Irony of ironies, before dumping my PC and moving to the Mac, I wrote a blog post comparing Microsoft to the fall of communism; namely, that an inefficient system was collapsing under the weight of an enormous legacy, and that entropy awaits.
Personally, I think that there is a lot of goodness to being able to provide one's own dewey decimal system to enable others to track your online breadcrumbs.
It's the difference between flat files and relational database, IMHO, and could provide all sorts of interesting ways to visualize the flow of information and conversations across the web.
And while the security/privacy concerns are legitimate, the counter to this is would you rather live in a world of faux protection, where there is just a fig leaf enough of assumed coverage that laws on identity theft and macro level protections don't need to be materially updated OR have assumption that data is accessible by all and work backwards to right answer from that perspective?
Have blogged on this topic in Spock, social nets and online privacy.
Irony of ironies, before dumping my PC and moving to the Mac, I wrote a blog post comparing Microsoft to the fall of communism; namely, that an inefficient system was collapsing under the weight of an enormous legacy, and that entropy awaits.
As to the mobile service operator, I see no real value. The mobile companies have such a 'protect legacy' mindset that at best, they are a buffer and at worst, they are a roadblock. Plus, culturally, they don't seem to grok the intersection of devices, applications and services. They are more pipes than platform, and platforms are commodities.
To the game changer reference, I would say this. Mosaic (and then Netscape) didn't pioneer the Internet. They did not even create the first web browser. What they did do was provide the right combination of simplicity, integration and visual sexiness, and backed it with a grand enough, holistic vision and clear release/upgrade path that pretty much made it an AHA 'big bang' moment for techies, startups, big businesses and consumers alike.
Prior to that moment, I would walk into meetings with customers and tell them how the Internet was the next chapter, and I would get a blank stare. After that, the context changed completely and most importantly the bedrock of a real market was in place that you could develop a business around.
So when I say game changer, I am hugely respectful that Apple has not invented the mobile applications space (just as they did not invent the MP3 player market). What they have done is built a device and platform where the mobile service operator doesn't force a lowest common denominator approach, where really good browsing and media services (integration with the whole iTunes infrastructure and ecosystem, iPhoto) are core to the device's reason for being, where the device is optimized for video playback, has good hardware acceleration, is built from the ground up to support touch and 3D movement as an interfacing mechanism and most critical, they have done a really good job of thinking through the UI, workflow and usability dynamics so none of these piece parts is a functional island.
On top of that, they have built what feels like the type of SDK that large swaths of developers will specifically want to develop on top of, in the case of Mac developers are already developing on top of, and no less important, they are providing a marketplace model for those same developers to get their application in front of every iPhone/iPod touch user via AppStore.
From there, consumers can buy effortlessly (since their credit card info is already plugged into iTunes) and then wirelessly download the application.
Equally important, the model scales down to the level of very small transactions, even free offerings, as is the case with iTunes so we are talking 100% reach with a friction-free transaction model (which I think will be a big deal for small developers offering utility like apps and services).
This goes back to my earlier note on chickens versus chicken parts. There are a lot of good chicken parts out there but the iPhone/iPod touch play feels like the living, breathing chicken when it comes to working through what makes the whole system work for consumers, developers, enterprises, media companies, etc.
Btw, a bit more tactical answer to your question is a post I wrote on the topic of iPhone SDK and mobility apps, which comes at this topic from a functionality, UI, workflow and usability perspective. Sort of ingredients and recipes mindset.
I can't disagree with any of your points, as I share the same general impulses. I will say that the more specialized the device the more goodness there is in systematic integration between hardware, software and service layers -- and that is definitely the case here -- whereas it is hard to see value add in PC-ISP analog.
That doesn't offset the general unease about a more hybrid proprietary-open approach (hence, spotlighting risk of scorpion-like behavior), but I look at this as as highest common denominator versus lowest common denominator trade-off.
Specifically, it brings me back to the axiom of that I would rather build something that 100M people use and love but has some caveats versus building something that meets the purity of my standards but maybe a couple thousand people use it.
I am, of course, biased on this one because prior to the iPhone/iPod touch, I had not used any mobile applications that made me say, "Oh shit, this is a game changer." A lot of people obviously feel that way so on some level, Apple has earned whatever position they have secured in the hearts, minds and pocketbooks of consumers.
That said, I don't think that anyone gets a free pass ultimately.
In my opinion, there is a difference between pre-disposed optimism, free pass and simple blind ignorance.
Potential game changers only come along so many times in your life and career. This is one of those cases where there is a surprisingly high level of aligned interests between Apple, consumers, enterprises and developers, and the end-to-endness of the approach feels pretty earnestly ambitious.
I'm from Missouri as much as the next guy, but I am also respectful of the fluidity of the process as it plays out in real time.
Cheers,
Mark
--
Are You Working with Chickens or Pigs?
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2006/01/would_you_rathe.html
Three comments. One is give some props to the fact that the higher you go up the stack in terms of providing reliable consumer facing services like media playback and telephony, creating platforms that satisfy both developers and consumers is hard.
In Apple's case, they are trying to reconcile a lot of moving parts: integration with iTunes ecosystem, the marketplace/AppStore piece, enterprise objectives, carrier objectives, developer objectives, all needing to co-exist with a highly performance optimized device.
Pretty much every company that I have built is a platform company so I know this fact at the skin, bones and oxygen level. It is easy to diss Apple as sneaky, evil, arrogant, greedy, etc. but lets not lose sight of that fact.
Two, when you say that you are tired of comments about "letting the market decide," there is an implication in your note that developers know better than consumers. When you are building consumer oriented products, working backwards from the consumer and iterating based on feedback, actually works pretty well.
Three, Apple's legacy with developers is absolutely mixed so a lot of the knee jerk towards this SDK is based on direct experience over a number of years. The blogosphere is part of that equation so these type of threads are a great spotlight on the developer perspective, and let's face it, no platform play I have ever participated in, succeeds without developers.
It will be interesting to see whether some of these limitations, legalese hairsplits, etc. are trial balloons or not. I hope that at least some of them are, and that Apple continues to iterate their SDK strategy until they hit the sweet spot required to decisively win the hearts and minds of the developer community.
For what it's worth, I have recently blogged about the skeptics side of the equation in, 'The Scorpion, the Frog and the iPhone SDK.'
Check it out if interested:
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2008/03/the-scorpion-th.html
Cheers,
Mark
The Comcast analogy is totally off for the reasons that you espouse, and call a spade a spade, the device/platform is Apple's creation. They can and should be able to decide how open they want it to be.
By the same token, developers can and will go where they believe they garner the highest 'return' for their efforts. For some return, is a monetary construct. For others, it is about having unlimited rope to build something beautiful, powerful, different, free or capable of hanging themselves or others (unlimited rope can be good or bad).
One challenge here is that iPhone/iPod touch type of devices are heavily performance optimized. You don't want that wicked slideshow app causing your music library to skip or causing dropped calls.
That said, there is always the paradox of trying to maintain a walled garden and inuring to yourself all of the benefits that god-like control provides (e.g., anointing yourself as the sole browser, contact manager, etc.) and being a bit more benevolent and winning the hearts and minds of the developer universe -- integral in a platform play.
Apple's DNA (based on my own experience) has always been akin to the scorpion riding on the turtle's back across the river. Their tendency is to sting the developer before too long, which has made them vulnerable when times are bad or good will is needed. I think that specific to SDK process, they are groping, shipping the idea, fixing and iterating as they go.
Hopefully, they make the right choices.
Mark Check out my post: Mobile reasons for optimism (http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2008/03/mobile-reasons.html)
Slashdot Mirror
Irony of ironies, before dumping my PC and moving to the Mac, I wrote a blog post comparing Microsoft to the fall of communism; namely, that an inefficient system was collapsing under the weight of an enormous legacy, and that entropy awaits.
Lots of relevance to this story.
Here is link to full post if interested:
Comparing Microsoft to the Collapse of Communism
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2007/03/microsoft_and_t.html
Cheers,
Mark
Personally, I think that there is a lot of goodness to being able to provide one's own dewey decimal system to enable others to track your online breadcrumbs.
It's the difference between flat files and relational database, IMHO, and could provide all sorts of interesting ways to visualize the flow of information and conversations across the web.
And while the security/privacy concerns are legitimate, the counter to this is would you rather live in a world of faux protection, where there is just a fig leaf enough of assumed coverage that laws on identity theft and macro level protections don't need to be materially updated OR have assumption that data is accessible by all and work backwards to right answer from that perspective?
Have blogged on this topic in Spock, social nets and online privacy.
Here is URL: http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2007/12/spock-social-ne.html
Check it out if interested.
Mark
Irony of ironies, before dumping my PC and moving to the Mac, I wrote a blog post comparing Microsoft to the fall of communism; namely, that an inefficient system was collapsing under the weight of an enormous legacy, and that entropy awaits.
Here is link to full post if interested:
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2007/03/microsoft_and_t.html
Cheers,
Mark
As to the mobile service operator, I see no real value. The mobile companies have such a 'protect legacy' mindset that at best, they are a buffer and at worst, they are a roadblock. Plus, culturally, they don't seem to grok the intersection of devices, applications and services. They are more pipes than platform, and platforms are commodities.
To the game changer reference, I would say this. Mosaic (and then Netscape) didn't pioneer the Internet. They did not even create the first web browser. What they did do was provide the right combination of simplicity, integration and visual sexiness, and backed it with a grand enough, holistic vision and clear release/upgrade path that pretty much made it an AHA 'big bang' moment for techies, startups, big businesses and consumers alike.
Prior to that moment, I would walk into meetings with customers and tell them how the Internet was the next chapter, and I would get a blank stare. After that, the context changed completely and most importantly the bedrock of a real market was in place that you could develop a business around.
So when I say game changer, I am hugely respectful that Apple has not invented the mobile applications space (just as they did not invent the MP3 player market). What they have done is built a device and platform where the mobile service operator doesn't force a lowest common denominator approach, where really good browsing and media services (integration with the whole iTunes infrastructure and ecosystem, iPhoto) are core to the device's reason for being, where the device is optimized for video playback, has good hardware acceleration, is built from the ground up to support touch and 3D movement as an interfacing mechanism and most critical, they have done a really good job of thinking through the UI, workflow and usability dynamics so none of these piece parts is a functional island.
On top of that, they have built what feels like the type of SDK that large swaths of developers will specifically want to develop on top of, in the case of Mac developers are already developing on top of, and no less important, they are providing a marketplace model for those same developers to get their application in front of every iPhone/iPod touch user via AppStore.
From there, consumers can buy effortlessly (since their credit card info is already plugged into iTunes) and then wirelessly download the application.
Equally important, the model scales down to the level of very small transactions, even free offerings, as is the case with iTunes so we are talking 100% reach with a friction-free transaction model (which I think will be a big deal for small developers offering utility like apps and services).
This goes back to my earlier note on chickens versus chicken parts. There are a lot of good chicken parts out there but the iPhone/iPod touch play feels like the living, breathing chicken when it comes to working through what makes the whole system work for consumers, developers, enterprises, media companies, etc.
Btw, a bit more tactical answer to your question is a post I wrote on the topic of iPhone SDK and mobility apps, which comes at this topic from a functionality, UI, workflow and usability perspective. Sort of ingredients and recipes mindset.
Here is URL if interested: http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2008/03/mobility-20-and.html
Best,
Mark
--
Metamorphosis: Change your life in 12 months
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2008/01/metamorphosis-m.html
I can't disagree with any of your points, as I share the same general impulses. I will say that the more specialized the device the more goodness there is in systematic integration between hardware, software and service layers -- and that is definitely the case here -- whereas it is hard to see value add in PC-ISP analog. That doesn't offset the general unease about a more hybrid proprietary-open approach (hence, spotlighting risk of scorpion-like behavior), but I look at this as as highest common denominator versus lowest common denominator trade-off. Specifically, it brings me back to the axiom of that I would rather build something that 100M people use and love but has some caveats versus building something that meets the purity of my standards but maybe a couple thousand people use it. I am, of course, biased on this one because prior to the iPhone/iPod touch, I had not used any mobile applications that made me say, "Oh shit, this is a game changer." A lot of people obviously feel that way so on some level, Apple has earned whatever position they have secured in the hearts, minds and pocketbooks of consumers. That said, I don't think that anyone gets a free pass ultimately. In my opinion, there is a difference between pre-disposed optimism, free pass and simple blind ignorance. Potential game changers only come along so many times in your life and career. This is one of those cases where there is a surprisingly high level of aligned interests between Apple, consumers, enterprises and developers, and the end-to-endness of the approach feels pretty earnestly ambitious. I'm from Missouri as much as the next guy, but I am also respectful of the fluidity of the process as it plays out in real time. Cheers, Mark -- Are You Working with Chickens or Pigs? http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2006/01/would_you_rathe.html
Three comments. One is give some props to the fact that the higher you go up the stack in terms of providing reliable consumer facing services like media playback and telephony, creating platforms that satisfy both developers and consumers is hard. In Apple's case, they are trying to reconcile a lot of moving parts: integration with iTunes ecosystem, the marketplace/AppStore piece, enterprise objectives, carrier objectives, developer objectives, all needing to co-exist with a highly performance optimized device. Pretty much every company that I have built is a platform company so I know this fact at the skin, bones and oxygen level. It is easy to diss Apple as sneaky, evil, arrogant, greedy, etc. but lets not lose sight of that fact. Two, when you say that you are tired of comments about "letting the market decide," there is an implication in your note that developers know better than consumers. When you are building consumer oriented products, working backwards from the consumer and iterating based on feedback, actually works pretty well. Three, Apple's legacy with developers is absolutely mixed so a lot of the knee jerk towards this SDK is based on direct experience over a number of years. The blogosphere is part of that equation so these type of threads are a great spotlight on the developer perspective, and let's face it, no platform play I have ever participated in, succeeds without developers. It will be interesting to see whether some of these limitations, legalese hairsplits, etc. are trial balloons or not. I hope that at least some of them are, and that Apple continues to iterate their SDK strategy until they hit the sweet spot required to decisively win the hearts and minds of the developer community. For what it's worth, I have recently blogged about the skeptics side of the equation in, 'The Scorpion, the Frog and the iPhone SDK.' Check it out if interested: http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2008/03/the-scorpion-th.html Cheers, Mark
The Comcast analogy is totally off for the reasons that you espouse, and call a spade a spade, the device/platform is Apple's creation. They can and should be able to decide how open they want it to be.
By the same token, developers can and will go where they believe they garner the highest 'return' for their efforts. For some return, is a monetary construct. For others, it is about having unlimited rope to build something beautiful, powerful, different, free or capable of hanging themselves or others (unlimited rope can be good or bad).
One challenge here is that iPhone/iPod touch type of devices are heavily performance optimized. You don't want that wicked slideshow app causing your music library to skip or causing dropped calls.
That said, there is always the paradox of trying to maintain a walled garden and inuring to yourself all of the benefits that god-like control provides (e.g., anointing yourself as the sole browser, contact manager, etc.) and being a bit more benevolent and winning the hearts and minds of the developer universe -- integral in a platform play.
Apple's DNA (based on my own experience) has always been akin to the scorpion riding on the turtle's back across the river. Their tendency is to sting the developer before too long, which has made them vulnerable when times are bad or good will is needed. I think that specific to SDK process, they are groping, shipping the idea, fixing and iterating as they go.
Hopefully, they make the right choices.
Mark
Check out my post: Mobile reasons for optimism (http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2008/03/mobile-reasons.html)