Sorcinelli.net

Back in the “good ol’ days” of late 2000, I started writing regularly on the Internet. Back in those days, I was mostly writing software reviews for a relatively new gadget – the Pocket PC. There were a few web sites around that focused on the technology, but not a ton. In January 2002, I launched BostonPocketPC.com. The idea was to use the Internet to communicate about Pocket PC, then Smartphone, then Windows Mobile and now Windows Phone technologies. News and reviews was the name of the game.

BostonPocketPC.com has always been an enjoyable experience for me. It has given me the chance to meet new people and write about technology I love. A lot has changed in the last 8 years, but it is what has occurred in the last year that has really changed by interaction with the Internet – the emergence of social media.

I’ve always enjoyed writing. I’ve also enjoyed interacting. While traditional “blogging” on the Internet is a great way to speak to an audience, it’s never been a great way to “communicate”. Even longer than my Internet writing career, my professional career has been focused on dialog rather than monologue. Blogging does have it’s ability to invoke conversation, but it is not it’s default nature. The advent of technologies like RSS have moved traditional Internet writing even more towards a more uni-directional nature. That’s never really been my “cup of tea”. The emergence and acceptance of social media technologies has proven to be the media I truly crave.

Whether it be Twitter or Facebook, Yelp or FourSquare, social media is all about interaction. Tweets are replied to, either in replies, retweets or direct messages. Facebook posts result in comments or “likes'”. All very much and very easily in real time. Sure, we’ve had email, forums and newsgroups. None, though, have encouraged the widespread and rapid response to thoughts, opinions and statements than these social media tools do. For me, the result has been quite obvious – I’ve found myself spending far more time in the social media world. This has come at the expense of the traditional Internet mediums. I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently, and I’ve come to some conclusions.

I’ve come to realize that there still is a place for both the traditional and “new” ways of communicating on the ‘Net. I have come to realize I still find enjoyment in blogging. I’ve also come to realize that it is most enjoyable when I want to communicate a message that can’t be conveyed in 140 characters or a “quickie” paragraph. While social media has some strengths (as I described above), it does has it drawbacks. I also realized that by being a little too immersed in social media, I sort of rationalized myself  out of writing more. You have to admit it; Twitter and Facebook do make us a bit lazy when it comes to writing. That is going to change.

My plan moving forward is to try to start doing a healthier mixture of both social media and blogging. I really don’t need to change my social media habits to accomplish this; social media only takes a matter of seconds at a time to communicate. I will start to take the time to identify those things worthy of more complex communication (read - “more words”) and bring them to my blogs/sites. While I might not get the interaction I would like, I still hope that they can either inform or invoke thought. In the end, that is why I have always really enjoyed my writing on the Internet, and what I had somewhat lost sight of – until now.

I’ve decided to capture some thoughts and observations around this past week’s announcement and subsequent hoopla over Apple’s newest product – the iPad

.

I write this for 2 reasons -

1. I would feel left out if I was not one of the BAZILLION bloggers on the Internet who had not posted thoughts on the iPad. If you were following me on Twitter, however, you might have picked up some of my thoughts.
2. Ever since the announcement, I have been asked by any number of people what I thought about it. Easier to write once and point than to write over and over again, I always say.

Now before I go on, a few “ground rules” -

1. Anything that I say that appears to be a criticism of the iPad should not result in the instantaneous response of “you’re just a Microsoft fanboi” (the tech intellectual equivalent of “I know you are, but what am i?”) Remember that I regularly use a MacBook (BootCamp’ed with both Snow Leopard and Windows 7) and have an iPhone in my fleet of mobile devices (the MacBook allows for iPhone development). I see and know from my personal perspective both the pros and cons of these products, and objectively understand them.
2. Anything that I say that appears to be a positive of the iPad should not result in the instantaneous response of “Ha! Your abandoning Microsoft! How could you!” or the likes. For rationale, see #1 above.

(It’s not like I haven’t been in this position before, mind you. Long before the Microsoft/Apple thing, I dealt with the Windows/Unix thing. When you try to be objective, someone always gets pissed off. Simple fact of life.)

Finally – What is contained here are my personal thoughts and speculation on the subject. Nothing “etched in stone”…

With all this now “on the table”, here are my random thoughts, in no particular order…

• For aesthetic industrial design, the iPad is a winner. Then again, when isn’t Apple a winner in this category? As a matter of fact, the day Apple releases a hardware product that isn’t aesthetically pleasing is the day they should shutter their doors (and you should beware of it raining frogs). I like the size and weight. I’ve heard complaints about the size of the bezel, but folks – you have to have some area to hold the device without interfering with both the touch screen and the viewing area.
• I get the hardware specs for processor, memory and storage. Apple sees this as being in the “netbook” segment (more on that later), and for the use cases they associate with this segment, a more energy-efficient processor with longer battery life is a good move.
• First criticism – choosing the iPhone OS for this device. While I know this opens the door instantly to hundreds of thousands of Apple AppStore applications, it brings with it some limitations. I really thought that the iPad could have solved a major and long-standing problem for Apple if this was one differently. Follow along with me on this one…
  
  Since I can remember, OSX has always been held back by the lack or quality of applications in a lot of market spaces. The iPhone was the first time Apple truly had widespread developer adoption of their tools and development platform. However, this jump to the Apple development platform hasn’t really equated to developing for ALL Apple hardware. Now, if Apple had chosen OSX for the iPad, they might have had a compelling OSX story. Something like “iPhone developers – here’s a device that is similar in many ways to what you are familiar with in the iPhone. With some work, you can now bring your applications to the next level, and not just with the iPad!” If the rumors of touch screen enablement in other Apple hardware is true, all the more for a compelling case to lure an army of iPhone developers to the OSX world, bringing scores of applications with them. Apple, I really think you missed the boat here.
• Still on the iPhone OS choice – this time, it’s the lack of multitasking. Apple really needs to bring something, even in limited form, in the way of multitasking to the iPad. While I might not agree with it, I can see some of Apple’s arguments against multitasking in the iPhone. However, Apple made a point to position the iPad in the segment of a netbook replacement. I believe that either Apple is WAY off here or simply isn’t serious about that representation. It all comes down to use cases here, folks.
  
  A netbook is a more traditional computing platform in the way of use cases (unlike a mobile phone). Even under the most restrictive of situations, people expect some ability to move between applications, or to leave one application open while working on another. Even the most basic of end-users will find themselves working with or using an application downloaded from the AppStore and expect to be able to leave it for a minute when a new email arrives. This is what any computer user has come to expect these days. While users may initially be willing to accept this limitation, I will expect it to become an annoyance over time.
• iPad and eBooks – I strongly suspect that THIS (not a netbook competitor) is the real motivation for the creation of the iPad. Just look at Apple’s recent history in consumer devices. iPod, iPhone – it’s all really about creating and controlling a media-based ecosystem (read iTunes and the AppStore). I suspect that if Apple were really going after the netbook market, they would have gone a different way. Create an “eReader+” with all the apps and additional capabilities and a closed delivery system like iTunes and you have the potential to control a rapidly-expanding market segment.
  
  I think Amazon should be in a state of “heightened awareness”, but not alarm (at least for the moment). They have an incredibly established base in the Kindle today. They shouldn’t rest on their laurels, though. As for Barnes & Nobile (Nook), Sony (eReader) and the others that haven’t really established a foothold in the eBook Reader market – things aren’t looking so good for you. Apple has already proven a closed system can be successful, so the “indy” eReader hardware makers have to worry. As for the Nook; I’m not so sure there’s room for 3 closed systems in this market.
• The '”iPad” naming – this is incredibly uncharacteristic of Apple. Not so much the “open to feminine hygiene jokes” thing, but the fact that the name “iPad” was trademarked years ago. This leads me to believe things were a little rushed here, especially when combined with…
• No immediate availability? If there’s one thing Apple is great at, it’s generating interest, generating demand and then launching with immediate (or near-immediate, i.e. – a few days) availability. This time – 60 days? 90 days? When you combine this with the naming, I can’t help but believe something more was in play here.
  
  Was Apple afraid of  too many product leaks? Probably not. There were far more “guesses” relating to the iPad than anything else. I do think Apple might have been concerned about losing even more ground in the “eBook Wars”, though. Consider CES early in the month, were literally hundreds of eBook readers were on display. Combine that with continuing growth in sales of the “big guys” (Amazon, B&N and Sony) and you had the potential of losing a lot of potential customers in 3 months time. How many people would be willing to spend $500 for an iPad  after just plunking down $250+ for a Kindle? By at least announcing a “coming soon” to the iPad, I think Apple was hoping for a pre-emptive strike that will get people to hold off  on another eBook reader purchase. Of course, all of this also goes to reinforcing my thoughts that the real market Apple is targeting is not a traditional computing platform (netbook), but a consumer market segment (eBooks).
• The whole “closed ecosystem” thing. While you may not like it, you can’t argue that it works for Apple. They’re still making boatloads of cash with iTunes and the AppStore, aren’t they? I don’t see people casting their iPods and iPhone in the trash en masse screaming “I want freedom!”. While I have always had an issue with this, I’m not foolish or egotistical enough to believe that this is wrong for everyone; the numbers don’t lie. Apple obviously believes the same formula applied to the eBook space will work as well.
• The iPad / Tablet PC debate. Lots of “stuff” being flung back and forth here. My take – it’s all about use cases and usability. It’s a variation of the iPad/netbook discussion. Listen, if Apple’s intent to focus on eBook reading and basic applications, the UI they’ve created for this is hard to beat. No one (STILL after all this time) does user experience (UX) like Apple. Just watch the demos from Apple’s press conference. If, however, you are looking for the ability to multitask and have more robust applications, the Tablet PC wins.
  NOTE: A bit of advice to those in the fervent Tablet PC and iPad camps – you’re not going to convince those that simply don’t need what your selling that your side is right. Tablet PC folks – a Tablet PC isn’t better to an iPad for someone that doesn’t need office suites and powerful applications all running side-by-side. iPad folks – an iPad isn’t going to work for someone who needs the things mentioned above. I suggest this debate end and folks move along :-)
• Finally – how do I think the iPad will do? That’s a really good question. Overall, I think it will do just fine… initially. One caveat here – I think the long delay between announcement and availability might actually hurt Apple in some target audiences. When you lose the “impulse buy”, it gives people the opportunity to research and think a bit more. I have already talked to a lot of folks who typically buy “the next big thing” from Apple the day it arrives. For those that already own a MacBook and an iPhone, I’m hearing more “no’s” than “yes’”. Just nothing compelling enough. I do think, however, that Apple can once again find a consumer “sweet spot” with users, similar to how they did with the iPhone. Long term success, however, will likely rely on how satisfied those consumers will be with just a powerful but narrowly-defined device versus a full-blown computer. Of course, Apple has lots of room to work with here, and lots of time to evolve (something else Apple is very good at historically). We’ll just wait and see…

Of course, my musings would not be complete without answering two questions -

• Don, will YOU buy an iPad for yourself?  Personally, no. For me, adding an iPad would not result in me dropping another device. I need the functionality and size of a netbook when I want to travel light. The iPad just wouldn’t be able to do all that I need it to do. It’s also not a phone, either in functionality or size, so I can’t drop that device.
• Don, would you recommend an iPad to someone? To the right person, sure. Who might that be? Well, my target demographic includes…
• Likely not already owning a notebook computer, and definitely not owning a netbook computer.
• Maybe already owning a smartphone (iPhone or otherwise) and liking the ability “to do more”.
• Looking at purchasing an eBook reader.
• Wanting something a bit more in an eBook reader, like surfing the web and checking email.
• NOT wanting a “small computer”.

I’ll be keenly interested in watching this all play out over the coming months. I’m sure I’ll have more to say over time.

We will be having the next Boston/New England Windows Mobile User and Developer Groups on Wednesday, January 20th beginning at 6:30 PM at the Microsoft offices (201 Jones Road, 6th Floor) in Waltham, MA.

Among the topics discussed -

• A wrap-up of CES 2010. Lots of interesting things going on.
• Hands-on with the LG eXpo. If you haven’t seen this Windows Phone device in action, you are in for a treat!

See you all there!

I happened to come across a news article out of the Consumer Electronics Show (“CES”) this week. The article from CNN was entitled “What is a tablet, anyway?” and discussed the introduction of several new computers from different manufacturers. The focus of the article was not on the new hardware itself, but the “labeling” of the hardware -

For all the buzz about "tablet computers" in recent weeks, one fundamental question about this supposedly break-through computer category remains unanswered:

What exactly is a tablet?

Computer industry representatives here at the massive and hype-heavy Consumer Electronics Show can't seem to agree.

Some say a computer just needs a touch-sensitive screen to be a tablet. Others say a person should be able to write on it with a pen. Still others say it's screen size that's important -- tablets must fit somewhere between phones and laptops. For Philip McKinney, vice president and chief technology officer at Hewlett-Packard, it's partly the keyboard -- a tablet should have one of those.

Break off the keyboard, leaving only a touch-screen device, he said, and the gadget falls into another buzz-worthy category: the slate.

Others say the terms slate and tablet are synonymous.

The sad part of this is that the creation of buzzwords in the technology industry is nothing new and only seems to get worse as time marches on. Even sadder is the fact that the industry amazingly considers being the first to label an existing technology with a new term outweighs the confusion this causes to consumers.

Another example of this industry fetish with attempting to make something new by labeling occurred when Google announced their new phone, the Nexus One. As someone who has been immersed in the mobile phone space and makes his living off of it, I can tell you the following -

1. The Nexus One is a very nice phone with advanced capabilities for messaging and application support. Nice hardware and nice “bells and whistles”.
2. The Nexus One may be better than other similar devices, but it is not a new category of device. Based upon what the industry has come to understand and accept, it is a smartphone; a phone with powerful computing capabilities.
3. In spite of #’s 1 and 2, Google proudly proclaimed the Nexus One to be a new category of phone – the superphone.

Now, if Google were to only make a passing reference to this label, as in “This is really a great smartphone; in fact, it’s a superphone” and left it at that, things would be OK. However, much like the computer industry that throws out terms like “tablet” and “slate” and all with differing definitions, the average consumer is usually left with the deep thought “Huh?”. By creating brand confusion (with a type of technology being the “brand”), consumers are left to sift through the deeper technical aspects of each company’s offerings in order to make any sense. This is something the average consumer doesn’t want to be bothered with. I can’t tell you how many times I have had to spend time with friends and customers who, after several minutes of explanation, say things like “I just want a phone” or “Why should I have to figure out what type of tablet computer fits my needs”.

I can’t say for certain if the technology industry has become so focused on trying to differentiate via buzzword rather than value. If you’ve been around the computer industry long enough, you know we get a huge endorphin rush from creating acronyms and buzzwords. But they are usually attached to more abstract concepts. For some reason, this need to create new words to describe things has now reached a fevered pitch, and the hubris associated with such branding has killed off the last brain cells associated with good marketing sense. Hasn’t the industry learned from past mistakes of this type? The “Notebook/laptop/portable” naming craze? More recently, the “notebook/netbook” debate? Heck – even this branding confusion around tablet computers is a new and even more confusing version of the “tablet vs. slate” marketing confusion just a few years back. And please – do NOT get me going on the PDA/phone/smartphone confusion that surrounded the mobile industry in the last decade.

While the creation of new terms for existing technologies may please self-indulgent marketing executives and a small segment of the consumer population obsessed with having the “latest and greatest” (even if it is not), all of this naming simply leads to the perception of fragmentation of what is logically a single segment of the industry in the eyes of the consumer.  Fragmentation leads to confusion, and confusion leads to a lack of sales to the very audience that is often the target.

I would suggest that the technology sector take a moment to step back and remember why they exist – to make money. When you are trying to sell a product in a competitive market space, clarity is key. Telling people why your product is good and how it benefits them is what makes the sale. Re-segmenting existing and accepted categories of products does not provide clarity unless everyone agrees to the new segmentation and communicates in the same way. Yes you differentiate yourself, but only by alienating potential customers who look at you and your competitors providing mixed messages. In the end, they will likely not trust either of you. By the way – if your goal with this strategy is to confuse or distract the consumer, I suggest a career with a much greater chance of overall success. Political bodies are always looking for “fresh blood” :-)

I’d like to think that this trend in creating new technology segments and confusion will end, but history shows that just the opposite will happen. For you, the consumer, all I can say is caveat emptor. Don’t take the labeling of a technology to something new as automatically equating to something better. Stick with the tried and true methods of purchasing – determine what you need, what you want and then find the product that meets those needs regardless of the marketing category. Tablet or slate, smartphone or superphone – in the end, they are just products with features and capabilities. When you do make your choice, let your salesperson know that you made your choice by thinking and not by catchphrases and buzzwords. Maybe someday the message will make it back to the appropriate people. Wait – they’re all locked in a room trying to come up with the new hot buzzword ;-)