However in Apple, it is not just a sentence on a piece of paper. Nor is it even just about the products they make, although these are the most visible examples of it. It is actually demonstrated in many more ways. Their retail stores are another example, where designs are incredible including glass domes, glass staircases and other distinctive architectural features. Corporate design finesse is also represented by the new campus they are building, and even their huge data centres. Together with their internal 'university' re-enforcing the corporate culture, their mantra of 'start by designing the best - the customers will buy it - the company will make money' - is not only plausible but highly successful.
Friday, 25 May 2012
Design as a Mission
Another Jonathan, Mr Ive, the british design guru at Apple HQ, received a knighthood this week. Like many people, I heard him interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. In answer to one question, Sir Jonathan was talking about the importance of design and the culture of purpose at Apple, essentially saying it was the driver to making money rather than subsidiary to it. For most organisations, especially tech companies, such a business 'mission' statement would sound implausible.
Thursday, 26 April 2012
Consumer Cloud storage misses the point!
There is so much about the Cloud in the computing press at the moment ... it's one of the buzz words of the moment. I still prefer to think of it as distributed networked computing resources, but I admit that 'cloud' is simpler to say! In the consumer marketplace, we are now seeing offerings of Microsoft's SkyDrive, DropBox, Apple's iCloud and most recently Google Drive. Google grabbed headlines on the BBC Technology news website by offering free storage and a headline of 16Tb; though reading further you find that free allocations are of course limited to 5Gb, with 16Tb coming in at $800! But all these offerings bar one emphasise storage even in their name alone (with terms like drive and box).
I don't say that emphasising storage in the cloud is missing the point from my computer scientist purist view that distributed resources should include processing as well as storage. I say it is missing the point because the race to offer the biggest storage capacity in the cloud is to make the same mistake as choosing a PC by the detailed technology specifications. Sure Apple's iCloud does offer storage but their strategy for offering the service across device types (computer, iPhone, iPad) is not storage but that old chestnut (discussed in my previous post as well), the user experience. Consumers need a simple view of how distributed resources on the Internet can just work and make their lives easier. Providing a secure trusted means for media, documents, online personal information and other data to just be available across all their devices is increasingly useful for people. If iCloud makes the user experience of Apple's products better, then it will have succeeded. It's not about selling storage. Just like the point of my previous post about convergence and compromise, user experience drives the position the Cupertino company takes.
Trust is one thing that people are concerned about in the cloud. Consumers should be aware of potential differences in the rationale for different providers to offer them "free" cloud resources. The terms and conditions in the small print may well reveal differences in the motives of different players. If your main business is search and advertising for example, the chance to store and access consumer data will probably offer different value to you than if your main business is selling consumer electronics or software and services!
I don't say that emphasising storage in the cloud is missing the point from my computer scientist purist view that distributed resources should include processing as well as storage. I say it is missing the point because the race to offer the biggest storage capacity in the cloud is to make the same mistake as choosing a PC by the detailed technology specifications. Sure Apple's iCloud does offer storage but their strategy for offering the service across device types (computer, iPhone, iPad) is not storage but that old chestnut (discussed in my previous post as well), the user experience. Consumers need a simple view of how distributed resources on the Internet can just work and make their lives easier. Providing a secure trusted means for media, documents, online personal information and other data to just be available across all their devices is increasingly useful for people. If iCloud makes the user experience of Apple's products better, then it will have succeeded. It's not about selling storage. Just like the point of my previous post about convergence and compromise, user experience drives the position the Cupertino company takes.
Trust is one thing that people are concerned about in the cloud. Consumers should be aware of potential differences in the rationale for different providers to offer them "free" cloud resources. The terms and conditions in the small print may well reveal differences in the motives of different players. If your main business is search and advertising for example, the chance to store and access consumer data will probably offer different value to you than if your main business is selling consumer electronics or software and services!
Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Convergence or Compromise?
One of the questions analysts asked Apple's CEO Tim Cook during the financial results call yesterday was for his views on the future for a converged device such as a cleverly designed notebook pc that can also be used as a tablet. Analysts and many parts of the media just don't seem to understand that it isn't about what it's possible to build (however cleverly). It is about the user experience. Time and time again this mistake is made by forecasters and pundits. Within Apple, it is ingrained corporate understanding.
Yes of course it is possible to make converged PC/tablet devices; indeed some companies are already doing so (defensively as Tim Cook characterised it). And a relative few people will be attracted to such devices and will buy them. But the mainstream majority will evaluate the converged experience and see so many compromises that it is obviously worse than the experience of either individual device.
It's not just about physical design compromise. It's also about the way people actually use and interact with devices; that is also very different for the PC and the tablet. Some people will want and need to work in ways that best fits the notebook PC (however portable, lightweight, high res, etc it may be). An increasing majority however, who never had a choice before, just want and need to work in ways that best fits a tablet. And many people who never wanted a PC, find that they do want a tablet and can be extremely productive with it. And the Apple's tablet, iPad, is finding uses and applications that the notebook PC would never be deployed in (such as electronic versions of flight data for airline pilots).
I was writing papers back in the early 90s when I formed BT's devices research unit in which I then talked about co-operating devices which were excellent at what they individually do, rather than converged kludges which try to be a swiss army knife 'jack of all trades' but are inevitably a master of none. The reason I gave for my minority view then, although I couldn't have known it was exactly what Tim Cook said yesterday, that it is all about the user experience.
My next article will take another example of how the user experience focus of Apple looks at another popular and topical concept from a different perspective.
Yes of course it is possible to make converged PC/tablet devices; indeed some companies are already doing so (defensively as Tim Cook characterised it). And a relative few people will be attracted to such devices and will buy them. But the mainstream majority will evaluate the converged experience and see so many compromises that it is obviously worse than the experience of either individual device.
It's not just about physical design compromise. It's also about the way people actually use and interact with devices; that is also very different for the PC and the tablet. Some people will want and need to work in ways that best fits the notebook PC (however portable, lightweight, high res, etc it may be). An increasing majority however, who never had a choice before, just want and need to work in ways that best fits a tablet. And many people who never wanted a PC, find that they do want a tablet and can be extremely productive with it. And the Apple's tablet, iPad, is finding uses and applications that the notebook PC would never be deployed in (such as electronic versions of flight data for airline pilots).
I was writing papers back in the early 90s when I formed BT's devices research unit in which I then talked about co-operating devices which were excellent at what they individually do, rather than converged kludges which try to be a swiss army knife 'jack of all trades' but are inevitably a master of none. The reason I gave for my minority view then, although I couldn't have known it was exactly what Tim Cook said yesterday, that it is all about the user experience.
My next article will take another example of how the user experience focus of Apple looks at another popular and topical concept from a different perspective.
Friday, 2 March 2012
The unapparent immaturity of the online world
It was good to meet and discuss technology with people yesterday at a Breakfast Seminar I was invited to give in London. One of the topics that came up many times in the Q&A was the way people use online technology, sometimes well and sometimes in ways that could be improved.
This is a topic that applies to so much technology. But it really isn't obvious to many people. If you talk to Tim Berners-Lee about the World Wide Web, he will tell you that although it is so widely used by so many people for so many purposes and therefore it appears to be a mature technology which we all understand, actually it is not even a toddler on the development scale. It seems as if it has been with us for so long that it must be entirely well understood but in fact that is just not true. We understand very little especially about its development, its effect on people and society and are all still learning a great deal about it.
And this is true of much technology in the online world. Many people have eventually learnt that although anyone can create a website and publish information, it is better if much of that is done by people/organisations who actually have responsibility for the information source ... so I remember in the early days of the web that there were lots of sites where individuals would list what programmes were on tv for example, even though it is the BBC and other broadcasters or schedules publishers that should do this, and are able to do it. It takes people quite a long time for many people to decide what to use Twitter and similar services for. All of these innovations are actually very new. It does take time for both individuals and organisations to understand and decide what to use them for and what not to use them for. And especially to decide where the value is. And in organisations, it is often not the people most familiar with or able to exploit the new technology/services for maximum value that decide the policy on technology use for that organisation!
Email has a particular problem ... and often acts as the fallback for all, rather than being reserved for the best purposes it is suited to. There are millions of messages in emails sent every day that would be better sent as Instant Messaging for example. But this is another example of the innocent ignorance associated with the early stages of life of anything.
While we have to strive to uplift people's understanding of the new technology and help bring some maturity to the use of it, we should also be patient that the mistakes some will inevitably make are simply part of the process of learning and in the case of the online world, we shouldn't forget how young the concepts and tools we have still are.
This is a topic that applies to so much technology. But it really isn't obvious to many people. If you talk to Tim Berners-Lee about the World Wide Web, he will tell you that although it is so widely used by so many people for so many purposes and therefore it appears to be a mature technology which we all understand, actually it is not even a toddler on the development scale. It seems as if it has been with us for so long that it must be entirely well understood but in fact that is just not true. We understand very little especially about its development, its effect on people and society and are all still learning a great deal about it.
And this is true of much technology in the online world. Many people have eventually learnt that although anyone can create a website and publish information, it is better if much of that is done by people/organisations who actually have responsibility for the information source ... so I remember in the early days of the web that there were lots of sites where individuals would list what programmes were on tv for example, even though it is the BBC and other broadcasters or schedules publishers that should do this, and are able to do it. It takes people quite a long time for many people to decide what to use Twitter and similar services for. All of these innovations are actually very new. It does take time for both individuals and organisations to understand and decide what to use them for and what not to use them for. And especially to decide where the value is. And in organisations, it is often not the people most familiar with or able to exploit the new technology/services for maximum value that decide the policy on technology use for that organisation!
Email has a particular problem ... and often acts as the fallback for all, rather than being reserved for the best purposes it is suited to. There are millions of messages in emails sent every day that would be better sent as Instant Messaging for example. But this is another example of the innocent ignorance associated with the early stages of life of anything.
While we have to strive to uplift people's understanding of the new technology and help bring some maturity to the use of it, we should also be patient that the mistakes some will inevitably make are simply part of the process of learning and in the case of the online world, we shouldn't forget how young the concepts and tools we have still are.
Sunday, 15 January 2012
CES - driven by the absentee
So CES 2012 has been and gone and each year it seems it is less important for gadget watchers and those who want to bet on innovation success in the technology marketplace. It is increasingly a place that sales folk stand in front of new stuff only to acknowledge later that it is just a technology demonstrator. An example of this last week was Sony's "Simple Wireless Connection (SWC)" which at first seemed to be a market response to Apple's Airplay (found on its shipping iOS devices) but was later admitted to be simply a technology demonstrator.
But it wasn't the top companies at CES that were driving the tech product agenda for this year; it was indeed the Cupertino company that wasn't there. The publicity was all about 'connected televisions' not driven by the what people are asking for or buying and using but by what the rumours say the next market Apple is targeting... TV. All the data says that people who have already bought connected TVs do not in fact connect them to the net and the few that do rarely use it to display web content. Of course that is not the innovation that Apple will bring to television viewing. The companies driven by focus groups are missing the point once again. They need to innovate instead on how the users of a TV can get a proper a la carte choice of channels they want without all the rubbish that they don't and how to interact with the device in the lounge. You only have to compare the standard Apple remote with any other remote control for traditional TV sets. And of course, at CES there were plenty of companies who had TV remote control apps on mini-tablets to show off. CES was their chance to lead on innovation ... I fear that by 2013 they will be chasing from behind once again.
But it wasn't the top companies at CES that were driving the tech product agenda for this year; it was indeed the Cupertino company that wasn't there. The publicity was all about 'connected televisions' not driven by the what people are asking for or buying and using but by what the rumours say the next market Apple is targeting... TV. All the data says that people who have already bought connected TVs do not in fact connect them to the net and the few that do rarely use it to display web content. Of course that is not the innovation that Apple will bring to television viewing. The companies driven by focus groups are missing the point once again. They need to innovate instead on how the users of a TV can get a proper a la carte choice of channels they want without all the rubbish that they don't and how to interact with the device in the lounge. You only have to compare the standard Apple remote with any other remote control for traditional TV sets. And of course, at CES there were plenty of companies who had TV remote control apps on mini-tablets to show off. CES was their chance to lead on innovation ... I fear that by 2013 they will be chasing from behind once again.
Friday, 18 November 2011
Speaking of Technology
So my wife now has an upgraded phone, the iPhone 3GS (my old one) and I have my new iPhone 4S. So we could move to iOS5 together. One of the unique features of iOS5 on the iPhone 4S is Siri. Siri is not just voice recognition; it is contextual language understanding. Voice recognition on most other devices relies on you speaking particular words or sometimes phrases, which are recognised, matched and cause actions to be carried out. With Siri, you don't really have to think what the phrase is that you have to use; you simply say what you want. And you can usually rely on Siri using previous voice commands when interpreting subsequent ones. For example, if you ask something about weather for one location, you do not have to mention weather again when you want that information for another location; you simply say "and in London?".
Perhaps the most impressive aspect of Siri was demonstrated the first time I ever tried it. After removing it from the box, and the SIM card was inserted, I instantly loaded my mail, address book, and calendar information via MobileMe. I then used Siri for the first time by saying "Call my wife". I expected it to ask who my wife is, at least the first time. But instead my wife's phone rang! The only way I can think that this was possible was from multiple lookups to my Address Book. My own entry in it gives my spouse's first name. There are two records in my address book that have that first name, only one of which is my wife. A match between surname of that person and me would have correctly led Siri to the correct person. The mobile number in that person's address book record was then selected from the three numbers listed for her. It's therefore not only the speech recognition of Siri that is impressive, but the actions taken according to the meaning of the words recognised.
I have seen many speech recognition systems, some very good. Siri is an order of magnitude further forward. It is certainly not perfect and does make mistakes. But it is still the best speech system I have used. Many of the actions you can ask Siri to take are quicker to do that way than without Siri, such as setting a reminder call. That is ultimately why I (and many others) will use it - not because of the quality of the technology but because it is more efficient.
Perhaps the most impressive aspect of Siri was demonstrated the first time I ever tried it. After removing it from the box, and the SIM card was inserted, I instantly loaded my mail, address book, and calendar information via MobileMe. I then used Siri for the first time by saying "Call my wife". I expected it to ask who my wife is, at least the first time. But instead my wife's phone rang! The only way I can think that this was possible was from multiple lookups to my Address Book. My own entry in it gives my spouse's first name. There are two records in my address book that have that first name, only one of which is my wife. A match between surname of that person and me would have correctly led Siri to the correct person. The mobile number in that person's address book record was then selected from the three numbers listed for her. It's therefore not only the speech recognition of Siri that is impressive, but the actions taken according to the meaning of the words recognised.
I have seen many speech recognition systems, some very good. Siri is an order of magnitude further forward. It is certainly not perfect and does make mistakes. But it is still the best speech system I have used. Many of the actions you can ask Siri to take are quicker to do that way than without Siri, such as setting a reminder call. That is ultimately why I (and many others) will use it - not because of the quality of the technology but because it is more efficient.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
