Emmet Was Here

Why Microsoft Is Poised For A Comeback

Microsoft missed the boat (at least the first boat) on smartphones.  They were the leader before, but those phones weren’t really smart.  They were just phones that had PDAs attached to them.

So Apple came in and totally changed the game by giving our phones a beautiful and easy way to access the internet. BOOM.  Suddenly everyone wants a smartphone, and then Android comes along and offers essentially the same thing for OEMs to be able to make their own iPhone copycats.  Android essentially is to iOS what Windows was to Mac OS in the 80s/90s.  Now Android is killing it in smartphones, and you’d think that there would be a pretty easy transition from smartphones to tablets, but it hasn’t turned out that way and nobody seems to know why.

This brings me to why I think Microsoft is poised for a comeback.  In a word, tablets.  You see tablets are NOT big smartphones.  This is why Apple has done well with the iPad while RIM has struggled with the Playbook.  Playbook is a BIG smartphone.  iPad is a touch screen tablet COMPUTER.  Sure it utilizes the interface that iOS provides, but it’s success is dependent on BOTH iOS and Mac OS X. Case in point, iPads are cannibalizing laptop sales, NOT iPhone sales.

Android doesn’t have the desktop OS to support it’s efforts in the tablet arena.  THIS is why Microsoft will succeed in tablets, while Android hasn’t.  Microsoft has a HUGE number of developers who make productivity and work related applications for the Windows platform, and most importantly with Windows 8 coming in the near future these apps will be easily ported to the tablet form factor.  Microsoft essentially baked this into the new OS.  So this means that OEMs will have a platform that they can license that will help them sell tablets, LOTS AND LOTS of them.

Then once they have tablets kicking butt they will be able to support their smartphone OS because it will be a smaller jump for developers to make, and OEMs will have more faith in the platform.  If I had some money to spare, I’d start buying Microsoft stock, and this is coming from one of the biggest Apple fans you’ll meet.

Web Browser vs Native Apps

I’m just going to come straight out and say I like native apps.  I like having a separate application to work from rather than a tab in a web browser.  For those of you who are wondering what the hell I’m talking about I’m referring to web based software services.  Some offer a dedicated desktop application, while others require you to interact with them via the web browser.

There is a philosophical war here in the developer community about which approach is better, and which approach will “win” in the end.

For developers it’s easier to develop for the web.  You can use your own tools (ie you can program in the languages that YOU like), and rapid iteration is easy because you can see results immediately in the browser.  Also, you don’t have to worry about getting your users to upgrade when you have updates.  When developing for native applications a developer has to use the toolset that the platform requires.  For Mac OS X and iOS for example you need to use XCode and write code in Objective C.  XCode is a decent SDK, but it’s not everyone’s favourite.

However, when deciding what is going to be the best product I don’t think the tools that developers use should be given that much weight.  The biggest thing that matters above all else is the USER EXPERIENCE.  How is your customer interacting with your product?  Is it enjoyable?  Is it intuitive?  If not then you’re not going to succeed.  This hasn’t been as important in the enterprise world because products are forced upon users from the top down.  Microsoft makes millions (maybe billions?) from millions of unused Sharepoint seats.

There are a few web based services that are making great use of native apps, and not just for smartphones.  Yes, if you are offering a service with any degree of complexity you MUST have a native smartphone app for every platform, but most people don’t pay as much attention to the desktop.

I believe that native desktop apps are essential, and no the browser isn’t going to “win”.  There will be fragmentation.  Some people will choose to use the browser, and for them you had better make an excellent browser experience.  However, there will always be people that enjoy a native application experience more because you can make the experience better for the user.  With a native application you can control more of the user’s experience.  From a marketing perspective this is very important because you have more of their mindshare.  If you have an open application on their computer they are more likely to interact with that application than a tab on a browser.  If your user is using your service via Firefox, then Firefox owns that user.  If you have them on your native application then you own that experience, and that user.

This has huge implications for “freemium” applications.  By owning that user experience you are significantly more likely to convert that user into a premium user (ie someone who PAYS YOU MONEY).

Some examples of web services that make great use of native desktop apps:

RDIO - Online music service that streams music to you.  Subscription is $10 a month.

http://www.rdio.com

Evernote - Online note taking service that allows you to keep your “brain” in the cloud.

http://www.evernote.com

DropBox - Online file sharing/storage service lets you keep your files in “the cloud”.

http://www.dropbox.com

Sure, these companies could all exist without solid desktop applications.  But they all have better experiences for their users because of their solid desktop applications, and in the case of Evernote they have revealed that their users who take advantage of desktop apps are more likely to upgrade to premium.  I imagine the same is true of Rdio and DropBox.

Yahoo Resorting To Patent Trolling

I know times are tough for Yahoo, but I didn’t think they’d resort to this sort of behaviour:

Yahoo Sues Facebook For Patent Infringement

The document with all the information regarding the complaint is a pretty dry read, it also appears to be a photocopy and is hard to read.  However, if you do take the time to read it you’ll be pretty astounded at the stuff that Yahoo has been given patents for and is now suing for.

Basically almost anything that we’d expect to be pretty standard in a current generation web application is covered.  Some items include:

• Providing a customized web page based on a users preferences (ie if you’re into sports we’ll show you sports etc)
• Advertising that is relevant to the users and tools to prevent click fraud
• Creating profiles and tailoring your experience on the site according to your interests
• Patents related to joining groups around common interests
• The ability to “connect” to other people and businesses is based on “Yahoo’s patents”
• Allowing users to have various privacy settings (the 590 patent, which comically was filed in 2007, after Facebook came into being)

The stuff they’re claiming ownership of is incredibly generic stuff.  Now perhaps we just think that because of how far the internet has come and we wouldn’t be here if not for the billions of dollars of R&D done by Yahoo over the years, but I doubt it.

Most of this stuff existed on other websites before Yahoo, they just had the gall to file a patent for it.

Now, some might be saying that it’s no big deal for Facebook.  They’re about to become a $100 billion company when they go public, and they’re killing it so they can afford to do some sort of settlement with Yahoo.  The trouble is that this court case is so much more important than that.  This will set a very important precedent for future software patents.

So many software patents are incredibly vague, and don’t speak to the implementation of a process, but only how the user interacts with the software.  So, Facebook undoubtedly created their own unique code base to achieve all of this stuff that Yahoo is suing for, but because Yahoo has a similar feature they’re suing.  Most if not all of these patents should be invalidated, and it’s important that Facebook fights for that to happen, otherwise Yahoo will begin trolling it’s way through the tech industry going after every single company with similar features.  You allow your users to have granular control over their privacy settings?  Pay up.  You allow your users to have relationships with other users? Pay up.  You get the picture.

Setting Up Your Development Environment Sucks

Over the years I have gone through a few iterations of learning programming.  The pattern is always the same:

Start something new.  It sucks.  I can’t get anything figured out.  I stop.

Several months later, I come back and try again.  I quickly realize what I was trying to do before was actually pretty simple and I figure it out.

This is what I’ve been dealing with lately.  I started trying to teach myself Python, but I couldn’t get it to work in an IDE.  Something about the compiler not being in the right place.  So instead I spent all of my time typing in a basic text editor and running commands from the command line in Mac OSX’s terminal application.  Needless to say it’s a very labourious process.

Just today I dove back in and realized I just needed to check a couple extra boxes during setup to get things working.  It usually is something very simple like that.  The best solutions always are.

Now if only I could figure out how to setup Django….

Much Ado About RIM

“If Apple came back from the brink, couldn’t RIM do the same thing?”

That was the question my friend asked me last night, and my answer was no they won’t.  Sure they COULD come back from the brink, but it’s improbable enough that I would bet against them.

It was a fair question though.  When you look at just how destitute Apple was back in 1997 when Steve Jobs returned you’d have bet against them too.  There are a few differences though between the two situations that makes it much more difficult for RIM to pull off quite the same turn around.

1) RIM does not have a long lost founder genius of a generation that could return and save the day after a decade long banishment.  Yes, Steve Jobs was gone for over 10 years.  He left the company (was forced out?) and spent the next decade pondering what he would do with the company, what he did wrong etc.

2) RIM makes smartphones for the corporate user, they are not a consumer brand.  Why does this matter?  Because RIM needs to move FAST in order to correct course, and the enterprise market is especially slow moving.  This means that for many of their largest clients the wheels are already in motion to drop them and adopt iPhone or Android as a replacement.  Big clients like some US government agencies are starting to switch and they are right to do so.  They need to know that they’re with a company that will be around in 12 months.  This brings us to our 3rd point…

3) The cascade effect has begun and customer confidence is very important for a platform.  People are starting to write RIM off.  Whether this is fair or not doesn’t matter, it’s happening.  Sales associates at cell phone dealers are telling their customers to steer clear of RIM.  Developers are going to start devoting less of their resources to the platform.  All of this has an exponential effect (in the wrong direction).

4) Apple innovated their way out of trouble by expanding into new markets and dominating them.  Then they doubled down on those successes time and time again to keep growing.  RIM doesn’t have this option.  RIM can try break into the tablet market with their Playbook, but that’s not really working out so great for them, plus it’s not a “new” market, it’s already dominated by Apple.  Good luck stealing Apple’s lunch, stealing people’s lunch is Apple’s specialty.  Apple expanded into the “digital lifestyle” world with their iLife suite of products (iTunes, iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD), then with iTunes they were able to successfully launch the iPod.  Then they had this wide open market where they could sell huge numbers unchallenged and generate HUGE cash flows.  RIM doesn’t have this.  After the iPod and the iTunes Music store they were able to launch the iPhone.  Then what really blew things up was the App Store, and this was so successful because of the iTunes Music Store.  Why does this matter?  Because they had 200 million+ credit card numbers attached to people’s accounts so billing was seamless, they could circumvent the carriers, something nobody had been able to do before.  You get the picture, Apple was able to move into new markets unchallenged and get MOMENTUM, something that RIM lacks.

What Should RIM Do?

My opinion is that in 18-24 months RIM will no longer exist in it’s current form.  What does that mean exactly?  It means one of the following few things will happen:

1) RIM gets bought whole by someone else.  Whether this is for their patents, their customers, their hardware, I don’t know what exactly they’ll do with RIM but someone could buy them.  They’re cheap, and very vulnerable.

2) RIM splits the company up, and sells off or shuts down certain parts of the company.  They’re very popular in the enterprise world, so they could license they’re Blackberry Server technology for secure email delivery and messaging.  They could sell off their handset division like IBM did with their PCs, or they could just shut it down.

The challenge with any acquisition scenarios is that RIM’s real value is in it’s platform.  It’s differentiated because it has it’s own unique software and their email servers.  The challenge is that the other platforms out there (iOS, Android and Windows Phone) don’t really have much use for much of RIM has to offer, and the OEMs (Nokia, Samsung, HTC etc) don’t really have much use in their hardware, or with their software.

It’s unfortunate, especially since they are a Canadian company, but tech is a fast moving industry.  If you can’t keep up you’re going to get left behind.