Sorcinelli.net

Random Thoughts and Musings of Don Sorcinelli

About

Categories: Technology

Alas, Poor Zune Hardware. I Knew Ye Well…

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: October 4, 2011
Comments: No Comments
Tags: Business, Zune
Categories:Business, Zune

In case you haven’t heard, Microsoft has rather quietly announced the end of the line for the Zune HD personal media player (see more at CNET). It’s a sad day for me personally, and a sad day for this segment of the market in general.

I have been a Zune user dating back to the First-Generation devices. While the color choices for the outer casing were a bit suspect (I owned the “PBZ” color, with “PBZ” affectionately meaning “Poopie Brown Zune”). I wife and kids were (and still are) regular users of the smaller 4 and 8 GB Zunes (Second-Generation with solid state drives). I still carry a Zune HD, which in my opinion was the hardware for a personal media player – period. Now, I’ve used other devices over the years, including even after the Zune came out, but I always returned to the Zune platform. Part of my reasoning for going back was around the software and ecosystem (the best device UI and Zune Pass are two examples), but another part of it was around the hardware itself.

I think the Zune serves as a great reminder of how Microsoft markets so many of their products and how unsuccessful the strategy ends up being. Microsoft often times tends to spend a lot of time, effort and money building up interest and “hype” for product. Many times, this does work. However, once a product launch occurs, the effort goes from “great” to “virtually non-existent”. The history of the Zune may may the greatest example of this strategy.

For each generation of Zune, Microsoft put forth a lot of effort in marketing “what’s coming”. While some can argue the effectiveness of this marketing (personally, some of the “hip and trendy” ads reminded me of an old stodgy person’s impression of “hip and trendy”, the amount of exposure given was not in question. Once each generation of Zune actually launched, however, Microsoft seemed to disappear from the scene when it came to marketing. I don’t claim to know or even understand Microsoft rationale behind this, but it almost always seemed to me that Microsoft assumed -

People got the message, and no further marketing was really necessary;
The ecosystem (retailers, in this case) would pick up the marketing slack and sell for them.
Enough money was spent in preparation for launch, and spending more just wasn’t prudent.
All of the above.

I tend to ascribe in some form to the “All of the above” theory, but again – I’m not that much in-the-know. Whatever the case may be, Zune always seemed to fall into the “what’s that” category from a consumer awareness perspective.

I have lost count of how many times over the years that I showed people my Zune hardware, mainly because the people wanting to see it had little to no idea such hardware and software existed. Usually (and especially when it came to the Zune HD), folks were really impressed with the Zune experience. In almost all cases, though, people would take the stance of “Nice, but it isn’t an iPod.” Drill down with people on this stance and almost always this really meant “I don’t know enough about this Zune thing, but I know LOTS about an iPod”. In essence, Microsoft’s assumption that pre-launch marketing was enough simply fell flat on it’s face. Zune constantly suffered from a lack of brand recognition.

The good news (if there is any here) is at least aspects of the Zune experience outside of the hardware itself are living on strongly in other Microsoft products. The Zune music services live on in Windows Phone, desktop and Xbox 360. Almost as importantly, the Zune user experience lives on and thrives throughout Microsoft products. Most people forget or are unaware that the roots of the “Metro” user interface now appearing in Windows Phone 7, Xbox and even the upcoming Windows 8 operating system were born from the Zune user interface (I distinctly recall so many people calling Windows Phone 7 the “Zune Phone” when the first images of the user interface went public). All of this good news, however, makes me wonder even more how a platform generally can gain so much acceptance and acclaim, yet the hardware that started it all could struggle for so long and eventually die out without so much as a bang but a whimper.

Hopefully, Microsoft will learn from the life and death of the Zune as a device. Sadly, many of the same issues around marketing strategy dogged the old Windows Mobile platform and (sadly) seem to be repeated to some extent with the newer Windows Phone 7 platform. Maybe, just maybe, Microsoft will eventually learn that the “if you build it, they will come” approach to product marketing isn’t always enough, and brand recognition is a 24/7/365 marketing effort.

Now, I will stop writing and go back to listening to some music on my Zune HD (suddenly a collector’s item)…

Solving a Problem When You Can’t Define The Problem Itself

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: October 3, 2011
Comments: No Comments
Tags: Business, Personal, technology
Categories:Business, Personal, Technology

Sometimes I think we all forget that while technology helps us to solve problems, we have to first identify and clearly define the problem we are trying to solve. As consumers we often tend to purchase technology because we want it, not necessarily because we need it. We buy because it’s the “latest and greatest” or because it can do more, but these reasons don’t match up to any problems we currently have with our existing technology.

This type of conspicuous consumption has fueled economies since, well, forever. Of course, in uncertain economic times (like the present) we as consumers usually take pause and finally do ask ourselves if technology purchases are really serving a direct benefit and addressing a real problem we currently have. Ironically, however, another form of consumer (not the individual one like you or I) exists that suffers from some of the same impulse-buying and lack of forethought that we do. Their purchases, on the other hand, often run into the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars. And the people making those purchases are often themselves paid well to behave in just the opposite fashion of their spending habits. The consumers I am referring to are businesses.

As someone who has spent nearly a quarter of a century working with businesses and their technologies, I still find myself amazed by the number of times organizations acquire technologies with little to no idea of how they are going to actually use them. They spend large amounts of money investing in technologies, only look at them post-purchase and collectively say “now what?” While the technologies have changed and evolved over time, the acquisition of technology still occurs and results in a solution struggling to find a problem. Here are two such technologies I see this occurring with quite regularly lately, with one hitting very close to home on a personal level.

Cloud-based solutions. Everything seems to be moving to “The Cloud” lately. Centralized, externally-hosted solutions are intended to generally solve very specific problems, such as:
- Reducing the cost of infrastructure. Less hardware and/or software to maintain, less network bandwidth and reduced licensing.
- Reduce the cost of operations. Less human resources needed to maintain infrastructure.
- Ease access to corporate data and applications.

However, I am amazed by how many people currently consider moving to cloud-based solutions that currently are not experiencing these problems or will not see these problems occurring any time in the future. In fact, in these cases the cost of migrating from in-house to the cloud will likely cost significantly more in both the short- and long-term.

Device Management solutions. This is the one I said hits close to home for me, working in the industry directly. Typically, device management platforms today can help to solve a number of issues around mobile devices and –
- Asset tracking and reporting;
- Security configuration and enforcement;
- Application management;
- Identification and control over both corporate-issued devices and personal devices accessing corporate resources.

Here again, however, I regularly meet with organizations “post-purchase” of device management solutions only to discover that they really don’t know what problem (if any) they are trying to solve. In many cases, there is really no strategic direction/planning around mobile devices. In all of these cases, questions directed at the customer regarding what they hope to leverage from device management are met with responses like “we have no idea; what do you think?”

Technology is an enabler; it helps us to do things more effectively, or at a lower cost. Technology is not an automatic solution, however. In order for it to solve a problem, there has to be a problem in place and the technology needs to be looked at to validate whether or not it is, in fact, the solution. Whether it is a new dryer or a device management platform, the same principles apply.

Platform Fragmentation: Yes, There IS a Good Kind

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: October 2, 2011
Comments: No Comments
Tags: Business, Mobile Technology, technology
Categories:Business, Mobile Technology, Technology

The other day, I was involved in what seems to be a regular occurrence for me; a discussion on platform fragmentation. For the non-mobile, non-techie folks out there, this concept refers to the idea that a given platform (say, Android) has aspects about it that open itself up to differentiation. In theory, the differentiation could be a good thing, but usually the term is only discussed when the results are negative (especially for consumer/users). BTW – while I used the phrase “non-mobile”, I don’t mean that the ideas around platform fragmentation are limited to mobile devices. The same thing can apply to any platform.

Well, a couple of interesting thoughts occurred to me during this particular platform fragmentation discussion. First, I found someone in the discussion tried to make an argument that just didn’t fit in defense of the particular platform in question (in this discussion, it was Windows Phone 7.5). The argument was, in essence, that “platform fragmentation” only occurs if the platform causes a given application to work on one device and not the other. I found this argument to be the equivalent of something like changing the dimensions of a soccer field in the middle of a game and then calling everything that was inbounds before suddenly out-of-bounds. It just doesn’t work that way.

From my perspective, I look at a platform from a very gestalt point of view. In other words, the whole of the platform is greater than the sum of its parts. This includes all aspects of the platform. In the mobile world, this includes any OEM relationships, mobile carrier relationships and the ability of the platform (in this discussion, it was the Windows Phone 7.5 OS as a major factor in the overall platform discussion) to allow for customization by the other players in the ecosystem. Remember – unlike Apple with iOS as a platform, there is literally no other “players in the game”; their manufacturing partners have specifications dictated to them, and mobile carriers have no ability to customize other than adding software (and only with Apple’s blessing). Now, with all this in mind, it occurred on me that there can be good aspects to platform fragmentation. The first example came out of the very discussion where someone was trying to change the parameters around what defines platform fragmentation.

A platform that allows for device manufacturers to differentiate through hardware capabilities opens the door for platform fragmentation. However, that type of fragmentation enables:

Differing screen qualities
Differing audio qualities
Integration with other technologies (take DLNA, for example, allowing for streaming from the phone to other devices)

Now, if this particular form of platform fragmentation is allowed without altering the fundamental user experience (something I will touch upon in a moment), then it becomes a “win-win” for both devices manufacturers and consumers. Device manufacturers can compete through hardware and feature capabilities, while consumers have more choice without fear of a differentiator altering expected functionality. The end result – a positive type of platform fragmentation.

From a “bad” point of view, there are in my opinion several major types of platform fragmentation. They include -

Allowing for functional changes that break consistent user experiences. The scenario that was positive above becomes negative if a device manufacturer adds or removes capabilities that make application no longer function or change the way users have to perform basic tasks (turning on WiFi, for example). When this happens, moving from device to device within the platform makes for a painful new learning curve and removes the expectation of basic functionality.
Allowing for a device manufacturer or carrier to alter the basic user interface experience. Think “skinning” or “theming” here. While there can be an argument (both for and against) allowing users to change the fundamental appearance of the user interface, allowing devices to be sold with this as a default leads to a number of issues, including:

Altering the fundamental expectation of user experience;
Creating confusion through a lack of recognition of a platform. This was often the case with the old Windows Mobile platform and now occurs quite often with Android devices. Users do not even recognize and cannot identify what platform the device is running, never mind easily perform common tasks. Again, user frustration and new learning curves result when moving from device to device within the platform;
Difficulty for the consumer in determining what device is best for them within a platform. The number of returns of devices because of issues like the ones listed above lead to dissatisfied consumers.

Creating splits within the platform to accommodate hardware and features. Anyone remember the confusion caused by Windows Mobile Standard (non-touchscreen) vs. Windows Mobile Professional (touchscreen)? How about Android Honeycomb/3.x (tablet-specific) vs. the Android 2.x variants (tablet and non-tablet)? These splits result in software compatibility issues and even greater confusion/frustration for the consumer.

I guess the points I am trying to make here are, quite simply:

Platform fragmentation almost always will occur to some level with technology, especially when the technology includes an ecosystem with more than one vested interest.
There can be good forms of platform fragmentation that allow for grater choice for consumers without confusing, frustrating or hurting them.

To argue the basic definition of platform fragmentation shouldn’t be the approach when it occurs. Instead, the argument should focus on the benefit or detriment of the fragmentation in question.

HTML 5 and “That Familiar Sinking Feeling”

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: March 5, 2011
Comments: 1 Comment
Tags: Application Development, HTML 5, Mobile Application Development, Mobile Web Applications
Categories:Application Development, HTML 5, Mobile Web Applications

It appears to me that HTML 5 is reaching the proverbial “critical mass” on the Internet Hype Machine. Everybody and their brother is touting HTML 5 as the solution to every ailment, and every vendor is proclaiming “HTML 5 support”. Before I go any further in this post, please understand the following – I am a HUGE supporter of HTML 5. As a mobile application developer, I have been a backer of HTML 5 ratification from the time Palm implemented HTML 5 proposed standards as the foundation for WebOS development. HTML 5 offers a world of promise for addressing many mobile (and desktop) web development woes, including the fundamental need to work offline (i.e. – NO INTERNET CONNECTIVITY) using a single standard for programming. However, the push to “jump on the HTML 5 bandwagon” immediately and start migrating native mobile applications to the web causes me to have an old (and far too familiar) “sinking feeling”.

If you read my introductory paragraph closely, you may have noticed my careful choice of the phrases “proposed standards” and “world of promise” when talking about HTML 5. There is a reason for that – HTML 5 is not yet an official standard. In fact, the W3C (the official sanctioning body for HTML specifications) has recently mentioned that final ratification may still be years away. I totally understand and accept that fact. I also understand, however, the potential implications that presents for today and until the time that a final specification is ratified.

My web development as a professional consultant actually goes back to the days when HTML 2 was a proposed standard (ah yes… when a company’s web site was largely static and, well, rather plain or ugly by today’s standards). As HTML evolved, from proposed specification through the ratification process, the following events have ALWAYS occurred:

Company A that supports using HTML (read – “browser maker” or “web development tools maker”) implements their “interpretation” of the proposed HTML standard in product.
Company B that supports using HTML decides Company A’s interpretation isn’t quite right and implements their own variation of the proposed standard.
Companies C, D, E, etc all do the same.

Back in the days of HTML 2 and HTML 3, we were fortunate in how limited the number of “companies” referenced above were. Even then, however, the differing interpretations often created such development havoc that building one application for the web was more time- and resource-consuming than building separate native applications. Anyone reading this remember HTML 3 or 3.2 and the “Internet Explorer/Netscape Navigator Browser Wars”? I sure do. The varying approaches that Microsoft and Netscape took towards “implementing” HTML specifications soured many businesses from moving to the web. In fact (and totally in my opinion), I believe that the fallout from the “Browser Wars” actually set back web adoption by a few years. Unfortunately, HTML 5 is setting up to walk down this same path again.

The “HTML landscape” of 2011 is far more complex than it was a decade-plus ago. The number of “companies” (those providing fundamental support for HTML through browsers and development platforms) dwarfs the numbers of the late 1990’s. Furthermore, their stakes in the HTML market are far greater and extend far further than they did 10 years ago, with the desktop and mobile web reaching a vastly larger audience. During this “Wild West” period of HTML 5 implementation, when there is no final specification and plenty of room for “interpretation”, these companies have the ability to lead developers down a single path that could, in turn, restrict wider use. While there is no guarantee that this will happen, history speaks otherwise. This risk, in turn, is one that potentially result in a repeat of the development nightmares of the past. Even as we speak, current browsers and their “HTML 5 support” are beginning to cause developers to spend extra development time and effort to ensure that what works for “Browser A” also works for “Browser B” (and “Browser C", D,E and F”). Speaking strictly from a risk management perspective, the longer the time it takes for formal ratification, the greater the risks become.

While I eagerly await the day when HTML 5 is formally ratified and HTML 5-supported platforms come into greater alignment, I have a hard time staking my (or a company’s) development investment on the standard. While the HTML 5 “companies” continue to bombard me with messages on why I should invest in their HTML 5 implementations, I cannot help but feel that their answers to HTML 5 will lead me to a point where I will be either sandboxed into just their products or be forced to spend a lot of time coding my way out of their sandbox. All of that leads to that familiar sinking feeling of the past. That feeling is something I already have faced one too many times. So, I will stick with either native mobile applications or web applications that work across platforms (complete with limitations) until I feel comfortable that the sinking feeling will stay away.

A Message To Prospective Mobile Application Developer Employers

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: March 5, 2011
Comments: 2 Comments
Tags: Employment, Hiring, Mobile Application Development
Categories:Android, Application Development, iOS, Mobile Technology, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone

As someone who is regularly directly recruited or asked to refer possible employees for companies looking for “mobile application developers”, I have seen a trend in expectations that I think requires a bit of level-setting. I have a simple message to pass along…

Lower your standards.

While this quote does make me giggle, reminding me of an old Jon Lovitz sketch on Saturday Night Live years back, the statement does have some truth to it. You see, I believe that for many employers beginning the foray into mobile applications, hiring one developer will easily fill the need. Before you go any further, there are some things you should be aware of in order to avoid some disappointment as your hiring search begins.

There is more than one mobile application platform out in the world. I find far too many recruiters looking for a mobile developer who, when asked to define which mobile platform will applications be developed for, simply respond “I don’t know” or “does it matter”. The simple answer – “it makes all the difference in the world”. Today, there are several major target platforms your company could target for development – iOS (iPhone, iPad, iPod), Android, Blackberry, Windows Phone. There is not a “one skillset fits all” solution to this situation. The tools, languages and techniques used to fit the development needs all vary (more on this below). As an employer, you should take the time to really refine which platforms you desire for your applications. If you don’t know, perhaps you should first take the time to research your real needs.
Each mobile platform requires different technical knowledge. While many concepts around mobile application development are common to all platforms, the actual implementation/development skills around the platforms vary to a significant degree. iOS development requires knowledge of the Objective-C programming language. Android and Blackberry, while both leveraging Java as a language, use differing extensions of the base language. Windows Mobile and Windows Phone both leverage .NET languages (C# and VB.NET), but with significant differences from their desktop and web siblings. The assumption that one developer will be fluent in all languages is a precursor to disappointment.
To see just how rare the multi-language skillset is for developers, you probably would have to look no further than your current in-house IT group. Just ask any in-house developer how difficult it would be to move an existing desktop application from .NET to Java, or a web application from PHP to .NET. The most common response from a given developer would likely be “I don’t know that language”. While there are always some developers who are fluent in more than one programming language, assuming competency across the board when looking for potential candidates will likely lengthen the time for searching.
A “designer” does not mean a “developer” (and vice-versa). Hopefully, most employers and recruiters know this, but I still find some do not. Many developers who are extremely competent at developing mobile applications struggle with user interface design and the graphical nature of applications. Also note that being able to program in a language does not guarantee understanding the nuances of design for the platform. I point this out because of the simple fact that I regularly see employers/recruiters going after general programming knowledge as a way of “fast-tracking” the hiring process. By this I mean seeing companies looking for Objective-C or C# skills and minimizing mobile application development experience. All I can say here is – bad idea. If are comfortable with a large post-hire learning curve for your employee, then you are OK. If, however, you expect instant results, you will likely be disappointed.
Be prepared to pay for employees skills. Sadly, there are some employers who are aware of everything I have said thus far but believe by recruiting generally for a mobile application developer they will get a “5 for the price of 1” hiring deal. Sorry folks – just like a company in need of hiring for natural language translation, the rule of thumb is “the more languages known, the higher the price”. Furthermore, the increasing hiring practice I have seen around “don’t tell them what we really expect from them until after we hire them” has resulted in successfully eliminating any employee retention. Bottom line – when you know what you need, be prepared to pay for what you need.

So, what can employers do to successfully recruit and retain mobile application developers? Here are a few suggestions based upon my experiences over the years -

Have a mobile development vision before you start the hiring process. By vision, I mean something a bit more substantial than “create mobile applications”. Think about what applications you need, who will be using these applications, what platforms do you wish to target and when you need to go to market with them. This will not only help to define your job requirements; it will also help to engage with hiring prospects during the interview process and best identify hiring candidates. Remember – prospective employees are also interviewing view (not just the other way around). As I have advised many mobile developers seeking jobs, a company that does not understand what they need to hire for or why they are hiring is never a good thing from the employee perspective.
Consider hiring tactically and working toward your strategy. This goes back to your mobile vision and prioritization. As an example, your immediate need may be for the iPhone. However, you want to expand your offerings to eventually include Android and Windows Phone. When hiring, you can build job requirements that look for iPhone development up front, but include an interest in developing for Android and Windows Phone in the future. When interviewing hiring candidates, you can discuss their openness toward learning about these platforms. Note: be prepared to develop a plan to support the learning process (training, time to learn, etc) and to discuss this with prospective candidates. There is nothing that turns off a potential development hire quicker than the feeling that an employee just expects them to learn something on their own with no support. By taking this approach, you will be able to identify candidates that are genuinely interested in mobile application development as a career and see you as a company to work with (not just work for) as a career.
Remember the non-technical skills in addition to technical skills. Even a skilled programmer in a language and/or platform does not guarantee success if the person being hired lacks “higher-level” skills. As an example, I have heard countless tales of perspective candidates who knew iPhone development inside-out – as long as we were talking games development. For a company wanting to build line of business applications that include domain knowledge and integration into complex enterprise architectures, hiring this person typically results in an entirely different learning curve from both a technical and business perspective. Be sure to include such job requirements up front to avoid a lot of time spent interviewing candidates that don’t meet your needs. Also be sure to include such discussions with candidates during the interview process. I know of at least several instances where candidate screens were entirely focused on low-level knowledge of development, only to discover that the now-hired employee had no knowledge of integrating with business systems.
It is a “buyers market”… and you are not the buyer. As hard as this may seem to accept, the demand for skilled mobile application developers is very high, and the supply is quite low. The higher you set the bar for job requirements, the harder it will be to find qualified candidates. Plan for a protracted employee search and hope to be pleasantly surprised if you find someone quickly. Do not wait until the last minute to start a candidate search.

In the end, employers, I give you this feedback and suggestions not to really “lower your standards”, but to adjust them. It will benefit not only yourselves, but the potential candidates to fulfill your employment needs. I just couldn’t pass up on the Jon Lovitz reference, though Winking smile

Platform Fragmentation Doesn’t Just Hurt End Users, You Know…

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: January 22, 2011
Comments: No Comments
Tags: Android, Enterprise, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone
Categories:Android, Business, Mobile Technology, Windows Mobile, Windows Phone

I was just noticing all the tweets and Facebook posts the last few days around Android devices and “haves and have-nots” with regards to operating system updates. Of course, a lot of the focus on peoples’ posts are very personally focused (“I want…” or “I need…”). This is all well and good, mind you. However, there is a whole other group of people who are having to wrestle with the kind of platform fragmentation that Android seems to be experiencing – IT folks who support large numbers of corporate workers. Sadly, this seems to be a case of “here we go again” for many of these folks.

As someone who has worked with mobile device in the enterprise for a number of years, I can’t tell you how many times fragmentation has created havoc at the enterprise level in terms of providing users support or even access to enterprise systems (email, IM, file access, etc). Early on, it was just the expansion of platform variety that caused the problems. Today, it is nearly impossible for a business to simply say “you have to have <device x> in order to get…”. I have witnessed countless businesses who tried this approach, only to have to later change direction from too much pressure from executives and workers. Supporting multiple device platforms, however, was only the beginning.

Windows Mobile (or so it was named back in the day) was the first mobile OS that I worked with that had fragmentation within a single platform. As a matter of fact, it suffered at times from “fragmentation within fragmentation”. You see, there was the “Smartphone” version of the platform (eventually this became known as the “Standard Edition”) and the “Pocket PC” version (eventually known as “Professional”). Each had different capabilities and limitations. Some of these impacted developers creating applications, while others affected IT organizations trying to secure and configure devices to meet business guidelines. Add to all this confusion new versions of the operating system that often did not reach existing devices (mostly due to device manufacturers and carriers not wanting the updates to see the light of day), and the Windows Mobile platform was a constant source of confusion for IT support. Amazingly, I now look at the current state of Android and I am feeling a strong sense of history repeating itself, this time with Google playing the role of Microsoft. There are a couple of reasons for my thoughts here.

First, you have the breakneck pace of Android releases. This is actually happening at a far quicker pace than Windows Mobile updates ever happened. Each release introduces new features. Google has started to also take into account enterprise needs as well, with better Microsoft Exchange server support (including mailbox policies). This is great on the surface, but now factor in the device manufacturers and carriers once again taking their time to release the new OS versions to users and – well, here we go again. Add to this Google’s recent inferences that Android 3.0 is a “tablet-specific” OS and my brain immediately thinks “Smartphone/Pocket PC” all over again. Most amazing to me – Google seems to be oblivious to the risks that this current situation brings forth.

Microsoft’s mobile strategy was by and large the undoing of Windows Mobile, in my opinion. While there was a lot of user dissatisfaction around the operating system, Microsoft eventually lost the backing of the enterprise. Corporate IT was a major backer of Windows Mobile for quite some time, with the combination of enterprise-focused functionality and tremendous configurability and security options making it the “phone of choice” for many organizations. The fragmentation issue became too much to deal with over time, however, and when coupled with pressures from the user base led many IT folks to submit. Windows Phone 7 is the ultimate testament to the problems of Windows Mobile – it is a platform wholly-focused on avoiding the platform fragmentation issues of the past.

Android seems to be rapidly moving to a situation where the combination of user dissatisfaction over the lack of OS updates and IT frustration over the complications created by platform fragmentation could find Google witnessing some serious abandonment. Mind you, the question here is not about how good Android is as an operating system; it is about how good the platform and partner ecosystem are. As a developer, I have often reminded people “even if you have created the greatest application ever written, without user and IT acceptance it is nothing”. Google needs to be very careful of the path they are following – the path has led to a dead end in the past, and there is nothing to prove that history won’t repeat itself.

Companies and Technologies Can Change For The Better

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: January 8, 2011
Comments: No Comments
Tags: Android, Apple, Business, iPhone, Microsoft, RIM, technology, Windows Phone 7
Categories:Business, Personal, Technology

I just finished posting an article at BostonPocketPC.com that was the result of a “personal experiment”. With Windows Phone 7 essentially being a “reboot” of Microsoft’s cell phone strategy and operating system and a new user focus, I wanted to see for myself in a more objective fashion whether Microsoft was truly on the right track. If you read the article, you will discover that the “subject” for the experiment was my wife Melissa – a perfect candidate to determine if Windows Phone 7 could meet her needs. Without giving away the entire article, I will say that both Microsoft and LG (the maker of the LG QUANTUM phone Melissa used) seemed to be nearly on the mark.

There always seems to be an argument for whether or not companies, like people, can fundamentally change (especially for the better). For many, the thought often appears to be that such change is next to (if not entirely) impossible. Fundamental change is either too disruptive, too costly or simply too dramatic to work. I tend to be someone who stands of the side of change being possible. Maybe I’m an optimist, but I look to history to see the successes of businesses fundamentally changing as well as the failures. Especially when it comes to technology companies, there are far too many examples of fundamental change that have resulted in success.

How many times has IBM “reinvented” itself through change? What about Apple during “The Second Coming of Jobs”? What about Microsoft “finally getting the Internet” a decade-plus ago? One thing about companies in the tech sector – there are always opportunities for fundamental business change because technology itself is constantly fundamentally changing. The key to business success is to be able to identify the change and then adjust. Ideally, you identify the technology change early and become an innovator. However, there is no rule that says you absolutely have to do this to be successful. Apple jumped on the media player and smartphone bandwagons well after the technologies themselves were taking off. Microsoft embraced the Internet well after many other companies have. The key for the eventual successes in both cases, though, was the ability to change and change well. Both Apple and Microsoft both moved to these technology spaces with offerings that people wanted and liked. Company size, by the way, is not the primary reason why these companies eventually succeeded. One can argue that no matter how much money or resources you have, you will not succeed without a compelling offering.

Microsoft took a rather gutsy approach when it came to Windows Phone 7. Essentially, there was a realization that their phone strategy that was once successful with Windows Mobile was no longer the case. The technology, user base and markets itself had evolved while Windows Mobile itself did not. Microsoft could have continued to attempt to try to evolve Windows Mobile, but the core target audience for smartphone technology had moved away from Windows Mobile. They wanted functionality, yes, but without the complexities of a personal computer. The smartphone should be a phone first, with user experiences focused on the form factors and true desires of a new generation of users. Microsoft’s decision to quite literally “reboot” their phone platform from the ground up would be costly in a number of ways, but with a newer focus and the correct vision would be more viable in the long term.

When people discuss the limitations of Windows Phone 7, I often have to remind them that this platform is not “Windows Mobile 6 + 1”; it is far more like “Windows Phone 7, Version 1.0”. To create an entirely new and different experience from Windows Mobile, the platform did start over. As for initial “success metrics” – many seem to have forgotten the iPhone 1.0 and Android 1.x – both very good platforms today and marginally better than their initial incarnations. Finally, as for the “too little, too late” argument made by many – if that were true in this market segment, Android wouldn’t have gotten very far. Remember – in a technology segment that is constantly evolving, there really isn’t a “too late”. I often say that there are no “Smartphone Wars”, only a series of “Smartphone Battles” over time. Palm (old Palm, mind you), RIM, Windows Mobile, iPhone and Android have all seen moments at the top – none have one a permanent spot though and likely never will.

Watching my wife use a Windows Phone 7 device and watching her fall in love with the phone and technology have once again that a company can change for the better. Microsoft recognized where they were and where they needed to be when it came to their phone strategy. While far from perfect, Windows Phone 7 seems to have created something that actually makes for a compelling product for a massive and seemingly ever-growing target audience. Here’s to continuing to watch as Windows Phone 7 and the smartphone market continue to evolve and how companies try to adjust – all for the betterment of the consumer.

Tech and the State of “Making Things Work with Other Things”

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: January 2, 2011
Comments: 3 Comments
Tags: interoperability, technology
Categories:Personal, Technology

The holiday season usually serves as a time to catch up with friends and family. In my case, at least a few of these contacts are a result of an age-old dilemma of technology. The conversation, be it by phone or email, eventually comes to a line like -

“So, I ‘m trying to get [fill in the technology A] to work with [fill in the technology B]…”

I would go on, but usually there are at least one or two expletives that follow and I’m trying not to be too offensive in 2011. The amazing things to me about all of this is that another year has come and gone, with lots of cool and innovative new technology, but the same old problem still exists. We still have technology that is supposed to work with other technology and it either doesn’t, or doesn’t without great difficulty.

I consider myself lucky when it comes to making technology work together. I attribute this to the following personal attributes -

I love technology.
No matter how obscure the tech, I tend to love it. The result has been a lot of “orphaned” products over the years, but I still love it.
I love figuring out how things work.
Again – no matter how convoluted the technology, I still want to know what makes stuff work.
I’m one stubborn SOB.
Perhaps this is most important. Give me a challenge and I’ll take it. Frustrate me and I’ll keep coming back.

All of this makes me the logical choice to be the proverbial Guinea Pig or just the plain old glutton for punishment, but I end up being the one trying to make things work together. Now, the problem with all of this is – it shouldn’t be this hard. It’s 2011; we’ve had plenty of time to focus not only on making “new stuff”, but also on making stuff work with other stuff. Yet by and large this is still not the case.

When it comes to technology working with other technology, the things that frustrate me the most are -

Things that there is no excuse for not working with other things. Especially when companies market how “easy” it is to make things work together.
Things that only work with other things if all of the things are from one company. I refer to this as the “Sony Effect”. You can argue this should be named after other companies, but Sony has been doing this about as long as I can remember. This is Sony – the people who brought you BetaMax and the Memory Stick. If you are telling me that I have to buy all of your stuff in order to make it all work together, well, you probably won’t find me buying ANY of your stuff.
Things that are supposed to be “standards-based” that turn out to have lots of caveats and fine print that make them no better than “The Sony Effect”. Don’t tell me you are based on a standard but only work with your interpretation of that standard. It’s as insulting to my intelligence as saying “This is blue. It may look like yellow to you, but it’s blue. By the way – you need to use our blue because the other blue stuff isn’t yellowish enough to work.”

All of this had led me to write some tips for all of my friends, acquaintances and even those strangers who ask me to help make Product A work with Product B. Consider it “Uncle Don’s 2011 Interoperability Rules to Live By”…

RULE #1: Never assume that a product or technology will work with another, no matter how much the product’s manufacturer tells you it will.
A company telling you something works with something else falls into the deep, dark. soulless void that is marketing. This void is often so far removed from reality that it bends light like a black hole. Come to think of it – the harder a company sells you on interoperability, the more you should be wary.
RULE #2: The Internet is your friend. Use it to research before you buy.
If you are buying a product with a primary purchase criteria being how well or easily the product works with other products, take the time to research the claims. Unless you HAVE to buy a new product the day it comes out (see Rule #3), there’s a good chance someone else has already gone through the pain or pleasure of making it all work together. And talked about it on the Internet. In painstaking detail. Multiple times.
RULE #3: Caveat Emptor (translation – DON’T BUY SOMETHING THE DAY IT COMES OUT).
”Shiny new” also means “untested and unproven by the masses”. If you simply MUST have it the day it comes out, then you have to take responsibility if things don’t work out. I used to be one of those “HAVE to have it” people. I now avoid being that person at all costs. I only HAVE to have it the word “have” is tangible, like I need it, not want it.
RULE #4: Finding a solution to making technology work together may not happen instantly. Deal with it.
It may take some research, some trial and error and a lot of cursing to make things work sometimes. If you don’t want to deal with that, then don’t put yourself in that situation. And no – calling or emailing someone like me isn’t a way to avoid that situation. You see, I may not have the answer either. No getting mad at me for not knowing the answer, either. Personally, I am establishing a “No Psychological Transference of Frustration Policy” in 2011. Translation – it’s not my problem if you bought, you can’t make it work and you want me to bail you out and I can’t.

Will things get better over time? Sure they will – but I doubt they’ll be entirely solved any time soon, if ever. As long as companies insist on proprietary solutions or half-a$$ed implementations of standards (or standards not even existing), there will be products that are supposed to work with other products but will not. It’s just the way things are. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go fix a phone that’s not wirelessly synchronizing with a desktop computer… Smile

One Reason I Love Technology

by Don Sorcinelli Published on: January 1, 2011
Comments: No Comments
Tags: No Tags
Categories:Personal, Technology

When it comes to technology, change is inevitable. For some, that’s a bad thing. For someone like me, however, that means that there is always something new to try. In other words – never a dull moment. Take, for example, this blog.

I’ve moved to a new blogging engine today. Mind you, the engine itself is not new – its WordPress (http://www.wordpress.org). It is new for me however. As a leader in blogging software, there is a wealth of support for WordPress in the way of site themes, plug-ins and tools. Among the tools – applications allowing you to manage and post to your site from just about anywhere. Like your phone, for example.

I am writing this very post using the official WordPress application for Windows Phone 7. It allows me to create posts, manage content and comments, and much more – right from the comfort of my phone (no desktop computer needed). As someone who has been tied to a desktop browser for years when it comes to managing websites, I feel like it’s Christmas all over again.

While technology may be frustrating at times, you have to admit it – there’s hardly ever a dull moment

page 1 of 1