...more recent posts
Amazon announces an SDK for the Kindle:
Amazon, displaying a sense of urgency, perhaps driven by the pending launch of Apple’s tablet style computer is turning its Kindle device into a platform. The Seattle-based company today announced that it will allow software developers to “build and upload active content” and distribute it through the “Kindle Store later this year.” Amazon will be giving out a Kindle Development Kit that will give “developers access to programming interfaces, tools and documentation to build active content for Kindle.” The company will launch a limited beta effort next month.The Kindle is going nowhere with the current screen technology (which is just okay for reading, but clearly no good for anything "active", or even anything with color for that matter.) But they could evolve the device's hardware (and design) in future generations, and certainly Amazon has a lot of experience creating a good ecommerce experience. So I think they could be an important player, but they've got a lot of work to do on their device first.
And also on the Kindle front, Amazon announced earlier this week that they are sweetening the split on ebooks with publishers, now offering to take only 30% in some situations (i.e., 30%, but with a bunch of strings attached.) This matches Apple's across the board split with developers in it's App Store (and the rumored split Apple is offering content publishers for it's new Tablet.)
Amazon: "Hey, over here! Don't forget about me!"
NYmag says that the NYTimes is set to start charging for it's online content in the next few weeks. Supporting some of my speculation is this bit: "Apple's tablet computer is rumored to launch on January 27, and sources speculate that Sulzberger will strike a content partnership for the new device, which could dovetail with the paid strategy."
Wow. From the Google blog: A new approach to China
Like many other well-known organizations, we face cyber attacks of varying degrees on a regular basis. In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident--albeit a significant one--was something quite different.
First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses--including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors--have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.
Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists....
The annual Consumer Electronics Show (CES) is wrapping up after a week or so of excitement* (*YMMV). This is the main event for all the major electronics manufacturers to show new products. The result this year was a flood of Tablet and E-Book readers. Although there has never been a hit product in this space - with the possible exception of Amazon's Kindle (for which Amazon refuses to release any sales numbers) - a lot of people are betting 2010 is the year.
But do we really need small devices that are too big to put in a pocket, and lack keyboards? Steve Jobs famously (and unattributedly) wondered what they could possibly be good for other than surfing the web from the bathroom. I was long a skeptic as well, thinking there just wasn't any room between a good smartphone and a small notebook. But now I've changed my mind. I think most of what was shown at CES in this category will fail, but I think something in this space will succeed. By "this space" I mean a lightweight portable device with a 7 to 10 inch diagonal screen and no keyboard.
And unless you've been living under a rock you've probably heard the speculation that Apple has an entry ready to be shown at the end of January. Has Apple found a use outside the bathroom? I think so. We'll see in just over 2 weeks.
Just throwing out more pieces to the puzzle. Wish I could tie it all together better.
One thing that has really caught me eye regarding the increasing use of mobile devices for surfing the web (and just accessing the internet in general) is the de-emphasis of the URL. On the desktop (whether that be an actual desktop computer or a laptop - in other words, a computer with a full sized keyboard) the URL (the 'Location' field in your web browser) served as a sort of command line for the internet. You type the globally unique URL into your browser and you "get back" the web resource it specifies. On a mobile device, where typing is more difficult, the general purpose web browser which presents a general location field is (and I think will continue to be) de-emphasized in favor of small applications that "launch" the user directly to the remote resource with one click. For example, to use FaceBook on the iPhone you just launch the free FaceBook app instead of going to your browser and typing in facebook.com.
So what? Underneath everything is the same. The FaceBook app isn't much more than just a shortcut to pointing the mobile browser at facebook's web servers. Something like a glorified bookmark. But this is really important because as we move to using more and more individual apps to access information on the web (not just FaceBook app, but also weather, stocks, dictionary, wikipedia, etc.) we have less and less need for Google.
If I want to find information on wine on my desktop I will probably start with Google. But on a smartphone I may well download a free wine widget instead. Both methods will use the internet to return me hopefully relevant information, but using Google fuels a particular advertising model (where Google can serve me ads targeted to everything I search for on the web,) while using specialized smartphone widgets circumvent this model.
Put another way: as the internet more and more becomes the operating system of mobile computers (i.e., Chrone, Android, iPhone OS) what we used to think of as "websites" become more and more like what we used to call "applications". So instead of "going to" a website, we will increasingly be "launching" applications (widgets). The result is the same, but the cognitive set is much different. Instead of one vast sea of websites we navigate with our browser and the help of Google, the web is being sliced up into categories that will be accessed through special purpose widgets.
Note I'm not saying Google is going away. But just that smartphones, and specialized single purpose widgets, may well be the end of Google's total on line ad dominance.
In related news, Apple buys mobile ad company Quattro.
Smartphone total cost of ownership side by side comparison chart: Nexus One, Droid, iPhone 3GS, Palm Pre.
Following up on the Nexus One launch I posted about below let me say a few words about the smartphone space. I want to make this brief, so of course this will be too condensed (and probably overstated) to turn out to be accurate, but it's basically how I see things at this point.
There are only three camps in the race at this point: RIM's Blackberry, Apple's iPhone, and the various Android devices.
The Blackberry is all about business email (which is all about Microsoft Exchange support.) If your business runs on Exchange and uses Blackberry then you need a Blackberry - end of story. They have this niche locked down and will continue to do so. So they have something to generate profits, but I don't see them ever breaking out of this niche. And as Microsoft continues their very slow deterioration (and specifically, as Exchange and Office give way to online, cloud based, software from people like Google) RIM's market will slowly and continuously erode. They aren't going away soon, but they are the definite third wheel here and won't ever gain ground from where they stand today.
That leaves Apple vs. Android, or, really, Apple vs. Google. This doesn't have to be a battle to the death, as the space is giant. But it's a battle nonetheless. Google's CEO Eric Schmidt left Apple's board last year over conflict of interest as the two previous allies turned their guns more and more toward the other.
Very briefly, Google (with Android) is more open than Apple's iPhone ecosystem. But the iPhone - through the Apple run online App Store - is a much more developed, and much more tightly integrated market place for third party software (3 billion app downloads and counting.) The Android marketplace is far behind at this point. And really this is all that matters. Hardware has to be good, but tons of people can build good hardware. It's the software, and how it integrates with the hardware and with the marketplace for third party software, that matters. And here Androids openness works both for and against it.
There has been lots of third party software developer unease with Apple since they totally control who can sell and what they can sell. But my guess is that money talks, and as long as it's easy to develop, and the marketplace is giant with lots of profit opportunities, people will continue to develop and put up with Apple's occasional flights of whimsy in rejecting certain apps.
Android, by courting lots of different hardware makers, has a chance to grab marketshare rapidly (and in fact, with the Droid, they are doing so.) But at the same time, different manufacturers, combined with a completely open software stack, means that fragmentation is a danger. It might turn out something like the Windows software world where it becomes difficult to support all the variations of 'Android' devices out there. Apple looks to avoid this problem by keeping very tight control over the iPhone.
So can the Android marketplace catch up with the iPhone + App store? Of course it can, but it has a ways to go. To me it's really looking a lot like a replay of the PC world Microsoft vs. Apple story. Android is like Windows in that it's trying to be all things to all people and to let partnerships with other companies (Motorola, HTC, Verizon, etc...) flesh out the ecosystem. Apple, as they did on the desktop, wants to control every detail in order to flesh out their own very specific vision. Some people will really connect with this vision; others will not. But my guess is that it won't turn out as lopsided of a contest this time as it did on the desktop. Smartphones will do less than general purpose computers, but they will do what they do better, easier, and more intuitively. And that will be enough for most people. If Apple can execute (more on this later!) I think they can "win", and if not then Android will have no problem picking up the pieces.
For the rest of them: Palm tried valiantly with the Pre - which looks to be a very solid device - but it's too late and they are dead. Nokia has nothing right now, but does have several big projects in the works. I think it's too late for them as well, but they are an awfully big horse to bet against. And Microsoft just can't seem to compete at all in the smartphone space. I'd say they are already dead (although with some legacy numbers that don't look too bad at this point, but really will by the end of the year.)
The smartphone will be the main computer for most people over the next ten years, and your choices are going to be Apple, or some kind of Android device. The race is on. But there is still another twist to come.
Okay, so I've totally fallen down on posting more often. I really tried to put something together, but I just couldn't get it out. In any case, it's the new year, and as I sort of said, some big changes are coming our way in digital media land. But instead of getting out ahead of these things I'm just going to comment as we go.
Like, for instance, today Google releases the Nexus One. This is Google's own Android smartphone entry. Android, of course, is a smartphone operating system built on top of the linux kernel by google. It's open source and freely available (including the entire network stack) under the very permissive Apache license. What this means is that anyone can use Android as the OS for their own smartphone. And people have, most notably HTC, who really got the space rolling with their G1, and Motorola, with the current champ Droid. But, somewhat confusingly, the name 'Droid' is licensed from Lucasfilm by Verizon, and thus there are also other Droid phones on the Verizon network such as the HTC Droid Eris. So 'Droid' seems to be Verizon's branding for Android, although at this point most people would assume you mean the Motorola Droid if you just said 'Droid'.
In any case, back to the Nexus One. It too - to further complicate the threads - is built by HTC. But the branding is 100% Google. They designed it and outsourced the construction to HTC (much as Microsoft designed the Zune, but it was built by Toshiba.) The top link in this post has probably the best info so far, as Engadget has had a unit for a little over a day. But also Engadget is liveblogging the Google event at CES right now where the device is to presumably be unveiled.
Hardware specs are very impressive but I'll skip the boring details. The real story here is the way the phone is going to be sold. Supposedly Google is going to sell the phone online, unlocked, directly to consumers, for $529. Or, alternately, with a 2 year T-Mobile contract for $179. This puts google in a position of competing directly with their partners (like Motorola) which is something they had previously said they weren't going to do. (Think here about how Microsoft never entered the PC hardware business - they didn't precisely for this reason: they didn't want to compete with their partners like Dell and HP. Google is abruptly taking an alternate route.)
Long blog short: There is a ton of hype and excitement here for a phone that seems to be genuinely well thought out and well built but not really breaking too much new ground, and with a price that would seem to put it well out of the reach of most consumers unless you want to be on the T-Mobile network. From what I've seen I really like this phone, and I welcome competition in this space as being vital to our future, but the Nexus One is merely a competent entry and not a game changer.
P.S. the name Nexus One should be interesting to Blade Runner aficionados.
Fake Steve Jobs at his finest.
Really interesting TED talk from Pranav Mistry, an MIT Media Lab PhD student, about future augmented reality computer interfaces. Great video demonstrations. Worth the 12 minutes.