while achieving low weight. It works. Why? The CD drive and ports were there for the computer. The screen and keyboard were there for the user. Apple engineered to the right constraints.

Netbooks have carved out an identity characterized by two no-brainer negatives: small screens and small keyboards. Apple can't follow this pattern unless or until they find some interface to some information that sweeps those two issues off the table.

Second, we need to look at Apple's guidelines for iPhone developers. A key part of iPhone applications design is to select the right subset of the information the developer wants to offer in an App and make it work with the iPhone's small, multi-touch interface. You have to be willing to expose yourself to programming topics and Cocoa's frameworks to read about all this, but there's really smart stuff in what Apple gives away. Apple says the developer must understand what the iPhone user wants to do with the device and information in the context of a portable device. The optimum, elegant iPhone App allows the user to engage with the data, game play, interface to the service or whatever, in a unique and surprising way. This can include pointing at what you want, scrolling a list, turning the device in 3-space or whatever. Apple needs third party developers to grasp that the iPhone is wondrous, not because it is a phone that can access the internet, but because it is a unique device that does these and other things.

Now let's look at Netbook computers. To meet the goals of small, lightweight and cheap, they feature tiny screens, reduced sized keyboards and are underpowered in both CPU and memory compared to their laptop siblings. They are impressive in the way that cameos are impressive paintings, but they only give access to the web and email and other programs which are typically delivered by larger systems. Netbooks, as a category, don't enhance the user experience for these two tasks in any way. They are just tiny laptops restricted by their size to be less than laptops. By contrast, the iPhone is more than a phone.

Third, Netbook computers are currently defined as clamshell screens and keyboards. Some allow touching the screen with a stylus, but none has been adopted widely other than as curiosities.

My belief is that Apple will not do a Netbook-type device until they can identify some widespread, repeated human activity that can be made consistently enjoyable at a form factor between the iPhone and a laptop. There needs to also be some distinctive aspect of the interaction that Apple can implement so well that they will "own" the concept of the interaction. One of the iconic aspects of the iPod is the analog dial (the scroll wheel) as a control for a digital music player. How strange, yet it feels right to everyone. There's no interaction with Netbooks that can transform what they do. At least not yet.

What might the killer use be? Apple may have found something and will roll it out when they are happy. They may not know yet. But just making websites accessible on tiny screens can't be enough.

That's why I don't believe Apple will make a Netbook until they've found this action founded in user interests. When we see it we will all say, "Of course, I've always wanted to do that,” and run to the Apple store to buy one.

HP’s view of computer consultants

Thu, 6 Mar 2008 16:06:18 -0800

As I was preparing to launch this blog for yourmaccoach, I found this wonderful comic ad from HP. So here’s our first blog entry and it isn’t about Apple. <g> Our service promise is to be better than these guys.