Life after RIM in the enterprise?

There has been a lot of talk about RIM today, caused mainly because the company has stated it is giving up on the consumer market and heading back to its roots, the enterprise. Couple this with the $120m loss the company has made and the hints at “sale”, and you do see why lots of people have been talking about RIM. (If you don’t know RIM – Research in Motion make the BlackBerry devices).

One of the big conversations I have been involved in today (on Twitter with @BPMredux @puleen @souvikbonnerjee and @AlbertoManuel) is just what do we think will happen in the enterprise regarding the use of mobile devices, and vendor offerings for mobile based solutions. @BPMredux asked in his blog two simple questions

“How many BPM vendors have a mobile BPM solution based on Apple, Android or Windows Mobile”

and

“Now how many of you are still stuck with RIM and Blackberry in your own corporate environment?”

You can join in his debate at http://bpmredux.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/mobility-inside-the-bpm-scene/

So in this blog post I have want to have explore at some of the main points and give some thoughts based on conversations and relationships I have with a number of IT professionals that work within the enterprise supporting their systems…

Are we seeing the BlackBerry swansong?

RIM is still a big player

For sure RIM is still a big player in the enterprise. Most people I know and speak too (within large corporations) have BlackBerry devices handed out to them as their corporate phones. There are lots of reasons why the enterprise opts for BlackBerry – security being one, durability another. Many people I speak to who have to support mobile devices within their business prefer BlackBerry, and that’s because they have better control over them, they are easier to administer, the battery life is second to none and the devices are durable (they do seem to get dropped a lot). These things mean less time is spent with the end user trying to address issues, and after all, time is money…

Apple is making in-roads in the enterprise

This all being said, the iPhone is making in-roads in the enterprise, especially within the “exec” levels of business. While the phone is undeniably a great phone, it does cause headaches for business, especially if you are already standardized on RIM. Throw into the mix that not much else in the enterprise is Apple based and the fact that you do pay over the odds for their devices, and you can see why, even with a great offering like the iPhone, Apple still isn’t king of mobile for business.

BYOD (Bring Your Own Device)

This is something I hear a lot about and read about. However, in reality, this really hasn’t shown any traction with the enterprise, and I very much doubt it ever will. Predominantly BYOD is a media thing based on what some SMEs maybe doing – it simply isn’t a great option for the enterprise, and here is why…

The enterprise needs to support its workforce and their devices, mobile, desktop, tablet, laptop whatever. This means they have resource dedicated to help ensure IT runs smoothly. That IT needs to administer these devices, ensure business applications run as expected, ensure everything is secure as possible and support end users. (They do other things also, but no need to list out everything). If the IT department has control over its devices, it knows what they are, it can secure them better, ensure the software works as expected, manage roll outs, upgrades etc etc and help users with their devices (without having to train IT staff / mobile support staff on every handset available to a consumer). In addition, standardization allows the enterprise to strike good deals with their suppliers and all big business has preferred suppliers – that’s just life. So imagine you take all that control away from IT. What are you left with? Yeap, a mess. You simply can’t have users connecting random devices to your network. You can’t expect vendors to support all mobile platforms under the sun for bespoke software for that business. You can’t expect in house IT to help users with their particular phones OS or hardware issues, and you can’t expect everything you need to work on the device to work on every single device (have I said that one already?). All in all, BYOD is a great concept, lovely for startups and SMEs, but for the enterprise, this isn’t an option…

Software vendors and their mobile offerings

The BYOD issue does illustrate that software vendors do not support all mobile devices. Sure there are comments that solutions should be mobile web enabled, that they should run using HTML 5, but that user experience is going to be pretty poor. The reason we love our native apps is that we can do more with an app, and the experience is a lot better than anything we see on our mobile web browser. This means vendors have to support native apps, and do they really need to support so many different platforms? Ideally they want to support one, but realistically know they may need to support a few. The problem for a vendor at the moment is which to support? RIM is a must, or is it…It used to be. Apple devices, well they are a must aren’t they…well yes and no…Android? No. Symbian…erm No….Windows Phone…Well potentially……

So what do you do as a vendor? I personally would wait until the end of the year to make a decision…

Windows 8 in the enterprise

Let’s be clear, Windows 8 may not be rolled out across the enterprise as soon as it’s released, but business will be reviewing it, and scheduling in a Windows upgrade path. Some upgrade paths will be quicker than others, and some may do their normal, and wait for the version after – so upgrade when Windows 9 is available as they haven’t long been on Windows 7. The point is Windows 8/9 will be the standard OS on the enterprise desktop and on majority of their servers. With this comes the normal office based software and legacy applications that every enterprise has running on a Windows environment. However, Windows 8 is a little more than just a desktop OS. All of a sudden the enterprise can have the same OS across all devices, including mobile and tablets. Think what a nice thought that is for IT within the enterprise and vendors alike. A single OS to administer across all devices,  a single user experience to support and the ability to seamlessly tie in lots of services they already use back into the devices of choice. Office, Outlook, Lync, Office 365, Sharepoint, cloud backups, device synchronization etc. That makes life a lot easier for IT doesn’t it…

As a vendor then, supporting Windows 8 is a must. But hold on, if you support Windows 8 metro what do you support all of a sudden? Yes, tablets (including ARM based tablets), desktops, laptops, netbooks and with a few tweeks, mobiles. All of a sudden supporting Windows Phone seems an obvious choice -  a necessity. So perhaps it’s back to the usual suspects, support Windows first, then perhaps Apple…Or vice versa depending on where you are with your mobile policies and vendor software.

Let’s think about suppliers to the enterprise. Most enterprises have a strict supply chain policy, and with Windows 8, this means the enterprise can choose who supplies their hardware, including desktop and phones. Remember Fujitsu, Acer, Dell, Nokia, Samsung, HTC and others deliver Windows 8 mobile devices. These same companies will deliver Windows 8 tablets, and most of them will deliver desktops, servers, laptops and netbooks. The enterprise therefore has the flexibility it desires regarding suppliers, but the security, administrative advantages of being tied into a single ecosystem, which runs all their legacy software. Essentially, for the enterprise, Windows 8/9 is a no brainer across all devices….

Where does this all leave RIM?

Well, to be blunt, I believe in a very deep, dark hole.

Essentially if it becomes a no brainer to support Windows Phone in the enterprise and Windows 8 tablet devices, then Apple will continue to struggle in the Enterprise, but that’s not a great loss to them. RIM on the other hand, if they struggle in the enterprise then I believe we will be saying goodbye to RIM and thanks for the BlackBerry memories. Without a consumer market, Windows 8 could well be the last nail in the BlackBerry coffin. I for one am already starting to think that by mid 2013, I could be writing a blog along the lines of “bye bye RIM, thanks for the BlackBerry memories…”

The Android debate

When anyone talks about Android there is a lot to be said, be it “Android is the most popular Smartphone OS”, to comments that it’s “the stolen OS”.  Steve Jobs even stated he would “kill Android”. But there is no getting away from the fact that Android is a feature rich OS, that it has now almost 40% of the Smartphone market share (though Smartphone’s don’t even make up 30% of the overall mobile market) and that Google owns it, and now a mobile phone company…

Competition

There are so many Android devices out there now, and from a range of manufacturers, so much so, that getting your hardware noticed is tough. When you walk into a store and see so many phones all running the same OS, how do you set your hardware out to be different (especially to the average mobile punter). Price…Oh dear…

Poor mans iPhone

So many people who have Andoird have it because they couldn’t justify getting an iPhone. I know many people who have opted for Droids because of price, but they really wanted an iPhone. The same applies to the “kids” that have Androids. Essentially many have them because of price, and once they get a little older move over to the iPhone. That must be a worrying trend. However,
is it a surprise? Probably not since Android feels like a cheap clunky copy of iOS in so many ways…

 It’s free, it’s Google

One of the reason Android has been a success is that is been seen as the free OS, allowing many a manufacturer to ship it on their devices, enabling Android devices to be “cheap” and swamp the market. That is essentially how Android has got it’s market share, and there is nothing wrong with that.

But is it really free? In the past couple of months we have seen a number of patent deals being agreed with Microsoft for Manufacturers being allowed to use Android. In addition to that, we have seen Apple halting many Android devices due to patent infringement. These are problems manufacturers can well do without. Ask yourself, as HTC or Samsung, do you really want to spend a lot of time on R&D only to have your devices stopped from getting to market? Do you want to have to pay a third party company license to use software that essentially belongs to another company? No you don’t…

Throw into the mix that Google now owns Motorola and has effectively secured its own hardware for mobile devices. This must be a worry for HTC, Samsung and all those that sell Android devices. Do you really believe that Google will continue to provide updates to their OS to give away to competitors of their own devices? If they do, then that’s crazy business thinking from Google.

 

Nokia?

I have read many a comment in the past day or so that Nokia should have opted for Android, or they should be making Android devices as well as Windows Phone. But that makes no sense from a business point of view. The Android market is all ready crowded, and how does Nokia regain its Smartphone market share by entering a dog fight with pretty much every other manufacturer
out there? Especially when all they can compete on is price and some nerdy hardware specs (maybe some design too). That’s just too tough. Throw into the mix the hassles you can have with Android and the fact that Google now owns Motorola, and Android looks very risky…

Windows Phone makes perfect sense to me. In many ways it is the overlooked OS, and that’s because no one really knows about it (phone nerds do, but who else). Not many have actually seen it advertised or ever even noticed it in stores. So for Nokia, Windows Phone market is easier to enter, and they know they can sell aggressively against the other Windows Phone competition.

The Windows Phone OS is good, very good. Pretty much everyone I have seen play with it, likes it, they find it intuitive, they like the live tiles and they love it’s simply integration with social media.  It provides something very different to Android and iOS, and as such, that means making a Nokia device stand out on a shelf is made that much easier.

Finally, Microsoft want to get involved in the mobile world, and they know Nokia are the biggest mobile brand out there (still), and that Nokia can get Windows Phones into the hands of millions of people, and ensure Nokia and Windows Phone grab market share.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see Nokia grabbing Smartphone market share quite quickly, which I am sure will make other manufacturers look closely at Windows Phone and start investing more in that OS. It is already happening to some extent with HTC and Samsung…

To finish…

Android has shocked us all with how much market share it has grabbed, but should we have been surprised? In many respects it’s a free, clunky version of the iOS that DOES cost manufacturers in terms of licensing etc etc. Now that Google owns Motorola are companies confident that they will be given the same OS to compete with Motorola? How many other instances of Android devices being banned can we expect?

All in all, Android may have shot to popularity, but there are many question marks above it, and it seems many more are being raised as time moves on. Will these question marks deter manufacturers from using Android? I believe they will over time, and I believe that Windows Phone will be there to grab market share – and that at the front of that pack will be a company from Finland, a company we all used to love…A company called Nokia…

Why does Apple love HTML 5?

There is an awful lot of talk and hype regarding HTML 5, with one of its main advocates being Steve Jobs and more importantly, Apple as a company…What so many don’t ask themselves is “why is Apple making a big push for something that essentially provides them no revenue”

 Apple often site HTML 5 as one of its reasons for not supporting Flash and Silverlight, stating they support the web free of plug-in technologies and want to ensure the web stays open source etc etc. Whenever I hear this it is so obvious that there is a different agenda, after all it makes no sense for Microsoft (with Silverlight) or Adobe (with Flash) to charge for these technologies, if they did, no one would use them and no websites would leverage them to deliver rich applications. What I continually find astonishing is the amount of so called journalists and bloggers that believe that Apple want a free, open web. Let’s remind ourselves, Apple exists to make money…

What’s in it for Apple?

Let’s ask ourselves, what’s in HTML 5 for Apple? I mean really in it for them? The answer is, Apps…

Now I may have lost you there, you probably thinking apps have nothing to do with HTML 5 as such, and you would be right. You see, HTML 5 is the future of the web for sure, and it will bring new life to the web with animiations, even video playback to an extent, (though we have this via Flash and Silverlight already, so nothing new to the web, just new to HTML). HTML 5 won’t make the web a “richer place”. You see, HTML 5 will still suffer the same limitations, namely running in a browser, the web architecture and the end user experience (not to mention cross browser compatibility issues, DDA compliance etc etc). This means websites wont be all singing and dancing apps, rather they will remain pretty much website experiences we have at the moment (well with a bit more “jazz” to them). You see, Apple is counting on the web going back to its roots more, and we are seeing this with many more websites looking cleaner, and simpler to meet certain compliancy issues and to make life easier for users (not to mention making life easier for developers when supporting all browsers across all platforms). What Apple doesn’t want is real rich applications to be delivered via HTML 5, well not the type that can compete with desktop based applications, or mobile apps.

Apple doesn’t want HTML 5 to be the wave of the future for application development because it can’t make money from that, rather it wants us all to have to “download” and use specific “apps” for platforms. Think the iPhone App store and you see what I am getting at.

Essentially one of the biggest reasons people opt for the iPhone is not because it’s the best looking phone, it has the so called best screen display (which it doesn’t) nor these days for its revolutionary touch screen and OS, no, it’s because of the App store, and the rich “internet” experiences these apps open the user up to.

Flash and Silverlight are technologies that can deliver “apps” via the internet and over the internet, cross platform, cross browser etc and all from the same code base. This is a real threat to Apple. After all, if I can write a great app using Silverlight and have it deployed with small mods to any form of device, then as a development company I have opened up my markets and saved money. This is a good thing. However, Apple now would have an app that, though rich and great on its platform, is just as good and readily available on other platforms. Which detracts from some of the appeal of its own product.

You see, Silverlght and Flash are real threats to Apples unique “app” store.

Here is an example of why Apps are the future and why Apple wants us all to love HTML 5.

How do you use Facebook on your mobile? Do you use a browser and the HTML version? Probably not because it’s too slow, clunky and the end user experience not that great. You use Facebook via your Facebook app for your mobile, which you downloaded from an App store (for apple, android or market place for windows). Apple take this further with the iPad, providing not just an app for your iPhone, but a slightly different app that works better on the iPad, the iPad being something that apparently is designed for web experiences on the go. Yet it still wants you to download apps, and, that is one of the reasons why Apple don’t want us to use Flash or Silverlight, because these technologies can deliver rich “apps” onto any platform potentially, not just specific to the iOS.

Today I watched an advert for sky news, and there was no mention of the sky news website, only that, for the very best experience, use the sky news iPad app…What does that tell you?

This confirms that Apple see Apps as a way of cornering the web market, especially when over 30% of web consumption was via mobile devices last year in the UK. The future of the web is reverting back to information based sites, with richer websites being delivered in HTML 5 yes, but real applications, and real rich intuitive experiences that work on multiple devices coming from dedicated apps.

Conclusion

Apple doesn’t want to supports Flash or Silverlight, if it did it means they have lost their app store edge. Imagine sky news delivering one solution for all platforms via Silverlight. The advert would have been “get the very best experience with our Sky News App, for iPhone, iPad, Windows Phone, Android and to your desktop”…Immediately, I don’t need to have an iPad to get the very best experience, rather I can choose which device, which OS, all of which detracts from Apple’s marketing and business plans in many may ways.

Apples tactics of using “content” to help us make the decision to purchase their hardware aren’t anything new. Look at how VHS beat off Beta-max? VHS was a lesser solution, but it had more content on it, and more to the point, content that was in high demand. Because of this, it meant users opted for the VHS platform as they then got the films they wanted, which meant Beta-max sales dropped until there was only one, VHS.

So while we all harp on about how great HTML 5 will be, we must remember that the big players (especially Apple) want it to succeed only to destroy Flash and Silverlight, which plays right back into their hands of delivering true rich experiences, only via their platform specific dedicated apps and app stores..And of course, we all do, so we will all be using apps to access the web…

I am a strong believer in the future of the web being Apps, as applications will always be able to potentially deliver far richer end user experiences. What I don’t want to see though is the need access the best experiences based on hardware and what is made available though an “App” store.  We should be able to access these apps directly from web pages, and opt for the mobile version, or the desktop version, or the slate version.

HTML 5 may be a way of lighting up HTML and making it richer, but it potentially could also be the way of forcing us all down the route of App stores and choosing hardware to best access web content. Now to me, that is not the point of HTML 5…

Steve Jobs thoughts on not supporting flash – they just aren’t justification!

There has been a lot made of Apple products not supporting flash and many people getting frustrated with iPhones, iPads etc for not supporting flash. So it was good to see a post by Steve Jobs on his thoughts and reasons why Apple do not support Flash…However, when reading it, let’s say I didn’t read any real reason why Flash isn’t supported…

You can read his full article here http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/

So where to start? Ok, well Steve talks in points, so I will follow and give my own thoughts on this…

First, there’s “Open”

Steve talks about proprietary software, and puts forward a kind of weird argument that everything on the web should be open source. This is rubbish. What I say is without proprietary software and hardware, there wouldn’t be anything out there for developers to develop software with, not to mention how would the economics of the IT market sector function – if everything was open source…Well they wouldn’t…So I always hate this argument and these kinds of statements. (I also get a vision of developers basically living off of other people’s capabilities). In addition I find this weird as Apple has masses of proprietary software and hardware, and yet doesn’t see this as a little contradictory. Apple after all are trying to sue HTC for copying their hardware…Hardly the kind of “Open” form of thinking is it…Sorry, also mentioning Webkit open technology within browsers doesn’t mean you embrace open source. Rather it demonstrates that you have used open source to get your fingers into more pies…

There is nothing wrong with Adobe controlling where its own product goes. Proprietary software goes through iterations a hell of a lot quicker than open source, in addition I would say that most of the time it is far less buggy and secure (ok secure and Adobe at the moment don’t go that well together, but you get my point). I have to be honest, but I don’t think this “Open” argument has anything to do with Flash not being supported on apple products, rather it is a ramble at trying to attract the “Open source is great” crowds out there and looking for additional excuses to why flash isn’t supported. So as far as this justification goes, sorry Steve I don’t buy it….

Second, there’s the “full web”

Ok, now we are getting into video and a little into games. Steve breaks this down into video and games. So, first off, yeap, video content in Flash could be using a more modern format, H.264, however, many places on the web they aren’t. Saying that you could play video if websites used more modern formats isn’t really a great argument for me. The fact is the websites aren’t, they work fine on the Mac and PC so why not on iPads, iPhones etc? Sorry again this is a poor justification. I recently posted my own wedding video on a couple of sites, Facebook being one of those that Steve mentions, and guess what, no one who had an iPhone could view the video, great….Sorry there is no justification here that I see for not supporting Flash.

We now move onto games. Yeap iPhones cannot play Flash games, well that’s obvious since Flash isn’t supported. Again by stating that you can access over 50,000 games on the App Store is not a justification for not supporting flash. This is rather a, “ok, you want games, we have 50,000 here” statement.

So far this is 2 justifications mentioned and neither one is valid….

Third, there’s reliability; security and performance

Now Steve is finally providing some real justification. Symantec did highlight Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009, and this is one of the reasons why so many corporations don’t allow flash to be installed on their PCs. What makes me laugh is that I wonder how many people actually (I mean day to day end users outside of the world of IT) know Adobes record on security. I am sure people only think Microsoft based products have a bad security history…hmmm. Weird how press and perceptions can be wrong isn’t it…

Apparently Flash is the number one reason why Macs crash, weird, I keep on hearing that they never crash…hmmm Sorry that is a dig outside of the scope of this post, none the less this is a valid justification for not supporting something on an iPhone, iPad and iPod. PCs suffer too at the hands of Adobe software, and we are not just talking crashing, rather performance issues etc etc.

Steve then talks about Flash not performing well on mobile devices. Again, this is a valid point, I have never seen it perform well on anything other than a high spec PC and I am well aware that their mobile support etc has been slipping ¼ by ¼ However, it will and should be available…

I also have to state that, is the iPad really a mobile device? I have seen Archos mobile devices (very similar to the iPad) that basically run Windows 7. That means I can get Flash, Silverlight and anything else on there I want, surely this is just a failing of the iPad?

So far, that makes two invalid points made, and 1 valid point made.

Fourth, there’s battery life

Ok, when I read this title I did laugh. Every person I know who has or has ever owned an iPhone says the battery life is shocking, and that’s without running flash on it. Steve states that the iPhone will play H.264 for 10 hours and yet only 5 hours if playing a video through Flash. I can see his point here, however, the battery life is so poor on the device in the first place that the owners re-charge every 10 hours in any case.  So though this has some good points, and yeap could be argued for a reason not to support Flash, I have to say I don’t see it as a real reason…

So, in Steve’s 4 reasons why they don’t support Flash, just 1 of them are actually valid reasons….Two more to go…

Fifth, there’s Touch

OK, now this read to me more of a marketing bit about iPhone touch etc. So what if Flash uses “rollovers” I can still click on that icon and it will trigger the rollover. By saying because a device is “Touch” it won’t trigger rollovers is rubbish. What makes me laugh in this statement, is that Steve then talks about more modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript (though the last two are not modern at all) and yet forgets that most of these websites that use these will use rollovers and effects to hide and show layers….

The statement that most Flash websites would need to be re-written to support touch-based devices is simply rubbish. I have used Flash websites on a touch screen and all works ok…

Sorry, this is a disgrace of a reason…Thats 5 points made, just 1 valid…

Sixth, the most important reason

This is the main reason why Apple will not support Flash, and the complete post by Steve could have been just this single post (if it was, I would have a lot more respect for the post in general – though it isn’t a valid reason). Basically, Apple doesn’t want to provide freedom of how you develop games and applications for the iPhone, iPad and iPod. They want all software to run through their proprietary SDK (and I can see why this is good, and why it is bad).

There are some good points made here, and some bad. Sorry, I don’t believe that by allowing a developer to develop on a third party platform that sits on-top of the device OS leads to sub-standard apps. This is just not true. You don’t develop for a PC using the actual Windows OS directly. This is just a bad statement again, think .NET, think Java, these are the main two platforms for all software development….

The statement that “we cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers” is again rubbish. If Adobe was slow to adopt these, then developers, who choose not to develop in Flash, simply would be ahead of those who do. This would mean their apps are the ones that get downloaded and developers would soon move away from Flash. So this is just rubbish again.

Steve takes his point further stating that it is worse if the third party provides cross platform developer tools. Why is it worse? Well don’t read Steve’s reasons. The reason (and this is the reason why Apple don’t want to support Flash) is that a developer can develop an app once and have it available on multiple devices, not just the iPhone etc. Which means that end users who may choose the iPhone for some of its cool apps, may not choose an iPhone because the same cool apps are available on other devices…This is Apple trying to lock people into the iPhone with the power of their massive AppStore, nothing more…And this is why they don’t want to support Flash….

Conclusions…

Steve’s conclusion is nothing more than a dig at Adobe. My own conclusions are that Flash is an outdated technology, with serious security and performance issues (this is why I am a strong fan of Silverlight). However, it is a technology that will be around for a long time to come, and that means that it should be available on mobile devices. It is also cross platform, and that is very good (though not for Apple). Sure security and performance are issues, but they aren’t reason enough to not support Flash when they already support Flash on the Mac. If Adobe can address their security problems, then I see no reason why not to support Flash…

 I also have to say that this great HTML5 era will not happen as Steve sees it. There are still so many problems with HTML 4 and cross platform / browser issues that HTML 5 will not address, only inherit.

In Steve’s entire post, I only read a single valid point for choosing not to support Flash. The rest (with the exception of the last) are basic “excuses” or are simply wrong. The last point in his post though, I feel shows the real reason Flash will not be supported, and that is because it gives the user more choice of mobile device…Simple….

At the moment Apple are trying to lock the Mobile device market sector up, and one of the real reasons this may be possible is because of the AppStore. The AppStore ensures apps are developed using their proprietary SDK for their proprietary OS and proprietary hardware, which means that to have the same application running on Android or Windows mobile, the developer has to re-develop from scratch (well almost). While the iPhone has such a good market showing, this approach will continue to work. However, what of the future? With many more users discovering HTC type phones, phones running Android and soon phones running the much anticipated Windows Mobile 7, will this last? (I don’t think it will looking at sales figures etc for the HTC Touch HD2 for example)

As a developer I feel the only “Open” area that should be in place is being open enough to have your devices run a multitude of development platforms, be it Flash, proprietary SDK or Silverlight. I think Windows mobile 7 approach by adopting Silverlight as the development platform will help Windows based phones grab more of the mobile market place, and if anything move ahead of the iPhone. Windows Mobile 7 allows users real choice on how they access the web and content, as Silverlight will run on their browser, out of their browser, on a Mac, on a PC oh, and on their phone…

For me, the Apple position is one of trying to create a monopoly on smart phones, not one for the good of users, no matter what Steve Jobs and Apple claim….After reading his post, I hope it backfires to be honest…

Google hype and blog distortion

Since the announcement of Google Chrome OS, it seems to me that online communities have gone nuts, either with over hyped stories of how great the Google OS will be, or completely the other way, stating just how poor Google is as a company, how unfocussed they are.

What is striking is that no matter what, Google does attract lots of hype, sometimes correctly so, but recently, maybe not. It also illustrates to me that, mention the name “Google”, and you get either one of two reactions, love or hate. This kind of reaction used to be reserved just for Microsoft…By the way, that doesn’t mean I think that is a good sign or a bad sign, just an observation.

Google hype

So just why does Google manage to be surrounded by such hype in everything it does, well announces at least? The only answer I can really point to is that many people, including bloggers and the press, still regard Google as a nice company, run by two guys out of a shed or something. A company with great morals, that stands for freedom of information etc. However, this vision just simply isn’t true. Remember Google was sold and is now a big old corporation, now more than a little in the Microsoft mould funny enough. I also find it funny that people forget just how many court cases Google has been involved with, many of which regarding people’s basic rights, such as privacy.

The company does provide the worlds foremost search engine, one that has a massive market share and one which many claim to be the best and most accurate. The search engine does deserve all its hype, as to put it simply; it’s a great search engine. The company also has to be applauded in the way it has monetised its search engine with online advertisements, targeted based on peoples search key words. (Though this has been the subject of some court cases and accusations of Google misleading web users and misidentifying sponsored links).

Google company direction

From the outside looking in, I can see many arguments for why people claim Google may be losing it’s way, and is reacting to things in the IT industry, rather than taking the lead. I have read lots about how Google is simply providing new software and services to plug a gap in the market, but that simply isn’t true is it. We have a number of browsers and a number of operating systems already, do we need more?

What we are seeing is Google doing what any sensible business should do and that is diversifying. Any business should not rely on one sole area, in Googles’ case advertisement revenue from its search engine. So diversifying makes sense.

A web browser is the obvious choice, though very few people have chosen to use the Chrome browser provided by Google. However, gmail and google docs are direct responses to Microsoft’s hotmail, and office offerings, which does take them into new waters so too speak. With regards to the Chrome OS, I can see a small argument or idea why it would be nice to tie an OS to the web more, however, I just don’t feel Google is the company to do this well, especially since they are using an open source operating system as its core, Linux.

On that point, it is also weird that Microsoft isn’t allowed to ship IE with Windows 7 in the EU, yet both Apple and Google can ship their operating systems with their own web browsers pre-installed….Curious isn’t it?

Google and Apple?

I have also read so much about Schmidt (Google Chief Executive) sitting on the board of Apple, and that many comparisons can now be made between Google offerings and Apples. Many claim that Google cannot think for itself and is simply stealing ideas from Apple…Maybe….I can see the logic there…

What is for sure is that Apple and Google now share some similar markets. Take Android (Googles mobile phone operating system), this has received a lot of “air time” from on-line bloggers and phone reviewers, however as a mobile OS, it really doesn’t compete with established offerings. This must annoy Apple with their iPhone? Both companies now offer web browsers for the windows platform (Safari from Apple and Chrome from Google) and now (though both hold a very very small market share), Google plans an operating system, which you could argue will compete against Apples OS X.

I must admit, I don’t see how one man can sit on both boards if they are effectively competing in any way shape or form, which they now are. I would say Google and Apple are more at war than Google and Microsoft…But that doesn’t have such an impact on story headlines…When you look at their market share for web browsers, they are for sure competing. Look at mobile phone market, they are competing, though Apple is light years ahead in market share. Next year, will we be seeing Google Chrome OS on netbooks competing with Apple entry level notebooks? Well they will be, but again I think Apple will be a long way ahead with regards to market share and sales.

 

Blog post distortion

Hmmmm One thing that has come from all of this Google OS hype, is that many blog posts are simply wrong and are written by people with limited knowledge (especially technical) on how things work. I have read many articles that hail Google OS as a revolution, something new that will compete with Windows 7, however these same articles don’t understand what Linux is, and its history. For me this is quite worrying, it seems that while reporting via TV or even news papers has some form of “checking”, the internet fails to have any, even the big bloggers…

Such incorrect posts do get around, and in todays social media environment, millions of people may have read that wrong information, believed it to be correct and actually made a purchase based on it. This isn’t good at all, not only for companies but more so for individuals.

I have also read a number of blogs that really do “lay into” other blogging sites, especially the larger ones for their lack of technical understanding. Which is probably just, but it’s the way such posts are written that almost makes you not want to read the post…For me, they lose all form of credibility themselves.

It is also very rare now to find blogging articles that don’t seem to have an agenda, especially so called review / news websites. Many either love Microsoft and hate everything else, or they love Google (this seems to be the larger amount of bloggers) and hate everything else, or finally, they love Apple, and hate everything else…It is very hard to find actual knowledgeable people writing independent unbiased posts, which is a shame…

 

Blog responses

The whole Google hype thing has also brought me much laughter when reading peoples responses to articles. I have also read a new term this week, “Googasms” which I am sure you can work out what that means…

For me, I read most responses with a little pinch of salt.

 

So Chrome OS, should it be getting the hype?

If that’s a question on what it will be like, probably not. After all it is built on an open source operating system which has no end of issues with driver support etc and has failed to make any sort of dent on the operating system market (even just for netbooks). But since Google has it’s badge on it, I can see why it has gained so much press time.

Will it be any good? Without seeing it I don’t know, no one does at this stage. My guess is that it will look and present well, but once you get into actually using it, it will have all the same problems that Linux has right now.