MacPro, 4K displays, and supply chain co-ordination

Many including me, have regularly hailed the innovative character of Apple.  In previous posts though, I have noted their innovation in areas other than product which normally steals the limelight. These other areas include in retail and in company cultural learning etc.  Tim Cook, now CEO, was previously in charge of supply chain, and it is this in which we see some clever co-ordination if not yet another example of innovation.

The MacPro product line has hit the headlines in the last twelve months for its delayed upgrades, and since the new radically different design was announced, the fact that it will be assembled in the USA rather than the far east.  One specification detail however has caught my eye, the fact that it can drive two 4K (ultra HD) resolution displays as well as an HDMI screen all simultaneously.  It's not the technical spec itself that peaked my interest (a lesson many traditional tech commentators and analysts should remember) but rather an aspect relating to market size and supply chain.  

Consider the market size for the new MacPro.  It's really aimed at supporting the most demanding professionals in music, video and software development roles.  And even some of those who would have previously bought the MacPro line will now be satisfied with the top end iMac models, given their capabilities. So the market size is likely to be less than it ever was.  The screen components are typically one of the most expensive parts of computers, so how could Apple repeat the trick of economy of scale in their supply chain for 4K displays which they exploited so well across other product lines (e.g. flash storage in iPod and iPhones, and wireless chipsets between computers and mobile products etc.)?  The answer may well lie in their rumoured entry into the television market.  4K TVs have so far sold in very few numbers due to many factors including very high price.  

The provision of an ultra HD 4K screen option in any TV offering (and not touted as the main selling point as others have mistakenly done - the Apple TV will headline other more consumer-friendly distinctive selling points) would offer a way to make economies of scale for the 4K display for MacPro and essentially lower the bill of materials (BoM) cost for both product lines by giving Apple much bigger purchasing volume potential for the cash that they hold.  Secondly, the storyline of the need for 4K display panels when negotiating with suppliers, many of whom like LG and Panasonic may well also be competitors the Cupertino firm wishes to beat in the TV marketplace, is at least useful and at most a strategic masterpiece.  Such competitors have no need to be nervous about 4K displays for the MacPro; their interest in a new player in the TV market would be rather different!  

Apple, Analysts & Innovation

Well it has been a while ... very busy with work ... but I couldn't resist a post about Innovation and Apple and Analysts, given the recent stock price performance of the most successful consumer electronics and computer maker of the last two decades, and the reaction to their quarterly financial results this week.

The sales and therefore revenues of Apple in the last quarter were higher than the same quarter in 2012, and higher than the so-called expert analysts expected.  The profits were down compared to the year ago quarter, and this is because the company has deliberately (including forecasting it in previous quarters) reduced its gross margin which has been traditionally exceptionally high amongst any company. The analysts who seized upon the profits report this week are the same analysts who have been critical that Apple have not made a cheaper low-end iPhone to attract more market-share!   They can't have it both ways.

Next, we are told that Wall Street and the analysts are concerned by the hint from CEO Tim Cook that exciting new innovative product classes (not just upgrades to existing top-selling products) may not be released until the Fall this year and into 2014.  This is criticism of the company that revolutionised the personal computer in 1984, revolutionised the music industry in 2001 with the iPod, and again stunned the world with a revolutionary mobile phone in 2007.  They then ignited the tablet computing market, where other big names had previously failed, in 2010.  Revolutionary products do not come around (even from the leading player) annually or quarterly or monthly.

Also innovation requires not only technical advancement, clever design, and vision to identify solutions which advance the status quo, but also an element of timing in the marketplace too, and the Cupertino company have shown that actually they are very good at timing.  I have no doubt that Apple will revolutionise other product categories in the decade from now, but it will be when they decide the time is right, not ignorant observers.  It's a pity that the market traders don't seem to share this confidence in a company with a proven track record.  Meanwhile competitors in Apple's existing markets are not seeing their stock similarly devalued while they play safe and make cheaper, lower quality plastic copies of lightweight razor thin notebooks, smart phones and tablets.

Finally, while on the subject of innovation, lets not forget that Apple don't only have a track record of technology and product innovation, but also business model innovation, which is in some sense much harder.  The iPod not only revolutionised how we listen to music, but the whole business model of the music industry.  The iPhone not only revolutionised the phone, but again the business model behind cellular data services and transparent charges for them along with seamless WiFi switching models  previously defended by the mobile network providers.  Their retail stores have also revolutionised the high street in terms of the profitability per square foot used for product shelving.  Lastly, the app store model for paying software developers who write apps for iOS is another example of how a traditional business model has been re-shaped by Apple.  

I have no doubt that the biggest obstacle to addressing some of their new potential product classes which the analysts all crave, is how to break and redefine business models underpinning the new products themselves.  This requires partners to be convinced outside of Apple, just as had to happen (with record labels, movie studios etc) to make the iTunes Music Store such a runaway success.  When you develop not just revolutionary products, but also revolutionary user experiences, you invariably rely on convincing third parties outside of your own organisation to begin a disruptive journey with you so that the complete user experience from purchase to service to upgrade and transition is consistent.  This takes time.  I only hope that Apple's future partners show more confidence in them based on their track record than analysts do!

The hidden damages to Google

So the news about the damages awarded to Apple against Samsung by the court which has been considering their intellectual property dispute has hit the headlines.  Of course the journalists have to simplify the quite complex arguments and counter-arguments made by each party for the consumption of the masses.  However lets not believe that this is all about using rectangular screens and   touch sensitive control of a phone, which some in the media have portrayed.  You only have to look at the appearance, functionality and user interface design of smartphones (and not just from Samsung) before the iPhone was launched in 2007 and then afterwards.  There is no comparison.  And I do mean compare smartphones ... we are not talking here about simple feature phones or basic cellphones.  Smartphones were being marketed and sold before iPhone, but none of them had the radical differences of the iPhone in appearance, functionality and user interface design (user experience).   I was a professional gadget guru, and even I had to do a double-take when passing the displays in carrier's shop windows at times, to blink and see if they were offering Apple's phone or new competitors in since 2008.  

Lets consider appearance.  Before iPhone it was pretty easy to see the difference at a glance between for example, a Motorola (remember them?) and a Nokia, the latter having a very distinctive shape across a huge range of phones.  The other manufacturers didn't try to make their phones look like Nokia's in appearance.  They innovated their own distinct shapes and designs, placement of buttons, colours etc.  But post-2007, it seemed like everyone's smartphones were beginning to look like iPhone.  One big screen with a similar sized bezel/outline, the same basic shape (ok most were bulkier and thicker but that's only because they couldn't copy that too - few people want a bulky handset), even a single bigger home button in many cases and even buttons and controls placed in similar places around the sides!  Note that most didn't copy the use of materials such as metal and glass, instead replacing these with plastic, which allowed them to undercut on cost/price whilst looking (but not feeling) similar.

Now the functionality.  Before iPhone in 2007, the functions even on "smart" phones were quite limited.  Remember the 'baby internet' using WAP?  No - I never used that crippled attempt at browsing the net either!  Even getting a GPRS data connection was a chore and a worry.  There were very few in-built data plans, so people tended to have to count the cost of their data usage carefully or worry and not use it at all.  And as for seamless connection without user intervention to WiFi when in range - well that wasn't implemented by the existing players because they were afraid to upset their cell-network partners by taking expensive data traffic away from them.  (So actually its not just functionality but business model innovation too).  But after iPhone, it was suddenly much simpler to use data services on a phone - so functionality of the phone was enabled!   But remember, no-one then talked about apps on their phone ... they were another radical step towards the functionality explosion on mobiles.  Yes you could add 'programs' to your phone before mid-2007, but it wasn't easy and the available software was extremely limited.  Apple innovated and made the App store model usable by the masses, (importantly including app developers).

Finally the user interface design or user experience.  Before the iPhone it was all about a fixed plastic miniature keyboard, and awkward little up/down buttons or tiny finger 'joysticks' or a stylus.  (You imagine trying to do a rotate or pinch gesture with a stylus!).  There were inaccurate touch screens using resistive technologies on other devices but not phones.  The capacitive touchscreen on the iPhone changed the experience of smartphones forever.  But even if you discount this innovation, those who copied the touchscreen could have innovated their own behaviour for that touch screen interface.  The rubber banding of the scroll bars when they reach the top or bottom of a selection is one example.  You don't need that behaviour.  It's not essential to a smartphone.  Apple did it first. Others didn't have to copy it.  Notice now I say others ... hence the title of this article.  This is not just about  Samsung (and potentially other hardware manufacturers).  They are only indirectly responsible for the User Interface and how the 'system' works.  They made a choice to go with Android, Google's mobile operating system.  They chose to launch products which rely on Android software.  So who copied the features like rubber banding of on-screen scrollbars (together with an awful lot of other 'behaviour')?  The culprits are somewhat hidden.

The win by Apple in the courts, made simpler against Samsung by both the lawyers and the media, is actually also a more complex case against Google.  The damages awarded (after any appeals etc) are of little consequence in Samsung's case (but send a message to other manufacturers) and Apple will dwarf those amounts by paying Samsung to supply huge numbers of components for current and future mobile products.  Of far more significance to Apple is the damage this inflicts on Google because of Android.  Most of the serious competitors to iPhone use Android software now.  They will be worried.  There are other ways for hardware manufacturers to design the appearance of their phones.  But there are also many more ways that they and the operating systems software players could innovate the design of the functionality and user experience of future mobile devices.  This would benefit everyone.  Let's hope they do.

And of course as technology and innovation moves on, the best ways to do standard things and implement common features emerge.  Those shouldn't be barred from being used on all devices in a particular category across all vendors.  But the answer is to acknowledge who innovated and protected that idea first, and licence the technology from them, not blatantly copy and try to get away with it until you end up in court.  There is an example of this involving the very same players.  Google innovated brilliantly with their online mapping.  Apple, recognising this, licensed Google Maps to use as a very early app on iPhone!  Is it now hardly surprising that in their next mobile operating system release that they will replace Google Maps with their own solution?!  But it isn't copying the idea.  It uses different (vector) graphics technology which has advantages when scaling the map view especially with labels and when an online connection is lost.  This is lawful innovation.

Doing the iPhone was risky, especially for a player who was a completely new entrant in the smartphone market.  Being so radical with appearance, functionality and the user experience was risky.  (I remember the nay-sayers at the time pronouncing how the touch screen keyboard would be too difficult and lots of other criticisms).  It might not have been successful, but it was, and now others strive to emulate it.  Success from risky innovation should be rewarded, not just in the marketplace but by recognition of competitors should they wish to build on it, through licensing or other agreements.  Then perhaps some of the massive amounts used for litigation could be redirected towards further R&D innovation.

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.  

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. 

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!

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.

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.

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.

The fall '11 device technology landscape

Being somewhat busier these days, my posts here tend to have bigger gaps between them .. but they will still happen! And they may be a little longer when they do.

As summer disappears and the leaves begin falling, more froth is bubbling on the technology landscape as many await the next move by mobile device leader Apple. Yes the next generation iPhone is coming and my 3GS is due for replacement so I await with interest. It's likely that this time the range of iPhones will be increased by a choice of high-end and less expensive models in order to broaden market appeal. The storage capacity of a lower priced model could certainly be smaller, given the imminent simultaneous launch of iCloud and the storage/streaming/download features it supports. The latter will also open the door for a couple of innovations, through its instant app-sync across devices facility.

The first is that when Apple decide the time is right to introduce NFC (Near Field Comms) to their devices, this will likely support multiple features/services, and not just the small-value contactl-less purchasing that most commentators talk about. I expect the sensing and proximity aspects of NFC to feature in a number of distinctive ways. The seconds is in the mapping space and especially how people locate and track other people and things that they care about, in a secure and privacy-aware way.

Away from Cupertino, what else is happening? Well RIM have continued to see BlackBerry sales drop sharply and are shedding jobs ... not good for the major corporate smartphone supplier. Its 200,000 PlayBook tablet sales have also disappointed investors. Travelling by train a lot recently, I see many employees juggling the corporate BlackBerry and their personal device of choice (Android or iPhone). This is an unsustainable behavioural situation and I believe that change will continue to happen in favour of the consumer/personal devices, especially as IT managers, CTOs and employees become more aware of the way that corporate security policies can be automatically and securely deployed remotely to protect company data while leaving the users happier and more productive with an experience/device they enjoy using.

Microsoft have begun to show people what Windows 8 will look like. Something tells me that many Windows users are not yet ready for another new operating system upgrade, they just want their existing PCs to work better like the smiley "I'm a PC" folk shown in Microsoft's recent TV advertisements. (Note that the Redmond company never used to have to advertise PCs a while ago!) And for those that do yearn to embrace the next Windows experience, they may be a little surprised to find that it may not be so happy to run some of the software they traditionally rely on. They may also be wary of the latest layer of user interface to be slapped on top of the system. But that is all in the future.

Samsung are having a hard time in the courts, with rulings in increasing numbers of countries that they cannot sell their Galaxy Tab models which not only compete with iPad but also look so similar in most design aspects that lots of non-geeks could be confused. HTC and other Android system smartphone makers must be still reeling slightly from how Google appeared to get into bed with Motorola last month, and looking for additional alliance options for mobile operating systems, either by partnering or acquisition in order to mitigate risk. However there aren't too many competitive options out there. You might expect the LinkedIn profiles of a few ex WebOS designers to be updated with new employment details soon.

Finally for this time, Intel has announced more about their roadmaps including extra support for even lower power processors that PC manufacturers may use to attempt to compete with the MacBook Air which continues to sell in huge numbers. Intel have also announced support for OpenCL in such processor families coming soon which should increase further the performance of future lightweight Air models. Then, like their bigger notebook siblings, they will be able to ship out some general processing tasks to the GPU (graphics processing unit) when it is not busy painting pixels on the screen.

More of a roundup and opinions of it soon!

Google, Motorola, HP & Autonomy

OK so it's been a while since the last post ... I've been pretty busy enjoying a new role at the TSB, but I couldn't ignore the recent corporate announcements...

So Google buys Motorola Mobile, acquires alot of patents, and says that its Android eco-system for third party hardware partnerships is intact, well maybe for now, but it will be interesting to see how long so called partners like LG, Samsung and HTC feel that they are as equal as Motorola, and stick with Android or cross the bridge to Microsoft and do deals like Nokia have already done. Even the patents Google has bought are not in the important areas of innovative user interface or hardware/software integration (which can be used to defend innovation in the marketplace). Instead they are in the areas of radio and network technology which like Nokia's portfolio can really only be used to extract royalties from others who use those technologies in their products. In 2007, Apple reinvented the phone and changed the mobile industry for good. This week, Google has changed the marketplace again, by effectively dis-incentivising a whole set of traditional mobile phone hardware vendors from having Android as part of their mobile strategy.

And then HP gives up its PC and mobile device businesses. This effectively wipes the traditional lineage of PC vendors (Apollo, DEC, Compaq, and Palm) off the map forever. HP have taken action to stop the haemorrhaging caused by selling large volumes of barely profit-making devices. You might think this is so that they can switch focus from PCs of the past to mobile computing devices of the future. However, with $100m being written off to pay distributors that are resorting to giving away HP tablet products in order to shift inventory, HP have also announced that they are killing off their mobile devices too, to focus on software and printers. They have also been spending by acquiring innovative firm Autonomy, although how HP's remaining hardware will benefit from this is yet to be explained. The ex-Palm employees must feel the most hit upon, having had their distinctive hardware and WebOS system software destroyed, the latter having been strangled by poor quality hardware that no-one wanted to buy. The PC landscape changed today.

Digital Locker or Lightener?

Apple's acquisition of the iCloud domain name suggests that their soon to be revamped MobileMe online services will be re-titled as well as re-purposed. But what purpose will the Cupertino company put its huge data server farms in the 'Cloud' to? Much has been written about the idea of a digital locker to securely store and stream content (such as music libraries) to any devices. But the cost of licences that Apple are paying for to rights holders of the content will have to be clawed back and I don't see them going down the advertisement route. So if the streaming part of iCloud is to cost users, then the value proposition will need to be very clear. I don't think the secure storage (i.e. backup) aspect of the digital locker is enough. Neither do I think that the ability to stream content to various devices will be enough. Users will compare the benefits of iCloud streaming with what they are already able to do. For most people, syncing and carrying the content they own on their devices is not an issue. It's there, it works so why pay more to achieve the same? One additional possible benefit is if the cloud based versions are better quality (e.g. higher bit rate, hence larger files). Well I'm still unconvinced. Most people cannot tell the difference in the quality beyond a point and they won't therefore see much value in paying for higher quality which is hard to perceive. That's not to say that all of these benefits would be rejected or complained about. I just don't think that the general masses will perceive enough value to pay for the service if they don't already!

But there is one thing which would cause a large number of those people who currently don't pay for MobileMe or other content streaming services to do so. If Apple were to launch a lightweight iPhone 'Nano' which has very little flash memory for content at a massively cheaper price, then it would put an iOS device in the hands of many more people, and allow those owners to effectively spread the cost of device ownership via a content subscription service. It would also fit the pattern of Apple later launching a cut-down version of successful high end products, and also be a model which is hard for many competitors to copy, requiring the server farm / data warehousing, licence agreements etc. to work. This would signal a shift, a digital device lightener, shifting content from devices towards the network. For quality to be maintained, better streaming/buffering technology will be needed than is currently used.

But I would be surprised if such a device came as soon as the revamped service ... rather it is likely to follow a while later. The initial marketing impetus for iCloud will be the benefits already mentioned as well as some additional facilities such as iWork.com finally making it out of beta status, and a family/friend location tracking service which people explicitly trust to keep them in control of their privacy, whilst letting their loved ones follow their progress.

The Privacy thing again...

Quite a lot has been happening in the privacy debate recently. There was the froth about Apple iOS and Google Android based mobile phones tracking users' every moves. Well of course the smart device in your pocket knows where you are and stores it internally from time to time. Anyone who has either owned one of the early standalone GPS units (and knows how long it took to get a decent accurate reading) or who understands the idea of 'assisted-GPS' will realise that more information is required than simple GPS from Satellites to instantly show you your location on a map on your smartphone. People also need to understand how much of their movements are tracked in all sorts of ways in the modern age (ATM machines, CCTV, credit card payments, etc.) in addition to their mobile phones.

Of course there is a debate to be had about how this information is stored, where it is used and who can get access to it. But users have to understand that in order to benefit from technology they have to give something up too. And most people won't worry about this; they have nothing to hide and their location information is not leaked to anyone, and certainly not to anyone they would be concerned about. But some US senators seem to be having a good time asking representatives of Google and Apple to explain themselves. I suppose it's an easy way to look as if they are attempting to protect the people who elected them.

Then in the UK recently we have had examples of how privacy afforded by secret court injunctions has been shown as farcical when 70,000 people have twittered online about something which national newspapers have been barred from printing to their readers. It demonstrates nicely how the legal system and current legislation is outdated in all sorts of ways, due to the changes that new technology and the Internet has brought about. This will continue to get worse as more cases of irrelevance happen in law. It's a part of the social change which is happening in society and which is leaving the established old laws of the land behind.

Catchup from hiatus!

Hi all. This blog has been quiet for over a month and a half due to some professional commitments of the author, but I hope to put this right from now as I return to comment on aspects of the tech scene. There are some interesting activities going on in the world of the leading companies ... Apple, Google, Amazon and Microsoft for example. I'll cover most of these in some separate articles. Anyway those of you reading this in the UK, I hope you have been enjoying the early dry and warm summer weather. This is bound to change now that the England Test Cricket season is beginning!

Apple's current plate-load ...

Last time, I discussed the Tech scene more generally. This time I'm looking at Apple's possible moves for 2011 in a bit more detail. Their new range of ThunderBolt-enabled MacBook Pro notebooks and the previews of Lion have been rather quickly overshadowed in the tech press by the successful launch of the iPad 2, which seems to have sent competitors reeling back to their drawing boards. Microsoft has also recently quietly announced that its range of Zune music players which were originally intended to rival the iPod are not to be developed anymore; instead they intend to focus on including Zune technology into Windows Phone 7 (WP7).

But lets look at what Apple has on its plate at the moment. iPad 2 distribution & logistics, iPhone 5 and iOS version 5 development, finalisation and launch, OSX Lion finalisation and launch, a major Final Cut Pro update in the works, and a MobileMe makeover and relaunch including the complete commissioning of its cloud computing infrastructure to name but a few.

Firstly, iPad 2, which seems to have again been received better than even Apple had hoped. Just a two week window between the US launch and many other countries seemed ambitious to me at the time of its announcement but it remains to be seen whether they can meet this or not. Compared to its hardware product launches of not so long ago, the Cupertino company now has a much wider distribution network in place, which has both pros and cons in terms of logistics. Eager buyers of iPad 2 can go to a number of different retail outlets (including but not limited to the 3G network carriers' stores) in addition to Apple's own stores and the online store. Not only that, iPad 2 distribution is also complicated by the fact that there are 18 variants of the product to choose from. iPad 2 is the first iOS device to be available in two colours as well as just WiFi or GSM 3G or CDMA 3G, as well as three storage capacities. Someone in Apple has some interesting choices to make about how many of which variant go to which outlets. The permutations will be a little simpler in most other countries where the CDMA version is not needed. Getting these all produced and sent to the places where they can fly off shelving and into customers' hands across the USA and across the globe is no simple task.

Next is the iPhone 5 hardware and iOS version 5 which will come in versions for the phone, iPad and iPod Touch. Despite rumours recently about Near Field Comms (NFC) being delayed until iPhone 6, I still wouldn't be surprised to see it make it into this summer's refresh ... if I were Apple, I would quite enjoy putting out some confusion at this stage amongst my competitors. Apple have the NFC expertise (just look at recent job hires), they have the chips, and most importantly they have the tens of millions of one click credit card accounts on their books. Any standards issues could be handled in software later like 'n' WiFi was. Its about time their Liquid Metal acquisition was exploited so I wonder if that will lead the change from a glass back to a new material for iPhone 5. In the same way that they used thinner glass on the iPad 2 screen to make it lighter despite all the internal additions (cameras, bigger A5 processor, more RAM, gyro, etc) over its predecessor, a non glass back may slice a few ounces off iPhone 5.

The introduction of Lion will usher out support for a number of early Intel Processor driven machines as well as all PowerPC emulated application support with the absence of Rosetta. I still feel slightly underwhelmed by Lion so far ... and wonder if the new desktop candy borrowed from iOS will encourage people to upgrade. Maybe something significant is as yet unannounced! It is possible that some nice new features in iOS 5 will also make their way into the final builds for Lion, especially if both are fully revealed together at the Developer's conference.

The next Final Cut is due sometime soon ... probably during the broadcasters conference season and is likely to make a splash there. It also presumably impinges on the team who update the iLife suite etc too.

And then there is the MobileMe makeover... to give Apple a lead in the cloud computing space. Syncing and streaming media wirelessly between OSX and iOS devices, as well as potential walk-up instant personalisation at any OSX machine would seem to go hand in hand with system updates (Lion and iOS5). The cloud access to personal media and documents would also fit very well with a smaller iPhone (nano) which has much less onboard storage than its older sibling, and which could be priced accordingly much lower. Anyway the switching on live of their huge data centre is going to keep many Apple folk's minds focused in the coming months. Altogether a busy time for what is still a relatively small company.

Tech Industry overview 2011

As 2011 revs up into full steam, I'm taking a look at various sections of the tech industry. In January the year began with the once amazing Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas but it took place with barely more than a whimper. Facebook continues to lead the pack in the social networking arena, with Apple having failed to tie it's Ping music network into the social giant at the back end of last year. News Corp more recently has launched The Daily, a news service designed solely for online consumption via mobile devices such as Apple's iPad. It is hoping that people will pay for up to the minute news services which are provided by paid professional journalists - we will know by the end of the year whether its hopes are realised. Meanwhile AOL has bought the Huffington Post, taking the opposite view to Murdoch that free web based news content will prevail.

A day or so after an astonishing internal memo by Nokia's CEO was leaked in which he likened the company to a burning ship and catalogued major corporate in-house failures, the company announces a tie-up with Microsoft and its Windows Phone operating system. This virtually signals the end for the old leader Symbian and perhaps Nokia's latest Meego operating system too, as both companies try to catch up with Apple and Google in the mobile devices space. They have a lot of ground to make up and I am very sceptical that they can make it. HP's buyout of Palm has seen it describe a new push in the same marketplace with the inherited WebOS system but they similarly have a huge challenge ahead.

Google is now leading the pack in terms of Android devices sold but Apple remains the leader in terms of money-making in that market. Being a profit-leader is not just a good business statistic. it also gives them a huge cash reserve which is key to strategic purchasing power of components for the next generation of mobile devices. This in turn means that the highest quality devices can be marketed at lower purchase prices which helps drive sales in the longer term.

And meanwhile, on the streets of Cairo, yet another previously dictator-controlled country is suddenly teetering on the brink of overthrow, as people attempt to claim some form of democracy. It is indicative of the Internet's support of people-power that the first clamp down reaction of the incumbent Egyptian regime was to try and cut off the Internet and prevent the mobile social networking being employed by the people organising the protests. And Egypt will not be the last. Gradually over decades, we will see many other dictatorships around the world fall, as technology not only enables people to act on mass with a global voice, but also shows many of them for the first time the freedoms that those in other countries enjoy, and which they then aspire to for themselves.

The rest of 2011 will see some more players in the tech industry merge or otherwise disappear as the strengths of the leading players' platforms increase. Google will continue to suffer the challenge of a continually fragmenting Android system across so many device manufacturers as each of them attempts to differentiate their products. Apple will announce and ship updates to its iPad and iPhone, probably introducing a 'nano' version of the latter to compete at the lower end of the smartphone market. Their high end mobile device replacements will incorporate near field technology to facilitate payments as they take on the banks in the next phase of the iTunes account based eco-system. I see parallels from how the network operators in the mobile phone business have seen their power and value-add services diminish since the original iPhone arrived, appearing in the banking sector as they become bit shifters in the same way as the network providers.

Apple will also want to eventually condense the separate recently launched CDMA iPhone (and later iPad) for Verizon in the USA and other CDMA operators globally into a single worldwide phone which just works anywhere on anyone's network. I think the company is well aware that the international data roaming charges cartel between operators is the single biggest obstacle for users getting the great iOS device experience when travelling overseas. A new open-SIM approach which the operators are already fighting will also be on the Cupertino company's agenda.

The success of iPad shipments in its first full year was absolutely astounding for a new class of product, surpassing the statistics of the previous launches of DVD players, VCRs and other consumer devices, and I think surprising even Apple. The take-up of the iPad in major corporates with hardly any encouragement has also surprised many. This has the potential to really ignite the consumerisation of IT in organisations longer term.

And in the Summer of this year we are promised the next major revision of Apple's computer operating system, OSX (Lion), in which they will begin the transition of many old style computing ideas to the iOS-like mobile computing approaches. I believe the iPad is an embryonic symbol of how computer hardware will almost disappear in the decades to come, as people just get on and do stuff, working with information and media in far more natural ways than the stepping stone technology of the mouse gave us. As mobile networking speeds increase and devices are increasingly sharing information and media between each other, it is likely that Apple will considerably enhance their cloud-based services using infrastructure which is already built.

I doubt very much that 2011 will be boring technological year!

CES 2011 been and gone...

Well, I've had a break and left you all in peace over the Christmas & new year period for a few weeks. Now it's time to review the main stuff at Vegas's Consumer Electronics Show (CES) this year. Even though Apple doesn't attend CES, yet again this year most of the talk seemed to be dominated by one of their products and this time it wasn't phones but tablets. It's not as if they haven't appeared at CES before; in fact there have been concepts and vapourware from lots of companies over many years. However this year everyone it seems was trying to come up with the "iPad killer". So how did they do?

The most likely competitors expected to achieve any moderate success in the market are the RIM PlayBook and the Motorola Xoom. However one of the biggest problems for competing devices to iPad may actually be the sheer confusing number of devices, with around 40 different ones likely to appear in 2011.

Most analysts and commentators still seem to overwhelmingly believe that Apple are likely to continue dominating as market leader with iPad with around 70% share as these competitors come to pass. The PlayBook will try especially to appeal to those corporates that already run Blackberry devices, however the iPad has already become a consumer-led trojan horse in many large global corporations. The PlayBook seems to suffer some power management and browser/scrolling performance issues, the latter apparently common amongst many of the Intel competitors at CES. Many competitors also have too small screen sizes, and the promise of later larger models will worry potential buyers in case the apps each device is trying to build up will not look so great or function well on a different sized screen later.

Apple still leads the way in aesthetics and design, although a new even sleeker upgraded iPad 2 is expected in the next month or two. They also have advantages in hardware-software integration and hence a better user experience, and their massive app store ecosystem. On the profits side, Apple also have cost/volume advantages in component supplies not only due to the number of iPads being made but also some of the components that it shares with other Apple products. This will make it difficult for competing companies to match quality and price of device.

The Smartphone licensing race

So Windows Phone 7 (WP7) is now out there on some handsets attempting to compete with the increasing raft of phones running various versions of Google's Android operating system and Apple's iPhone with its iOS. There is a difference however. Phone manufacturers using WP7 or Android have to license that operating system from Microsoft or Google.

They have to decide in the first place which phone models to bring to market with which features and then which system to licence on top of it. While there is a huge marketing budget behind Microsoft's push for WP7, the manufacturers do not have a bottomless pit when it comes to releasing new models of handset. With the increasing competition in the marketplace, Android and WP7 will be vying with each other in the handset producers' minds. And then once they have made their choice of system for a handset, then they have to decide what version of that system software to release on it. There is already significant fragmentation of Android software versions out there across different devices, and WP7 will likely go the same way once later versions appear to support more features. Because some of these features depend on hardware, not all devices will be able to run or upgrade to all versions.

Apple do not have this problem of licensing iOS on iPhone. They can also more easily plan and control the evolution of the hardware and software features on their devices. Handset producers do not have the option of having iOS on their devices and so when choices have to be made for new handsets, it is one of WP7 or Android that will lose out. As the turf wars begin in the future smartphone market, Apple may end up benefitting from the competition between the other two. This benefit is additional to their ability to provide a simpler user experience and higher build quality from the in-house design and integration of hardware and software, and their superior model for developers to earn money from apps.

Not so simple tablets ?

My father loves his iPad. Evidence from sales figures and customer satisfaction surveys so far released suggest that most other owners do too. Toshiba were one of the quicker large established companies to try and compete with an iPad lookalike product. However their problems have only just begin it seems.

I always said that it would be very difficult for competitors to match the iPad, particularly on quality of user experience and application availability. It also seems that price will also be hard to beat for the same sized screen of device. And its not just the size of the screen but also the clarity, both resolution and angle. The battery life is the final parameter which is also demanding to copy, while providing similar performance. Those competitor organisations that thought they could simply add a camera to the specification of their iPad lookalikes and take a significant share of the market are very much mistaken. That's why I always said that comparing specifications is futile.

Media Tablet Froth

So with the advent of this year's Berlin IFA tech show (which i don't ever recall making the general news before), the media seem to be going crazy about some tablet competitors to Apple's iPad. However instead of just reporting fully what the new devices are about, they simply indulge in frothy and supposedly dramatic stories about how other manufacturers are about to attack the market leader.

As usual, most of the stories revolve around tech spec comparisons (cameras, memory, flash, etc) and then highlight price differences. Again they miss the point; it seems as if they never learn! As I have said in many posts here: "it's the experience, stupid!" This means it's about quality... the quality of the design, the quality of materials used, the simplicity of use, the level of eco-systems (services, support and accessories) around the product, and the quality way in which the hardware and software blends together. The latter means that the overall experience will always be better than a hybrid product where different manufacturers build hardware and then slap someone else's operating system on top of it. To make matters worse, most of the competitors are choosing various versions of the Android system which is so wide open that it will permit any nasty coder to distribute viruses and malware through un-verified and uncontrolled third party apps. Anyone want to bet against this ever happening? It's bad enough on your PC, but on your phone?

And so about price... High quality doesn't usually come cheap. The media don't make themselves look foolish by comparing a new luxury model of car (say a Lexus) at a motor show with a lower quality Korean model (e.g. Kia), yet they do it with the tech industry. Most commentators in the latter, even the Apple-sceptics, were remarking how affordable Apple had made iPad for what it was at the time of its launch. Of course others will try to join this market, (which is extremely healthy for all, especially consumers) in a standard product marketing strategy of undercutting the leader on price. But consumers (especially those who are in the market for a device such as a new computer form factor), understand that you don't get cheaper prices without losing something.

Finally, we have to remember that some of these competitors tried this market before. Apple didn't invent the tablet; they simply created a new computerised mobile device form factor that people wanted. The other PC manufacturers tried many times before, using ugly interfaces (e.g. styluses), inappropriate operating systems (e.g. Windows), and without bundled content/application eco-systems, and all failed with early tablets. Some of them still seem to believe that positioning their tablet product offerings as a PC or laptop substitute, rather than a new and different type of device will prove successful; these are often the ones who simply try to pack the tech spec with goodies for the lowest price. Unfortunately average consumers tend to care little about tech spec comparisons, and packing in loads of 'stuff' to a price-point tends to result in low quality.

Some of the media should know better. Luckily, their hyped stories will have been long forgotten as the tablet market matures and the real leaders cement their positions in it.

The next iPod Nano?

Apple surprised people a few years back when they suddenly killed off the most successful iPod model at the time, the iPod Mini and replaced it with the iPod Nano. Now several years later, with its now traditional September music product launch event approaching, the Cupertino company is likely to have been once again thinking how to revamp its iPod line-up while continuing to differentiate the iPod Touch, Nano and Shuffle models.

In recent times, the Nano has preserved its form factor and simply gained new features such as video recording. This time, I am suggesting there may be a more substantial change. The way to make the Nano even smaller is to remove the click-wheel. However the user still needs a way to control the device. So why not make the current square'ish screen touch sensitive, and when the user needs to change something, superimpose a click-wheel (or tap-wheel) on the screen temporarily on the screen to effect the command. This substitution of the physical interface with a virtual graphical equivalent would mirror what they have already done with the telephone keypad and qwerty keyboard on the iPhone.

The next question is whether the iPod Classic will survive. I guess it depends how many of this last breed of hard disk based music players they are selling compared to the other models. The iPod Touch is already available with 64GB flash memory; doubling that to 128GB would get the song capacity close to the Classic model. The new Touch model is going to have a front facing camera to facilitate FaceTime video calls to iPhone 4's and it's clear that Apple will want to get as many FaceTime compatible devices out into the market as possible. Taking away the Classic option, and leaving the Touch as the highest capacity iPod for those that need it, would assist in this FaceTime strategy.

FInally there is the question of what materials the new iPod line-up will be made from. Apple has recently bought the exclusive rights to the use of a company called Liquid Metal in the consumer electronics space. It's not clear whether sufficient time has elapsed for this to be exploited this time around but it could just be another way that iPods continue to differentiate themselves from other devices.