Anyone innovating?

First off, I’ve been a bit quite on the blogging front for a little while – sometimes real work takes over and it’s hard to get motivated to post a meaningful blog….

So, I’ve sat through two rather dull technology events the past few weeks. First off Apple really did disappoint with their new releases, nothing new there at all. No, tell a lie, I did quite like the pressure sensitive screen feature on the new iPhone. It’s quite innovative, but its value is really hard to justify. Would I upgrade to the new phone because of that? Nope, but that doesn’t mean millions of “fans” wont, quite the contrary really. The second event was that of Google. Now this was awful. Dull devices and nothing new at all….

One thing though that I did notice in both events is the desire to copy innovation from a company that apparently is uncool and hasn’t innovated since the late 90s…Yeap, Microsoft. It seems that Microsoft new approach to a single OS across all devices is starting to pay off. Mix that with the Surface Pro range of devices, and there is a real movement in the market towards “hybrid” tablet/laptops. This is clear to see by the launch of the iPad Pro and some new Google option (its name is awful and reminds me of a fax machine). The Google copy though is blatant. The device looks like a Surface Pro all day long….

Why copy?

It seems that people are starting to realise that they can have a single device that acts as their tablet, but can also be their tool of choice when it comes to productivity. Business IT departments have started to realise this and now it seems are some of us consumers. I myself use a Surface Pro 3 to replace my laptop and my work desktop PC. It works brilliantly in both environments, especially with the Docking station. I also use it as my “tablet” machine that does find its way to the sofa – where it is of great use like most tablet devices.

With this in mind, both Apple and Google have to be aware that maybe “mobile” only tablets have a shelf life, after all, can both companies really expect businesses and consumers to continually shell out for multiple devices when one could do the job of three? I think there is an awakening that actually, Microsoft has been the innovator in the past 18months, and with its Windows 10 OS and launch of Surface Pro 4 coming any day now, that there could be a real market shift away from dumber tablets towards tablet/laptop hybrids. If that’s the case, Microsoft is a long way ahead of the game here, with both Apple and Google only offering lightweight mobile Oss on their devices.

September, a big tech month…

Ever since Apple started making big announcements in September a few years back, it’s become increasingly popular to be the month of big tech news. Samsung copied Apple a few years back and started making their announcements just a few days before Apple, and often September is the month we also get some form of announcement from Google and or Microsoft. September 2013 has been no different.

 

Samsung announcements

These have been pretty odd affairs in recent years, and to be honest, I’m not sure they have been that successful. This year we are talking wearable technology and specifically smart watches. Are these the next big thing? Hmmm. I’m not entirely sure, if technology on your wrist was really going to take off, I think my Casio watch with calculator was quite a “killer” back in the late 80s. I heard a great quote today in relation to wearable technology, “people only wear something that looks good”. That means it needs to look equally as good as something like a Rolex, Tag or Omega watch before it really really has appeal. Let’s face it, no matter what the best looking tech company in the world has to offer (which is Apple not Samsung), I’m convinced tech on my wrist won’t get better looking than that produced by brands like Omega.

Obviously there will be a market for wearable technology, I just don’t feel it will be something the masses adopt, especially when we think how much bigger phones are getting (not smaller). Wearable technology like a watch will not replace my smart phone, so why would I have it?

If you are thinking about Google glasses for example, then again, this kind of tech has other pitfalls. For one, if you already wear glasses I’m not sure the tech even works for you. If you, like me, hate having things distract your eye, then again the tech is not going to be for you. Throw on top of that the fact the glasses don’t look great (and there is a massive market in laser eye corrective surgery so we don’t have to wear glasses) I start to think a lot of this is tech for tech sake…

IMHO, wearable tech may have a place, but its not for the masses and no one should be seeing this as the future and the replacement of the phone, not at least a fair few generations (try 15)…

 

Apple’s big do…

Every September the online media get excited, and I read so much about what will Apple deliver, and what we expect from Apple, and oh, this is what we think this invitation means…I am still amazed at how much coverage a simple invitation gets, and that’s before anything has been announced. Only last night I caught some tech news on the TV and the breaking news was the Apple invitation that had been sent out with colour spots on it! I mean, really, is this massive tech news, especially compared to what really was the ground breaking story of the month, Microsoft purchasing Nokia!

That being said, we are expecting some new form factor iPhone 5s. Now I am not sure how much new tech, if any the new iPhone will have, but it no doubt will be received with a lot of excitement, that’s what brand Apple receives no matter what these days. I personally don’t think we will be seeing anything major in this latest version of the iPhone 5, some colour options, maybe a little more configuration, but there wasn’t any real innovation with the iOS 7 refresh, so don’t expect anything on the hardware front if the OS didn’t offer anything new.

 

Microsoft and Nokia

No matter what Apple or anyone does in September 2013, the big news must be that of Microsoft purchasing Nokia’s devices division. This is a massive shift away from Microsoft’s original vision, that Microsoft delivers software only, not hardware. This shift may have been on the cards, and for some time – since the Nokia announcing it would go all in with Windows Phone – I’ve been stating it’s only a matter of time before Microsoft buy Nokia.  I think further clues should have been taken from the Surface tablet release. Surface may not be doing as well as Microsoft would like, but it’s been a bold move by them, and is basically a statement that “Microsoft no longer has confidence in OEMs to deliver the hardware and the design to best show off Windows technology”. In many ways I have to agree with this. It should also have been clear that Microsoft would need a devices arm after Google purchased Motorola. That makes Google, Microsoft and Apple now all in the mobile phone devices game, which must be a concern for makers like HTC and Samsung, since they have the hardware but rely on software from other sources. Perhaps they will be moving into the software game (I hope not, but you never know).

It’s also not a bad time for Microsoft to really get aggressive with mobile. It’s had some good news as of late, Windows 8 has gained some traction and now commands a greater market share than Mac OS X, and Windows Phone has moved into 3^rd regarding smart phones.

Though Microsoft are now well and truly in the hardware game, I firmly believe that Microsoft will continue to license its software and that Windows Phone will be available to OEMs such as Samsung, HTC and many more, because after all, software is still Microsoft’s core business. What it means though is Microsoft can now ensure there are devices in the mobile and tablet market places that can compete in terms of design, performance and build quality with those delivered by Apple. By ensuring this level of design, it forces OEMs to deliver the same, or surpass Microsoft’s efforts, or simply become irrelevant.

Many people may claim Microsoft is a dying company, that they haven’t done anything in years, blah blah blah and that Nokia is dead and should have gone with Android. To me, these are statements from people who don’t understand the two companies, don’t understand business and require glasses when it comes to looking into the future. These are probably the same people who said Apple is dead only months before the launch of the iPod.

Microsoft is still a massive powerhouse, and don’t think that Windows is a poor operating system. Just spend a few days being totally open minded and use Windows 8, on a PC, tablet or phone. The OS is far from perfect, but it really makes sense. The user experience is very slick, the capabilities of the OS is far more powerful than any of its competitors and Microsoft provides development tools that are simply second to none. Throw into the mix its Windows Azure operating system, its dominance in the business world and you can start to see that Microsoft may know after all how to become popular with the consumer again. If you don’t believe me actually try the OS with a fresh mind. On a mobile phone, the experience is second to none it really is, but I appreciate the look and feel is not for everyone, and nor should it be or ever be. Mobile phones are personal devices, and as such an element of personal taste will always come into play. The big problems for Windows 8, be it on the phone or tablet, is the lack of relevant apps in the market place. Size of the app store means nothing, most apps available on all the platforms are really a waste of time, but what kills Microsoft is currently the lack of “expected” apps. I really believe Microsoft has got to get paying some companies to bring their apps to Windows 8, be it phone or tablet. Only then, once consumers know they are getting at least the same apps on a Windows device will they make the switch…

 

So, Microsoft and Nokia, a single OS with no compromises across all devices, on hardware that is reliable, looks good, performs well and is innovative, that’s visionary, that’s big thinking. Now all Microsoft has to do is win back love from developers (which its more than capable of doing) and it really is back in business with the consumer…Oh, and controlling your own hardware surely will be a big tick in the additional profits column (if all goes well, if not a rather big drain).

iPhone 5: What Apple got right

September 12^th was the big day and Apple finally showed us their new iPhone 5. However there wasn’t anything there that many of us didn’t know about already, such was the extent of leaks leading up to this event.  So far the reaction to the event is one of underwhelming acceptance…It seems that Apple hasn’t been an innovative company for some time now, rather everything they do is playing catch-up with other people’s ideas and innovations while attempting to maximise and squeeze yet more revenue from their current customers. This, Apple does exceptionally well at…

iPhone 5, it got no NFC right at least: Picture from engadget

Catch up on the iPhone 5 launch event here at engadget

So while there are many blogs, articles, reviews out there that show what’s wrong with the iPhone 5, and there is quite a list, I am going to focus on something they did get right, and that flies in the face of all the technology journalists, who on this subject often show they know nothing about technology and or business combined…Apple got it right when they opted NOT to include NFC in their device.

 

No NFC for the iPhone

While many reviewers are saying this is dangerous omission I have to say it’s highly sensible. If you believe what tech journalists are saying, then we should all be making NFC enabled mobile payments pretty much now, and they have based this belief not on fact, rather on marketing gumph from a few companies out there, VISA, Google and a bunch of phone networks. What they all fail to take into account is that customer experience is being put ahead of practicality, security and cost. In the real world, this means most businesses will not be using it.

The payments industry is pretty much in a mess, there is nothing wrong with the customer experience of using cash or cards, yet there is a common belief amongst businesses and customers that they should be able to make payments with their mobile device. This has lead to endless different approaches to mobile payments, almost all of which centre around NFC capabilities. However, let’s just think for a moment. Cards are not secure things; we know this by how easy it is to make fraudulent transactions, especially in a digital age. NFC is not a secure form of communication, VISA even state this in their own Patent applications. So put the two together and you get…A great demonstration of how we can use mobiles to make contactless payments, but ultimately a nightmare for merchants with endless costs and charge backs, essentially fraudsters saying “don’t mind if I do”. No wonder most merchants say “no thank you”….

Other phone manufacturers may have embraced NFC in their devices, but even then, each manufacturer and device OS uses it in different ways. Just because your device supports NFC doesn’t mean it supports contactless payments. We see this mess with Googles own Wallet only being able to support the one bank card, its own pre-paid card having to be pulled and you not being able to use your Google Wallet at a typical contactless payment point. Throw in the fact that the phone carriers want a bit of the NFC action and you can quickly see how messy this environment is. Sure it’s competitive, but it’s competitive because no one is doing the same thing and everyone is arguing over who owns what part of an NFC based transaction. Even Microsoft’s Windows 8 phones support NFC based transactions, but you need to get yourself a secured NFC SIM with your card details on it. Not exactly lending itself to you simply adding all your payment cards to the device. But this is because the phone carriers want some of the payment transaction action, and it’s a way to stay friends (at the detriment of practicality, customer experience and security).

I haven’t even spoke about costs of supporting NFC for the merchant, which essentially means new hardware, firmware, support and maintenance for that hardware and perhaps updates to their POS if they want to distinguish between a chip and pin card transaction, signature, card not present, or contactless payment, even mobile contactless payment.

So while so many seem to be singing the praises of NFC and perhaps mentioning concerns that the iPhone 5 doesn’t have NFC, I would say no NFC for Apple is a wise move. Apple usually only embrace a technology once it really has proved itself, so not to deter from the customer experience of using their devices. NFC is no different….As a reviewer of the iPhone 5 there are many areas of concern, lack of NFC is for sure not one of them…

Grasping the tech giants business models

It’s rare that I bother to post about business models, economics or company balance sheets, and that’s simply because I don’t find them half as interesting as what’s going on with technology or methodologies. However, for the past 12 years these sorts of things have taken up almost 50% of my working time, and can be interesting from time to time, especially when you look at the tech giants, Apple, Microsoft and Google…

In an earlier post I blogged about the worrying trend for “free” services from the web, and how that business models that were built purely on advertising can be fraught with danger, and essentially only work well for the very few (for Google it works massively well).  However, today I want to look at Apple, Microsoft and Google in terms of their business models, how they differ, where they are similar and their financials to understand the companies better and to understand where we could be heading…

 

Business model

Each one of the big three has their own unique business models when you look at them in broader terms. Apples business is about delivering premium luxury devices mainly, running them with its own software and being tied into its own ecosystem (pretty much exclusively). Apple doesn’t really provide any software services, or software that we buy and run on any old device, rather everything is focused on its own platforms and own devices. One of the big benefits here is if your brand is strong (and Apples is very strong at the moment) then you can command premium rates and rake in larger profits because you control everything, the software, the hardware, the ecosystem even to an extent the distribution channels. This model is a massive earner potentially, but relies purely on your brand being un-equalled in the eyes of the consumer.

Microsoft on the other hand is purely software and software services (well almost purely). Microsoft delivers is software to consumers and businesses alike, it charges licenses for these and subscription fees for its services. Anyone can purchase Microsoft software and services, and most of them will run on any platform, including Apples MAC and iOS. This business model relies on your software and services delivering to the customer’s requirements, but does open up the enterprise as well as the consumer. It also allows Microsoft to enter so many different software market areas, and there pretty much isn’t an area where Microsoft isn’t present. Though each individual sale is nowhere near as profitable as an Apple sale (as Apple sells the hardware too) it is none the less highly profitable and due to its diversitiy, allows Microsoft to support other areas of its business with ones that are doing well. These types of services, aren’t quite brand dependent, rather are feature and function dependent.

Then we come to Google, Google is all about marketing, selling you a marketing services via its search. Everything else Google does is related to gaining more information to increase the value of those marketing services that it sells to SMEs and large corporations. This is again a very profitable business model, but depends 100% on people using your search services, in order to show value for your marketing services. If Google’s search is seen to be not as good as a competitor, or looses market share, then the value of its marketing business also drops away – which puts pressures on every other aspect of the business.

So do we see any cross over? Well the companies do share common grounds, and that is in the entertainment and content consumption area. At the moment, Apple is a little more mature here than the others, but essentially both Microsoft and Google are playing catch up in delivering content through their ecosystems down to their customers. Microsoft has marketplace (which is still branded Zune in some areas), Google has Play and we all know Apple as iTunes.

In addition, both Google and Microsoft appear to be now dabbling in the hardware arena a lot more too. You could argue Microsoft has always dabbled, especially when the company produced the modern mouse as we know it, keyboards etc in the early days. They also deliver the XBOX and now, perhaps, Surface tablets too. So is Microsoft trying to increase its revenues by controlling hardware too? Probably not, though XBOX is now a profitable business for them, this exercise is about showing Microsoft products can be related to high end devices. Google though has got into this more seriously, delivering their own tablets and purchasing Motorola. I personally think this is more about ensuring its OS is running on devices that tie back to its search than about actually competing in the hardware arena or with Microsoft directly for OEMs love…

 

Experiences and current position

The Apple business model relies on belief that their brand delivers a better experience. This is the situation currently for the masses; hence they are the biggest player here in many ways in mobile and tablet. However, this wasn’t always the case. The Apple experience was poor back in the 90’s, I’m sorry it really was, not matter what anyone says. I remember using them at Uni and I will be honest, the UNIX machines delivered an experience I, and pretty much everyone else, agreed with was better than the Apple. Don’t be fooled that people flocked to MS just because, we all used Windows 3.11, 95, 98 etc because it was a far superior end user and business user experience (even with the blue screen of death).  You could also do so much more with the Windows based PCs, networking, support more peripheral devices etc etc.

Apple didn’t die though; instead it reinvented itself with a great experience on a tiny device, the iPod. That experience was and still is, far better than its competition, and it was that experience that led to us consumers looking at just what else Apple delivered. Apple really seized the day here, and improved everything they do 100%. Their devices always looked funky, but now they looked really top of the range, sleek, fast and designer. Throw in their improved operating systems (and a change at the core) and things started to look up. The iPhone moved this on from the iPod, and in many ways Apple defined what we see as a smart phone today (though they weren’t the first, even Nokia had prototype devices that looked like and behaved like the iPhone, they just were stuck on Symbian and never got them to market – shows poor forethought that). The iPhone experience was second to none (even though it lacked in features at first), and that experience is what drove customers to Apple. At the same time, people were getting fed up with the blue screen of death, and the viruses that now plagued Windows machines (and you can’t blame them). In many ways the Apple experience was now superior to that of Microsoft’s. With that experience and belief in place, the Apple business model really did and does flourish…

But are things starting to change again? Well maybe not just yet, but there is a real perception that they could, with many pundits and market watchers believing that Windows 8 across all devices could start to show a better experience to that of Apples on all those devices. Who knows, if that does happen then the pendulum will no doubt swing back to Microsoft away from Apple. The difference between the two companies though is their ability to thrive through poor consumer sales or customer perception…

Microsoft’s brand with Vista hit a real low. Yet the company still managed to rake in big profits, and that’s because of the numerous other businesses Microsoft runs. Microsoft has a highly successful business and server division, and that income keeps them strong even at a time of Vista. Essentially Microsoft can weather storms better than anyone, due to their business model and the diversity of their software and services. If indeed the masses of consumers start opting for devices running Windows 8 over Apples own devices, then Apple will be hit far harder than anything Apple has done to Microsoft in the past 10 years. It’s interesting that both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs see/saw Apple as a premium product and the masses opting for Windows devices, if this again becomes the case in mobile and tablet, then the quarterly incomes that we see posting from Apple will be slashed, none the less they will still operate at a very handy profit on every device they sell (something Google must learn at some point you would think).

 

Financials

By far and away Apple rules here. Though Q2 figures aren’t out for 2012, Q1 figures for Apple have the company posting record revenues of $46b, these up from $26b in the same quarter a year ago. That shows that Apple is moving from strength to strength and quickly. 58% of those revenues come directly from device sales, keep that in mind, such as iPhones, iPods, iPads and Macs. Almost all devices Apple produce have defined the market and command massive market share, with the exception of the Mac, which in desktop market share is a tiny player.  What’s interesting is that Apple doesn’t have any areas where the company loses money, and that’s why it’s such a strong company.

In second place we have Microsoft with its own record $18b for Q2 2012. Though the company had to write off a $6b investment in an advertising company (which meant Microsoft’s first ever loss), the company looks to make around the $6b each quarter, almost none of which comes from device sales. Microsoft is sitting on assets of excess of $121b up from $108b just 12 months ago so it’s a rich company that is growing in every area – though some are running at a loss. Microsoft makes money from a number of software and services divisions, but these also end up supporting many other software and service divisions that run at a loss. Bing for example has never managed to get close to profit, yet Microsoft plug away at it, and even Bing is heading in the right direction. Microsoft does play a very long game with these divisions, and it has the cash reserves and the income to be able to do that…

Finally we have Google, who also posted record quarter revenue, this time of around $12b. Interestingly enough Google makes no money from so many ventures, but its core business model allows them to still operate at a nice profit and command such sales. Almost everything Google makes comes from marketing…

 

Long term projects

Microsoft has always led the way in R&D investment, and it seems to be ramping this up. Many could argue the company has been stagnant for many years, which could be true. However, Apples re-emergence has meant Microsoft needs to up its game if it wishes to remain a big player in the home, and that’s exactly what they appear to be doing. Microsoft plays a very long game, and is prepared to give its businesses a very long time to move into profit, think XBOX and the entertainment divisions which now operate at very healthy profits, that wasn’t always the case. Bing may be losing Microsoft money each quarter, but it is losing less money than it was each quarter. The whole thing here is that Microsoft is involved in so many different areas which many of which aren’t profitable…Yet…

Apple on the other hand has been very fortunate. Not only were they fortunate to survive (with some cash from Microsoft there too) they stumbled along for many years offering not much innovation and poor experiences. However, that all has changed dramatically. Since the iPod and the additional revenues that brought in, Apple has invested and innovated, carving out not 1 but 3 market places for itself to dominate.

Google has always been the golden company of search, however mobile is a real challenge for them, delivering their marketing services down to devices. Here Google search isn’t as strong as it is on the desktop or as effective at delivering adds, so Google has to have a strong mobile presence with Motorola and Android to safeguard its core business.

 

Conclusion

All the tech companies are growing, and that’s due to us consumers demanding more from the internet and from our devices and software. The mobile and tablet marketplace is quite new, and it’s where the tech companies need to do battle, and will do for the coming years.

Mobile for Apple is the linchpin of their business, the iPhone and the iPad command massive market share and is charged at a premium. Any dent into the perception of the user experience or brand itself will hurt the company massively since it depends so much on device sales.  Likewise new competitors in this market place who gain market share from Apple will have a big impact on Apples financials (though Apple is simple so strong at the moment it’s hard to see).

For Microsoft, it must grab more market share in mobile and tablets to ensure it remains relevant in the consumer marketplace. Though Microsoft is strong in so many business areas, such as business and server, it is aware that for the consumer marketplace, it needs to get a good hold in mobile and tablet, hence the big push with Windows 8.

Finally, Google needs to retain a large market share in mobile to ensure it grabs enough user data and can deliver its own core marketing services to users. If it cannot do that well for mobile, then Googles business model becomes very fragile indeed.

I personally think that the next few years will be interesting. I’m excited by Windows 8 and the one OS for all devices – to me it makes sense and as a consumer that one experience across everything, that seamless usage between all those devices while not compromising on the things I want to do with them makes a compelling case and delivery of a better experience. If Microsoft gets it right, and its marketplace store continues to grow and deliver the content we as consumers want, then Microsoft will no doubt be delivering a superior experience and will start to grab market share in mobile and tablet. This will lead to more record quarters from MS I’m sure, and that will in turn lead to far more R&D and new divisions it starts that run at a loss for a long period of time too, until they too make a profit.

Apple has, and will always have, a strong loyal brand following, so though I don’t see Apple holding onto its massive market share in mobile and tablet, its future remains very bright. Apple will command a premium and will have customers flocking for its products. The company makes very good profits on all its devices and most of its businesses, so the company seems set for many years to come.

My concern is for Google if I am honest. Though the company is growing, the mobile war is far more important to them than anyone else. If Android loses market share, then the number of people relying on Google services for search will drop (especially as more of us use our mobiles).  This means their core business revenues will take a knock. The Motorola deal for Google is so important, if Google can make money from actual devices, while gaining greater data and ensuring its browser and search services are delivered to devices, it can retain its core revenue. The problem is, their business model relies on Android success, and if companies like Samsung start selling more Windows Phone devices, then Google almost becomes dependent on Motorola’s success. If that is the case, has Google got time enough to try and build that brand to compete with the likes of Samsung, and more importantly Apple?

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…”

HTML 5, Native Apps, the iPhone and Windows 8

I have been a tad quiet on the blogging front for a little while, simply because I haven’t had time really to sit down and write anything (though I have found time to read a lot)….Ok excuses over…

In this post I want to look briefly at the whole HTML 5 Vs Native app debate, and how Windows 8 potentially changes that landscape…

 

HTML 5

It’s something that has been a dream of developers, a single code base, a single “app” if you like that works on any system you can think of. HTML 5 does deliver that, well sort of. You see HTML 5 maybe being touted as that multi platform solution, but the whole architecture of using a browser and HTML isn’t right for actual applications. If you want to present some information and some basic functionality (think blogs for example), then HTML makes great sense, and that after all is what it was originally conceived for, to deliver content (not applications) to any machine.

The issues arise when we start to use HTML to deliver actual applications, and this is something that has been going on for some time – long before HTML 5 raised its head (my own companies have done this too). There is nothing wrong with web apps as such, but you must realise that they do lack certain functionality, and equally important, the user experience is NOT as good as a native application.

 

The iPhone effect

Before the iPhone was released, many software development companies were starting to deliver real business solutions as “thin client” applications – essentially web apps. I personally hated these, but did see the benefits when it came to roll out, updates etc over standard “thick client” applications. Many companies even started to deliver apps via FLASH, providing the software with a richer environment, much improved user experience but still rely on the distribution architecture of the web to actually deliver the app to the end user.

With mobile devices, there was no flash support, and we started to deliver “mobile” web apps, though not that great and a little clunky, they did work to an extent…But then along came the iPhone and this did change everything.

The iPhone had a much better web experience than any other handset, yet still using web apps on such a device was not good. The iPhone though had an app store, and an environment that worked well for delivering applications to the device, and these were native applications, applications that actually worked very well and provided the user with a much improved experience. All of a sudden to support mobile well, it was expected you write a native app…

 

Flash support

Flash did provide great experiences over the web architecture; the whole plug-in concept did get round so many issues with traditional thick and thin client apps, though Flash did have a lot of issues, especially security ones…Flash was also dependent on support on the device, on PCs this wasn’t a problem, but on mobiles etc the game was different.

By not supporting FLASH and singing the praises of HTML 5, Apple effectively killed off the browser plug-in and cross platform support for technologies that could deliver thick client experiences in a thin client fashion. Instead, Apple forced that user experience to only be available via native apps, as it knew all too well, no matter how good HTML 5 is that it cannot compete with native applications…

 

Native Apps

I personally think the whole native app experience is far far better for the end user. Native apps deliver great usability, the look good and their functional capabilities far outweigh the potential of a web app. The App environments provided by Apple and now Microsoft also negate so many issues associated with installing “dodgy” software.

By controlling the distribution of applications, Apple and Microsoft effectively can ensure (to a high level) that the applications are good, that they perform well (which makes their device look good) and just as importantly, know the application isn’t up to no good. The problem with the web, installing plug-ins or actually applications is that the end user doesn’t have anyone else saying “yeap, this is fine to install”. As a consequence, the majority of computer problems, viruses etc are born out of the end user installing something by being tricked into thinking it was safe….

 

Native expectation

So many of us are now used to the native mobile app experience,  which we like, that we now expect the same sort of environments on our desktop machines, tablets go without saying.  Because of this, Apple and Microsoft are providing app stores on desktop machines, which potentially changes how we install applications on our machines – and the sort of experiences we start to expect. You could argue that the iPad has really started this migration of “apps” from the mobile phone to general devices that we use…

 

Windows 8 effect

Though the iPhone and iPad dominate their respective market places, Apple don’t dominate the desktop, and we must remember that the desktop is still a massive market. Windows 8 no matter what is written about it will change the desktop, and with Windows 8 you can only install “metro” apps via the application store. These apps are immersive full screen rich experiences, and they are native applications. So, just as we see with mobiles, we will start to users opting for “apps” over HTML 5 web experiences.

For businesses, even micro-online retailers, the importance of delivering native “apps” appears to be growing. On the plus side, this means you have the opportunity to really deliver applications and experiences of note to consumers, on the downside, you have to realise that you need more investment in the front end of your applications. (Mind you, the amount of time spent making sure your HTML website runs the same on all browsers across all platforms, and then is mobile compatible etc etc the difference may not be as great financially as you expect).

Kindle Fire in the tablet market? errm…No…

So yet another tablet has been launched, this time the Amazon Kindle Fire, and again we find another entry into the tablet market is being touted as a possible iPad killer. But is it really? Have companies, such as Amazon, RIM, HP etc actually got it right when it comes to tablets? I don’t think so…

Is the Amazon Kindle Fire anything new in the tablet marketplace?

In the beginning there was Bill…

It seems an age ago that we heard Bill Gates telling us that the future of mobile computing was with touch, and he showed us a number of “Slate laptop” type things. I loved this concept, but unfortunately the UI just didn’t lend itself to this kind of touch environment, and as a result, business and consumers didn’t embrace the whole thing.

Fast forward a number of years and we have Apple announcing the first iPhone, which to be fair was not a great phone in terms of features. However, what Apple did was deliver a user experience that was not even closely matched, they delivered a sleek easy to use, touch based UI and consumers loved it. Add on top of this the “app” store capabilities and we soon have what we know as the leading smartPhone on the market.

 

Phones lead the way for tablets

Essentially tablets were dead, until Apple then decided to manufacturer what seemed to be, a bigger iPhone but without the phone capabilities, tablet. The iOS suited touch, and was easy to use, and it
appealed to consumers who liked the idea of surfing the web from their sofa on something bigger than their phone. It appealed to us running Apps on a bigger screen. And, well, the iPad has taken off. It dominates the tablet market place, and when you look at the competition, you can see why.

Many state the tablet market is highly competitive, and that is true if you aren’t Apple. Essentially everyone else is fighting it out for Apple scraps in this marketplace, which Apple has a monopoly on. All the other offerings have come at the tablet market in pretty much the same way, thats use a touch based phone OS and get it on a tablet…Namely Android in the majority of cases.

 

What a consumer actually wants?

Yesterday with the launch of the Amazon Kindle Fire, many people said it will succeed because it delivers what consumers want, well I’m not so sure. Analysts are constantly stating that Amazon has people’s card details, so it’s easy for them to open up their online stores and make content and apps highly available to the consumer, allowing the purchase sequence to be seamless. Well I am sorry, having to re-enter some card details is no barrier to a consumer at all. Also, do we really feel comfortable with so many companies now holding our card details? Just look at the Sony incident? In
addition, we are all making the assumption that all the consumer wants to do is consum simple Apps, books, videos and music on their tablets. Well I don’t agree…

 

Problems…

So is what the Kindle Fire offering more of what consumer’s want (well the Price maybe), but probably not. Do we honestly see people looking at the iPad and then thinking, No, I will opt for the Amazon Kindle Fire? I don’t. Do we really see people looking at other tablets that aren’t the iPad and thinking, I will go for the Amazon device because the seamless payment is better? No. Do we see people opting for the Kindle Fire to replace their Kindles? Now that’s a BIG NO…People bought the Kindle as an eReader, and it’s brilliant at that. Not because its easy to buy books on (though that is true), not because Amazon has my card details, but because I can actually read a book as if it was a real book. Dont get this confused with the user experience. The eInk screen is brilliant, you don’t get eye strain like you do from a tablet, you can read it outside, and essentially, it works well…The Kindle Fire, is not the same, it’s a standard colour tablet, which means I am not going to be getting rid of my Kindle to read Kindle books on that…

So there are a number of problems here. Finally, do we see people going for a tablet that is so small? So far, tablets of around the 7” size haven’t made much of an impression, and I can see why. With smartPhones offering almost everything a tablet does in term of apps etc. what is the real benefit of having a tablet that in some cases is only 2” bigger? Amazon Kindle Fire or HTC Titan Phone?

 

Flexibility, consumer need and business drivers

Tablets are here to stay, but the next big thing in them is actually to deliver real flexibility in terms of how we use computers today. At the moment, tablets are too much like big phones than they are small portable computers. But don’t get me wrong, for many consumers this is perfect for them. I know some people run quite complicated Apps, but this is a rare feature. If I want to do some real computing, and some real tasks I need at least a notebook, or a laptop, hell even a fully blown PC in many cases…

Let me give you an example. One of the Directors I work with, bought an iPad 2, which he takes to all meetings we have, which he loves and uses a lot. However, I take a notebook running Windows 7 Starter. Why? Well it’s my need. I would love to take a tablet, but none exist that allow me to do all the things I want to (at the moment that is). While he looks at the odd app, browses the web on his iPad, and that’s about it, I have to plug my machine into projection screens, I have to run presentations, I have to modify those presentations, I have to go through technical prototypes and even
demonstrate applications, proof of concepts and much more, all from that little notebook. And that notebook is holding real databases on it, real development environments.

When I go on holiday, I take the notebook with me, as I can pretty much do everything I need on it (well within reason). I would love to swap it for a tablet, and have that user experience you get with a tablet for the 60% of my needs, but I simply can’t because of the other 40% of needs. So for me, I make do on my phone for what people use tablets for, and I own a notebook. What I want is real flexibility in the tablet marketplace…

The same applies for businesses. While some have adopted the iPad for certain applications, many find that it doesn’t quite deliver everything they need. The limitations of using essentially a Phone OS is too limiting for business and power users. We even find that businesses want to be able to run certain applications on a tablet, but this just isn’t possible, so reps etc use notebooks or take fully blown laptops with them…

 

Tablet market future?

Well who knows. I for one don’t believe iOS is going to be rivalled by any Android based tablet. Nor do I believe that the iPad will come up against much competition based on devices that rely on “content access” and “seamless payments” as major selling points. No, the Apple iPad will only be challenged once more is possible with a tablet than is currently on show in the market.

Enter Windows 8…Windows 8 could potentially be a game changer in this market. On many tablet devices it will run only “Metro”, but it is running real windows and delivers the power of a PC, and that flexibility to a tablet. In addition, on some tablets (just like the one given away by Samsung at Microsoft’s BUILD conference just a few weeks ago), you will have the full power of a PC, with “Metro” and access to the real desktop.

Windows 8 could be the game changer in the tablet marketplace

What does this mean? Well it means for typical “tablet needs” that we see in the market today, you have that with Windows 8. You have access to the Microsoft App store and you will have access to content from Amazon, eBay etc just as you do from your PC. In addition you have a full PC there, in your hands, so if you need to do more with it you can. You also have the option of different devices running the same software, and at different price ranges (just like we have today with PCs).

Going back to my own example. Windows 8 on a tablet would mean I would ditch the notebook. I would use the tablet 60% of the time, just like people use their iPads today. But, when I need to, I am able to carry out that other 40% of tasks on the same device. (Note I will not be replacing my PC, anyone who things we will only own tablets instead of PCs is wrong, or they see us with tablets accessing far larger screen). I will take away a USB keyboard and maybe a docking station for the device, and I can use it just as I use my computer at work. Now that’s real flexibility. Throw in all the added benefits of being connected to Azure with Windows 8, and I find that my little tablet is my PC at home, it is my PC at work…Now that’s real flexibility which opens up the tablet market to many more business users, and consumers…

The tablet market isn’t competitive at the moment. But I believe it will be, just not until we see Windows 8.

BUILD and Windows 8…

So last week saw Windows 8 developer preview being shown off at Microsoft’s BUILD conference, and well, there was a lot to take in. BUILD was also showing off Windows Server 8 and a host of other Microsoft initiatives / solutions, including Windows Phone 7.5 and Windows Azure. With all that being shown off, it was hard to keep up and understand what exactly Microsoft was telling us about their future products and services. Unfortunately, as with most things Microsoft does, this meant that there was a lot of “dodgy”, to put it politely, blogging and tweets being thrown around. Essentially many tweets and blog posts were simply wrong, or written by pure Microsoft haters, so the messages coming out from BUILD did get a little lost for some…

Anyway…Let’s have a look at Windows 8 and what it could mean to consumers and businesses…

Metro

Well this is the new interface style if you like, what Windows now looks like by default. Metro is something Microsoft has been pushing, but it’s essentially a design look and feel. Many people see this as
primarily just for tablets, but I disagree. I like the idea of switching on my PC to see the “live tiles” environment, allowing me to peer into applications without needing to open them. It’s a feature I like on the Windows Phone 7+ platform, and I personally think it works really well for the PC, laptop, tablet market. Metro applications also look and behave great, and I have no problem with moving away from “chrome” based windowed applications.

Windows 8 new Metro UI. It's Alive...

The “Metro” side of Windows 8 only supports “metro” style apps and HTML running in IE10 (currently no Silverlight or Flash in the Metro browser experience). Metro also provides a design methodlody for applications, and as such, a framework for developers to work within when delivering “apps”.

There are also “contracts” in place between applications, allowing them to share functionality via “charms”, such as the “search charm”. What does that mean, well it means you can search inside your app from the standard search dialogue. Even better, you can share content between apps using the “share” charm, so I am in one app, and I wish to share some content, I can click on the system charm and simply share it with another application. This provides a real slick feel to using the system, as if the Apps are part of Windows 8, as opposed to a single bit of software that simply runs on Windows 8. There is quite a difference there…Essentially metro and charms all adds to the user experience, and rich environment, Windows 8 aims to deliver.

Using "Charms" with touch screen keyboard to search within apps

Many though have stated, why ship Metro style for the PC if you are also supporting the more traditional “desktop” look and feel, which essentially is Windows 7 updated. There have even been calls for supplying metro only for tablets, and desktop view only for traditional laptops and desktops, a bit like Apple shipping iOS for tablets and full on Mac OS for Mac Books. Well to these people I simply say “you don’t get it”…

Flexibility, choice and function is what people want. If I own an iPad and I want to edit some pictures by using Photoshop, I can’t. That means switching over to my laptop, Mac book, PC whatever to do that work, not great if I am at the mother in-laws for example. So why not deliver a tablet that can allow me to do that work if I want? What’s wrong with having the flexibility and option there? Nothing…After all, I don’t have to go into the standard desktop if I don’t need to…

Native Desktop

The native desktop is still there, essentially it looks and feels like Windows 7, and there is nothing wrong with that. The native desktop is used to support more complex applications, applications such as Photoshop or Visual Studio, applications that need lots of tool bars, need to show lots of actions and functions to the user. There is nothing wrong with these types of applications, and not all applications could be designed the “metro” way (nor should they).

The native desktop is just that, it’s everything Windows 7 is right now, so all your legacy / business applications that have gone before will run fine on Windows 8.

 

Tablets, Laptops, Netbooks, PC’s, Phones…ARM, the lot…

One of the big things with Windows 8, and something Microsoft kept on pushing at BUILD, was that Windows 8 is for all devices, and that means all forms of hardware. So Windows 8 runs well on my fully blown development beast of a PC, yet it works just as well on a small wafer thin tablet running an ARM processor. This is actually great, it means I have a single experience across all my devices, while Microsoft needs only support a single platform.

Now, throw into the mix Microsoft’s investment into the cloud and Windows Live, and you start to see added benefits of this kind of thinking. You can have all your devices understand “state” between them, so understanding where I am in an xbox live game for example, or where I am in terms of a business process. That makes life a lot easier and flexible. Simple things such as changing my “Avatar” on my PC is replicated across all my devices, which is a great touch…

For quite sometime I have wanted a tablet that allows me to install everything I may ever need on it, so that includes development studios, it includes database administration suites, it includes photo editing software etc etc and I simply cannot do that with a tablet. So that means I lug around a great laptop just in case I need these things, yet I mainly use that to search the web, run some power point presentations, check email etc etc. With Windows 8, I can get my PC on a tablet, and use it as a tablet, until I need to use it properly, and in such an event, I can…

 

WinRT, .NET, WPF and Silverlight

Ok, now this is where many bloggers etc really annoyed me, especially those saying “Microsoft has killed .NET and Silverlight”. The essential truth is that many “components” that make up the .NET framework (and therefore the Silverlight framework) have been incorporated into WinRT (which is the metro side of Windows 8 libraries – if you like). Metro apps run either XAML or HTML 5 (note that if you are familiar with WPF and Silverlight that XAML is the front end of those technologies) but don’t run what we could term “native WPF or native Silverlight” applications. Metro apps “managed code” environment is either C++, VB, or C# (oh that’s just the same as WPF and Silverlight), and pretty much everything is the same. If you have an old Silverlight or WPF app,
you do need to make a few, and I do mean few changes, before it runs in the metro environment. I personally don’t see the big problem with this. Sure if you have a business application running on Silverlight, you now need to change it if you want to run it in the Metro world, however, you can always run it in the desktop environment…If you want to migrate, make the few changes and away you
go, and you now have a Metro application. Those changes are essentially a few include changes, and that’s it…

When you look at “Metro”, you see that it really is just an update to Silverlight / WPF, actually the whole of Windows 8 looks and feels like a Silverlight / WPF.

 

HTML 5 and scripting languages

HTML 5 is now supported along with Javascript in Visual Studio 2011, now I don’t think this shows any movement away from Microsoft technologies (such as XAML), rather it shows Microsoft’s aim of allowing as many developers as possible to develop great applications for Windows 8.

From some of the videos I have watched, I would suspect that using XAML is better for Metro applications (well delivering some of them), however, HTML 5 is going to do more than adequate job.

 

Windows Azure

There was a lot on Windows Azure, especially when we start looking at how Windows 8 synchronises between all your devices. Now I am not one who has shouted about the cloud from day 1, I have often spoken of some of the issues regarding compliance and many issues with the cloud. However, that being said, Microsoft uses Azure very very well with Windows 8. They have also gone through a lot of work of exposing may Azure interfaces to developers, allowing them to take advantage of the power of Azure across all devices. Great thinking…

I also liked a lot of things being done with Azure, and how Microsoft have really addressed compliance issues that do raise their head when we think of cloud computing. If I am honest, I think the stuff I have seen on Azure of late has me praising the concept of the cloud so much more. Though I feel that’s more aimed at “Azure” than cloud computing in general. I still have issues with IaaS and concepts of cloud applications running in my browser (I hate that, I want a real user experience, a real application, and guess what, with Metro or the desktop and Azure, I can get that very easily).

 

Developers, developers, developers

BUILD was all about developers, and that means putting them at the forefront of Windows 8, giving them the tools they choose to develop with and allowing them “sell” to potentially millions of customers. On that note, there was a lot made about the sheer number of devices out there that will be running Windows 8, and just how big that audience is for developers. I know that Apple has gained traction here; I know that Android has gained traction too, but at the end of the day, if you develop for Windows you have the biggest audience out there. And that is a fact…Throw into the mix Windows 8 capabilities on tablets and the deal with Nokia, and I think you see that Microsoft is working hard to get even more devices running their software.

 

Much more I have missed…

There was simply so much at BUILD that I can’t possibly start talking about all the things I am aware of, nor did I fancy writing multiple blogs on essentially a platform that is only at developer preview stage.  I didn’t touch on Windows Server 8, nor other features such as NFC enablement, but there you go. Go visit Channel 9 and watch the hundreds of hours on BUILD.

Essentially, Microsoft has been working very hard, it has taken on board the need for touch, and the fact that mobile and tablets are becoming must have devices, and as such, Microsoft should have Windows running on them.

I personally think Microsoft has done a great job with Windows 8 and Azure, and I can really see them taking Apple on head to head in markets where Apple currently dominates. Is this Microsoft getting back to their best? I think so…

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…

The future of the web? Apps all the way…

This year will be the first year it is believed, that web access will be carried out on more mobile devices than actually through a PC or laptop. That’s a massive shift in the way we use the web. But don’t think that means we are sticking with browsers and HTML 5 even. What it really means is that more of us are looking towards mobile apps for access…

Take an example, do you from your mobile device use Tesco website for your shopping, or do you use their app. Almost everyone will say the app (if you shop at Tesco via the web that is). So why do we use the app and not the website? Simple, user experience…

Apps User experience

The problem with mobile devices is the screen real estate, they are simply small, even when you use an iPad, the real estate is smaller than a traditional netbook or my 19” wide screen TFT monitor…So seeing everything can be tricky, and it means scrolling around a lot. Secondly is the experience, waiting for pages to load over the web etc etc.

Apps provide a more “desktop” type experience, often loading is done in the background or even core data is stored on the device. So that means performance is greatly improved and we don’t have to pay greater network charges. In addition, apps are designed specifically for the realestate problem, so we get nice smooth experiences which make browsing using a web browser pale in comparison…

What can we learn from this…

What we learn is that, HTML 5 may be the future of websites and even rich internet experiences on the web and to some extent mobile devices, but the future is still on the device itself. Running software via a browser is architecturally inefficient; it’s very restrictive and comes with no end of issues. That’s simply because the web was not designed to deliver applications, rather it was designed to deliver content.

Can we deliver “apps” to the desktop? Yes we can. This is something I am a strong believer in. The web is great for delivering content and communications between the client and a server. If we make the small leap that components of an application are content, then we see that we can deliver desktop apps down to the client via a website, and have them communicate with servers in the cloud over HTTP. This is why I love the Silverlight model, as it’s all there…

Delivering applications this way makes the most of the web architecture and leverages all the benefits of being on the desktop, just as “mobile apps” make the most of being on the device. This is a great way of delivering real applications to business users, either over the web or intranet, running them out of the browser. You have a desktop app, with all the flexibility of a web app. A great solution….

Facebook scenario?

I’m not saying this is where we should all be, but websites such as Facebook would benefit massively from having a desktop app version. Why? Well how many people do you hear actually compliment the Facebook website on its looks, feel and how they use it? I don’t think any, rather I hear constant moaning about its performance, lack of intuitive navigation and, well the list goes on. The only good point is that they can access it over the web. But, how many use Facebook the website on their phone? Hardly any, rather they opt for their devices Facebook app (which delivers a better experience than the website most times). So if you had the choice as an end user, would you  have a rich desktop app for Facebook, rather than having to go to the website? I know I would!

Silverlight and Flash can deliver those capabilities, HTML 5 cannot. I think the future should be HTML 5 for websites, Silverlight and or Flash for desktop “web” apps…