Why Ignore Some Mobile Platforms?
The other day I say this article, about the publisher of the popular iPhone game “Angry Birds” refusing offers from Microsoft and Google to write games for Windows Phone 7 and Android mobile operating systems. I’ve seen other people tweet similar things, usually saying things along the lines of “we won’t be writing Android apps any time soon” and similar quips.
My question is, why would you ignore an obvious, growing sector of the mobile market? Yes, I understand that right now, Apple has the store that has on numerous occasions made people millions for simple applications. However, that doesn’t mean that the Android Marketplace or Windows Phone 7 Marketplace will not make you any money.
We have developers who are making it a public point to not write applications for non-iPhone devices. Which to mean, from a business standpoint is a poor decision. I have no problems with writing the iPhone app first and getting it to market. People think iPhone when they think mobile app, so I get that you have to have an iPhone app to have mobile exposure. I understand this, I really do. But to say, well I see this other mobile OS (Android) is gaining market share, but I’m going to ignore it and only focus on the iPhone.
The only time that people seem to look at mobile application alternatives is when their app gets dumped from the iPhone App Store. You see it all the time, “Our app was removed for no reason” and while Steve Jobs has recently made it a point to say why most apps are removed, rejected from the store, we all know there are apps that shouldn’t have been rejected (Google Voice App anyone?). But again, this is the only time that people start looking at alternative avenues for mobile development. Wouldn’t a smart business plan be to have your app on as many platforms as possible? I know that I’d want to maximize my revenue streams, but some people seem to be okay with ignoring anything that isn’t the iPhone.
What are your thoughts on this? I’d really like to hear why some are choosing to ignore Android and Windows Phone 7 for their apps. Because to me it just seems like poor business. But hey, I could be wrong.
Seesmic for iPhone
It had to happen eventually. Twitter for iPhone (previously known as Tweetie 2) is one of the best Twitter apps for the iPhone. It’s jammed packed with features but with some really nice UI elements that don’t give you that feeling of overload. But a couple of weeks back I switched to using Seesmic for the iPhone just to try it out. I don’t see myself going back anytime soon. Even though I miss some of the nicer UI elements of Twitter for iPhone, Seesmic is a nice app that actually allows me to use it to replace 2 apps with it on my front screen.
It’s Twitter, it’s Facebook, it’s BOTH
The first thing I noticed when I fired up Seesmic for the first time was that it handled Twitter and Facebook. Initial thoughts included “well if this can do Facebook too, well I might be able to move Facebook off my front screen too” and while the Facebook implementation isn’t 100 percent, it is definitely good enough that I can use it 98% of the time.
Seesmic for iPhone also handles Twitter searches and lists. It has a nice interface that allows for separation of the various lists and networks that doesn’t come off as cluttered (the way TweetDeck for iPhone did for me). With Seesmic, I’m able to switch between my Twitter timeline, Facebook news feed, and various lists/searches.
Navigation
One of the cooler things I like about Seesmic is that to navigate between Twitter, Facebook, Ping.FM, and various Twitter lists and searches is that I simply have to swipe left/right depending on where I am in my “tabs” (or tiles). However this means that the Twitter for iPhone feature that allows you to swipe a tweet is gone (this was one of my favorite features of Twitter for iPhone). Even though it means I lose a feature, this one feature makes Seesmic extremely efficient. I can jump between accounts and lists with the greatest of ease. When I pick up my iPhone to check Twitter, I’m almost always going to check Facebook too, now I can do it in one app and with just a small swipe of the finger.
I have to say though that I do find myself missing the Twitter for iPhone tweet swipe shortcut for replying and favoriting tweets. On Seesmic this is at least 2 screen presses, and while that might not seem like much, coming from the official Twitter app it just feels clunky. However, I understand the reason this can’t be done in Seesmic and do not overly fault them for it. They mad an UI decision and theirs works and is quite efficient, just in a different way and for a different purpose.
Overall
Overall, I think I’ll probably keep Seesmic on my front screen for a good while longer than originally anticipated. That’s saying something because I’ve tried a lot of iPhone Twitter apps and not a single one was able to dethrone Tweetie (as it was known at the time). I still thing Twitter for iPhone is a fantastic product and if you’re looking for a good Twitter app, you’d be hard pressed to find one better. I wouldn’t say that, in the end, Seesmic is better than Twitter for iPhone but it does have certain features for a “power user” that can clear some icons off the front screen. If you use both Twitter and Facebook with extreme regularity then you need to be taking a hard look at Seesmic for iPhone.
Android and the Fragmentation FUD
With the recent announcement of the new iPhone 4, there’s been a lot of talk about how it compares to the latest run of Android devices (HTC EVO, HTC Droid Incredible, and Nexus One). However anytime someone brings up the Android elephant in the iPhone room, there’s talk similar to “oh well Android is fragmented” or “all those apps won’t work on your phone” and other similar phrases. I want to spend some time today discussing this issue as I see it.
Yes it’s Fragmentation
In the strictest definition of the word, the Android world is fragmented. You have a lot of devices all running different versions of the Android OS. Though Google and the OEMs have worked hard to lower the amount of fragmentation, it’s still there. If you want your app to cover as many devices as possible, you have to (currently) code for Android 1.6. With the recent announcement of 2.2, this seems like a poor call. Newer versions of Android have new functionality that would be beneficial to older phones. Specifically the ability to save apps onto the microSD card and keep it out of the onboard memory.
There is something to be said about the fact that Android is being developed at a fast rate that it’s hard for manufacturers to keep up. Not only is the underlying Android OS being developed at a rapid pace, but each manufacturer has it’s own variation of the OS. HTC has their Sense UI, Motorola has their MotoBLUR technology, and so on. Due to this, it takes longer for these manufacturers to release the updated OS versions because they have to put their own touches on the new version before they can push it out. In some cases they’ve decided not to do this.
The other issue is that a lot of the older Android 1.x devices had limited onboard ROM spaces, which makes updating to the newer OS even more complicated. So while this kind of fragmentation exists and it could be viewed as a bad thing, it’s not always.
Read the rest of this entry »
Netbook Review: Asus 1005PE PU-27
About a month and half back, I purchased a netbook. Being my first netbook purchase I did a lot of research before deciding on what to get. In the end, I went with the ASUS Eee PC 1005PE-PU27
The iPad Elephant
I bought this netbook instead of getting an iPad. Why? Well for one thing, my primary use case for the netbook was programming related conferences (Houston Open Spaces, Austin Code Camp, and Houston Techfest). The idea was to have a computer that I could
- Something that I could actually code on should the situation call for it
- Take notes nicely on. I have enough experience with the iPad touch screen to know that if I was taking notes on it, it’d get messy.
Since the main use case for buying this machine was to use it at programming conferences, the ability to actually code on it was paramount. The iPad has a nice screen and some nice apps, but a full computing replacement it is not. And while the netbook isn’t exactly a desktop (or even laptop) replacement, for my primary use case it was the more preferable option.
Read the rest of this entry »
Google vs Apple: Innovation
I realized something today. Google is innovating quickly. Their release early and update often strategy has served them well since they released their search engine all those years ago. Other Google products like Gmail, Google Reader, Google Calendar, Android, Chrome, and many others all followed this whole “release early, update often” ideal. When Gmail first came out, it didn’t do much more than send and receive emails. Slowly, the ability to delete messages, do sub-labels, do POP3 and IMAP connections so one could do offline work, chat and calendar integration, and then eventually Google Labs for Gmail which allowed people to develop their own features for the service. All of this is just one example of how Google does new products.
As I was listening and occasionally watching the Google I/O Keynote for today, where the focus was on Android and the newly announced Google TV, I realized that Google is eventually going to beat Apple when it comes to innovating. I saw on Twitter where someone said “Apple is getting Microsoft-ed by Google” and there’s a lot of truth in that statement.
Be Open and Push Open
One thing that was repeated over and over at both keynotes for Google I/O was “we’re opening this up to you” or “we’re releasing this as an open source project” and other similar quotes. Google is all about doing their work in the open, this brings in people that can build things and build upon their work. You never know what your users will do if you let them and in many cases they will surprise you if given half a chance. Google’s message has been about being open, allowing more people to work on and build on their work to the betterment of the product.
Apple is the exact opposite. They tightly lock their software and hardware together to create computing appliances. They ensure you can only develop a certain way and only develop certain things for their products. If they don’t like your work, they reject it. Sometimes they do it without giving you a reason. This is not always a bad thing though, Apple products have a tendency to “just work” in a way that other computer companies would love. But it is widely known that Apple and Google have different ideas on computing and openness.
Moving Things Forward
When Apple TV came out people liked it. It was the first product to bring downloaded content to a TV screen without a lot of hacking or trial and error. However as many geeks will tell you, it is severely lacking. You can’t bring in your own media, and watching stuff that falls outside the iTunes wall is pretty much impossible.
Google announced Google TV which brings the web to your television. Instead of dumbing down the web for TV, you are given a full internet experience. Built on the Android platform Google TV can use Android apps, which means that developers can write applications that target Google TV. Meaning that Google TV is expandable and customizable, all while giving you a nice mixture of the web and TV. While the initial demo of Google TV doesn’t look overly impressive, I have little doubt that Google will maintain their “release early, update often” methodology on it and in time we’ll see Google TV grow into something awesome.
GoogleTV is the perfect example of how Google is innovating. They’re working on bringing to the TV what Apple tried to do but in a way that is more open and customizable. If you look at the most recent Apple product, the iPad, you might notice that it’s basically a larger iPod Touch. Google TV is what Apple TV wishes it could be and that says a lot about the kind of work Google is doing.
Google Will Beat Apple (Eventually)
I think that long term (in other words, not in the immediate future but probably 7-10 years from now), Google will have replaced Apple as the most innovative tech company. I realize that I’m saying this as Apple’s own developer conference (WWDC) is weeks away, but Google really brought their A game over the last few days. Even with the demo failures they showed that they are interested in moving things forward and changing the way we think about technology. Their dedication to being open, using open standards, and creating new open products is proof in the pudding. Apple may have it’s fan boys, but I’ll stick with Google.
WebM Video & Free Video Codecs
Yesterday Google announced that they were open sourcing the VP8 video codec and releasing it royalty free under the heading of WebM. This is a shot over the front of the ship that is H.264. We’ve discussed very recently about H.264 and Theora (the other open source, royalty free video codec) and how Steve Jobs has claimed that there is a patent pool set to go after Theora for patent violations.
What Does This Mean
Well mainly it means that someone with deep pockets is backing an open source, royalty free video codec. Meaning that if that patent pool is going to go after someone, they’ll definitely go where the money is first (in this case Google). But to assume that Google just opened itself up to patent infringement lawsuits is to not do them justice. Everyone knows that the people who work at Google are mainly smart individuals and to assume they didn’t do the proper legal due diligence would be to not give them proper credit.
What this means is that there is a good chance that Google could help some of those patents be revoked. I’m not saying it will happen, I’m just saying that it could. But in the end, it means that we should finally get answers on exactly what the H.264 patents contain and what can be done in a free, open way.
It’s About Open Standards
The thing here is that while Apple and Steve Jobs can talk about “supporting open standards” and how they give back to that community, but like I said before Steve Jobs is talking about an open web but he’s pushing a codec that could require royalty payments in the future and that’s dangerous. Google on the other hand is furthering open standards by releasing quality codecs and putting their deep pockets behind them to defend them in court.
The WebM project uses the VP8 video codec (open sourced with the WebM announcement), the Vorbis audio codec (Ogg) which is open source and royalty free, and uses the open source Matroska as the container (what allows both the audio and video files to be in 1 outputted file for easy playing). When open standards and open source is used to integrate, everyone wins. Because anyone developing something new has access to the same things as someone who’s larger and has more funding. In the end it allows the better application to truly win. And this is what Google is pushing for.
An open web where developers don’t have to potentially pay royalties is a good thing. Keeping things open and free when it comes to ensuring that everyone has the same thing on the web is important when you’re developing web applications. Knowing that everyone is going to have the same components, the same codecs, and the same fonts make the web a constant experience regardless of browser choice.
