Sorcinelli.net

Microsoft’s recent announcements around Windows Phone 7 Series and first details regarding application development for the platform have made me take pause to think about those of us out in the world of mobile device application development. More specifically, I’ve been thinking about things from the perspective of a developer who supports mobile device platforms in general, not just one in particular. I know I am anything but alone in this situation. An increasing number of independent developers and commercial development companies are in this situation. Additionally, the number of enterprises supporting Line of Business applications to an increasing variety of users and phones fall into this same group. For everyone involved, the dizzying array of hardware types, operating systems, development platforms and programming languages are a challenge, to say the least. That is why I am becoming increasing convinced that for many, the only real hope in being able to support all mobile device platforms is HTML 5.0.

In order to understand the true scope of the current dilemma for so many people, you simply have to break down the potential target phones from a development perspective. You get something like this…

• Windows Phone – Currently, you have native development with C++ or managed development with the .NET Compact Framework. Moving forward, you will have Silverlight or XNA. The development platform – Visual Studio (running on the Windows operating system).
• iPhone – Objective-C is the language, with XCode as the development platform (running on the Apple OSX operating system).
• RIM – A device-specific subset of the Java language, with different development platform options.
• Android – A device-specific subset of the Java language, with different development platform options.
• WebOS – A device-specific subset of HTML standards, with different development platform options.

OK – so what does this mean for a developer trying to build a single application that supports multiple phones using native development tools? Well, for starters…

• From a development computer, the best-case scenario requires an OSX-based desktop or notebook (think iMac or MacBook) with both the OSX and Windows operating systems installed. I have set up such a computer in the past, and it’s not very pretty (or inexpensive).
• Again from a best-case perspective, I need to know at least the fundamental aspects of -
• .NET (then the derivatives for the Compact Framework, Silverlight and XNA)
• Objective-C (C or C++ for starters, but a whole lot of differences)
• Java (then the SDK-specific derivatives for each device)
• HTML (and then the specifics for WebOS)

Folks – that’s one specific computer and FOUR programming languages (with a lot of additional knowledge on top of the language basics) just to get my single application to all the major phone platforms. And remember – these are “best-case” scenarios. I didn’t include those applications that are very hardware-dependent (physical buttons versus  touch screens, screen resolution, etc) or graphics-intensive (using GDI versus OpenGLES versus native, etc). Of course, I left out the biggest challenge of them all regarding development – having to re-create one application many times. Even under the best of circumstances (an application where the bulk of application logic resides in a centralized location accessible via the Internet), there is all the work on the client/device of the application to perform. Even under the best of circumstances (Java to Java, for example), there is still lots of platform-specific work to do).  

With all these challenges in mind, what’s a developer to do? Well, there are several options -

1. Pick your platform(s) is stick to it/them. For many independent developers, this is the only viable alternative. The time and effort for a single person to develop one application for multiple devices without a guarantee of return on investment makes for a simple decision – choose the platform or platforms I can reasonably manage from a time and cost perspective. For larger development groups, there is still the challenges of identifying and allocating the proper resources (developers) to the development efforts, never mind the challenges of keeping everything in sync to assure that work on Platform X doesn’t break or supersede Platform Y. For enterprises, there’s the cost of development, hiring and training the resources required. 
2. Leverage multi-platform development platforms. This is primarily an enterprise-focused option that is becoming more popular. There are solutions that allow you to ‘write once, deploy everywhere” when it comes to phones. However, these platforms often come with new challenges. In addition to the sheer cost of such solutions (limiting their consideration to larger enterprises with IT budgets capable of purchase), there are infrastructure and capabilities (think “Jack of all trades, master of none” when it comes to these platforms when compared to native development) to consider.
3. Develop mobile web application development. As any developer knows, the current state of mobile web application development comes with a number of limitations. First and foremost is the issue of being offline from the Internet and the “red flag” this poses for many applications. Despite all the marketing hype, guaranteed mobile device access to the Internet is still a myth (just think about all the times you’ve had dropped calls on your cell phone). Heck – guaranteed wired Internet access is a myth; just think about your home computer and your ISP. Many application rely on being able to work when no Internet connection exists. These applications not only need to function from a user interface perspective; they also need to be able to safely store enough of a cache of data locally when the the connection is lost to be able to allow the user to perform their work. For the most part, most mobile phones do not implement the capabilities within their respective web browsers to make this a reality.
   The current state of mobile device web browsers also makes for a present-day situation I like to refer to as the “Microsoft/Netscape Syndrome”. Anyone who has been developing web applications can remember the days when the differences between the two most popular web browsers at the time (Internet Explorer 3.x and Netscape Navigator 3.x) were so different in what HTML standards they supported that as a developer you were required to essentially build two versions of a web application if you wanted the widest usage. NOTE:  Yes, I acknowledge that this is STILL going on today in the desktop browser world – I just like to refer to the first time that this became an issue that truly affected the development world in a broader scale ;-) Today’s mobile web browsers mostly suffer this same fate. Their capabilities vary by platform, making even the simplest of application development tasks difficult and requiring a lot of conditional coding and rendering logic based upon browser detection (the term “browser sniffing” is has relevance more than a decade after it’s creation).

Now after saying all of this (including the current challenges around mobile web development), you may be wondering why I think that yet another HTML specification may provide some relief for multi-platform mobile device developers. Well, there are a couple of things around HTML 5.0 that can address these issues -

1. Reducing fragmentation that has occurred in the years since HTML 4.0 was ratified. A lot of time has past in the years since HTML 4.0. During this time, a lot has changed with regards to the Internet and how we use web applications. We’ve seen fragmentation in addressing these issues as a result. Don’t get me wrong here; I’m not saying that HTML 5.0 will solve all the issues. However, we are already seeing some vendors in the mobile space betting in some way, shape or form on HTML 5.0 and moving away from their own individualized solutions to problems, instead building in HTML 5.0 support in their own mobile web browsers. Heck – Palm has practically bet everything on HTML 5.0 with development for WebOS. As I mentioned earlier, WebOS application development is grounded in HTML standards – HTML, JavaScript, CSS, etc. If that makes you wonder how you could possibly develop applications that work offline, then you need to consider…
2. The HTML 5.0 Database specification. I will leave the details to this specification to the W3C. However, if you care to look at the HTML 5.0 specification, you will find a great deal of changes dealing with application caches, application sandboxing and databases. All of these changes account for offline HTML applications as well as traditional online access. In essence, the W3C is, with the HTML 5.0 specification, finally officially addressing the use of native HTML as an application language, rather than simply a connected web application language.
   Palm is not alone in moving toward HTML 5.0 for mobile technology. Google (via Android’s browser) and Apple (starting with the iPhone 3.0 and Safari) have started implementing HTML 5.0 standards. One example is with the HTML 5.0 support for location. If you’d like to see this in action and have either an Android or iPhone handy, check out Microsoft Device Application Development MVP Richard Jones’ example (complete with source listing). Bottom line – if the HTML 5.0 as currently written is ratified and if the mobile device platform players implement the standard, it will be much more possible to develop cross-platform applications that meet offline requirements than ever before. While I am certain there will always be platform-specific APIs (likely exposed via JavaScript) to deal with, I think that learning one base language and device-specific extensions is certainly more manageable than four languages that exist today.

Of course, HTML 5.0 cannot solve all multi-platform development problems. There will almost always be application scenarios that require using a development model and language that is “closer” to the device. Gaming applications, for example, commonly require complex graphics processing. While HTML 5.0 is making strides even in this arena, it is likely that it will not supplant the need for more native development solutions that are optimized for and tailored to a specific device. For many other applications, however, HTML 5.0 provides the potential to enable development of applications that can meet the challenges of modern mobile applications, and all under a single development language umbrella.

I applaud those device and mobile operating system manufacturers that are embracing HTML 5.0 as “early adopters”. To those that are not, I strongly urge them to consider not embracing this standard might mean. Early on, I mentioned the “pick your platforms approach”. If HTML 5.0 is adopted by everyone but you, it is more likely that you will be the “odd man out” for a potential audience of thousands of developers. Here’s to hoping that is not the case for any one manufacturer. Here’s also to looking forward to HTML 5.0 final ratification. And finally – here’s to hoping that HTML 5.0 really can live up to addressing one of the greatest challenges posed to mobile device developers today.    

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.

This is a little “off-topic” for me since it involves an iPhone application, but the moral of the story is relevant to us all…

An old friend of mine recently has proven to me once again that anyone can have a great idea *and* bring it to fruition with the right effort and desire. My friend, Brent Pope, had an idea for a mobile phone application. He’s not a software developer, but believed the idea was worth trying to bring to market. You can read all about this in an article at the Orlando Sentinel web site. The result of his efforts – Wait Times, an application now available at the iPhones App Store.

Outside of huge kudos to Brent for the accomplishment, his story reminds me of something I have talked about for years when it comes to technology in general, and mobile technology in particular.

There are still a world of possibilities when it comes to new ideas for technology. Anyone can be the originator of these ideas as well; it doesn’t have to a hardware or software engineer. The ideas don’t have to come from people who live and breathe the technology world. Often times, the best ideas come from those who have no connection to the target of their idea. Everyday people can come up with the best innovations.

I often hear people with ideas for mobile technology say things like “well, I’m not a programmer”, “I can’t make this hardware” or “I don’t know where to begin”. Brent’s story is example of what I normally reply in response to these statements - He took the step to find out more. What can you do? Well,…

• Ask friends, family and associates for opinions. Bounce the idea off of them to gauge the value in your idea. Just remember to focus on the value of the idea and NOT personal opinions on whether you should be doing this. In other words – don’t let them bring you down.
• Ask friends, family and associates for possible contacts. If what you are thinking of is software-related, it is hard nowadays not to find someone within the ‘Six Degrees of Separation” who could be of assistance.
• Let the Internet be your “research friend”. It is too easy today to use the Internet to find out whether your idea can have value. Whether it is researching the uniqueness of your idea, checking online forums to gauge desire/interest, or to look for the resources that could help to bring your idea to reality, the Internet is always the best way to start the journey.

I guess what I am trying to say here is that Brent could have been like many other people who have an idea. He could have simply said “Nah – I’m sure somebody else is doing that”, or “I’m not a developer – why bother?” He didn’t, though. The result is a great application to meet a unique need. As a developer, the ultimate compliment I could pass along is “Dang – I wish I had thought of it first.” ;-)