Nicholas Carr writes about The iPad Luddites.
If it were possible to reach as far back as the introduction of the GUI, I'd be willing to bet that the same thing was being said by people who were most familiar with the CLI.
"What is this GUI thing? What is it good for? What can it do that can't be accomplished by the CLI?"
And it would be wise to see how that played out. And the more rational among us would see that there would be certain situations where a CLI or a GUI and now a touch-based interface would be the appropriate means to accomplish certain tasks.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
iPad and content
Scott Rosenberg thinks the iPad is the equivalent of the CD-ROM in 1994 for the media industry. In summary he thinks the iPad, while a nice device hardware-wise, is not going to revitalize the media businesses that the iPad is (supposedly) pitched at.
I disagree and here are my reasons why.
Optical drives i.e. CD-ROM/DVD-ROM/VCD/Super VCD/BD-ROM and their ilk have been around a long time. They continue to hold vast quantities of useful content, and free and commercial software are still primarily distributed using them. Content owners/producers were able to extract value from this tight integration between the content itself and the physical media. In other words, MS Word or Adobe Photoshop, for all intents and purposes, IS the CD-/DVD-ROM that came in the box. The requirement of a valid serial number is tangential to all this.
Three things conspired to change the situation rapidly. First, better computer hardware meant that it was now possible to transcode content from one medium to another in a reasonable amount of time. Second, user sentiment and pressure began to grow for mobile and unfettered consumption of media regardless of the underlying device. Third, the unabated development of the Internet into a low-cost distribution network with relatively cheap access fees pretty much ensured that there would be a ready audience of customers who were ever-ready to consume, and store, previously unimaginable quantities of information. Thus the content was forcibly divorced from the media upon which it existed, and there was much gnashing of teeth.
The knee-jerk response was Digital Rights (Restrictions?) Management. The content owners disregarded the mathematicians and insisted on initiating a war that could never be won. True enough, we are currently in a pitched battle and after years of expensive litigation, there is still no clear victor.
And this is where the iPad fits in. The iPad really is a compromise; it is a ceasefire treaty offered to both parties. iPad serves up content in a few ways. The obvious way is through web browsing as it is conventionally practiced. Aside from the lack of Adobe Flash, Apple effectively has no control over how the Internet is experienced by the vast majority of the population. The second way is through the App Store. Applications acquired through the App Store can be paid or free. Either way, additional content can be purchased through the App Store. It is essentially a frustration-free subscription model that can be processed in the form of micro-payments over an arbitrary length of time, yet the end-user is still able to influence the terms of consumption. The fact that iTunes Music Store is the #1 source of music in the US means that this model is not only workable, it is the winning formula.
Because only iPad runs iPad software, technically speaking, iPad does mean "vendor lock-in" and CD-ROMs "all over again", but only for content meant to be consumed on iPad. The fear-mongering pundits are claiming it’s the end of the world because they know an iPad-optimized app will beat any run-of-the-mill-browser-based one, in terms of native features, responsiveness etc, and so posit a false dilemma. You are either an iPad developer or you are not and thus you are morally reprehensible because, via a series of non-sequitur arguments, you are somehow causing the Internet to be restricted.
But as explained earlier, iPad really offers choice. Choice for the content owner/producer, and choice for the consumer. And that is why I think iPad really does have the potential to change the media industry for the benefit of both parties.
I disagree and here are my reasons why.
Optical drives i.e. CD-ROM/DVD-ROM/VCD/Super VCD/BD-ROM and their ilk have been around a long time. They continue to hold vast quantities of useful content, and free and commercial software are still primarily distributed using them. Content owners/producers were able to extract value from this tight integration between the content itself and the physical media. In other words, MS Word or Adobe Photoshop, for all intents and purposes, IS the CD-/DVD-ROM that came in the box. The requirement of a valid serial number is tangential to all this.
Three things conspired to change the situation rapidly. First, better computer hardware meant that it was now possible to transcode content from one medium to another in a reasonable amount of time. Second, user sentiment and pressure began to grow for mobile and unfettered consumption of media regardless of the underlying device. Third, the unabated development of the Internet into a low-cost distribution network with relatively cheap access fees pretty much ensured that there would be a ready audience of customers who were ever-ready to consume, and store, previously unimaginable quantities of information. Thus the content was forcibly divorced from the media upon which it existed, and there was much gnashing of teeth.
The knee-jerk response was Digital Rights (Restrictions?) Management. The content owners disregarded the mathematicians and insisted on initiating a war that could never be won. True enough, we are currently in a pitched battle and after years of expensive litigation, there is still no clear victor.
And this is where the iPad fits in. The iPad really is a compromise; it is a ceasefire treaty offered to both parties. iPad serves up content in a few ways. The obvious way is through web browsing as it is conventionally practiced. Aside from the lack of Adobe Flash, Apple effectively has no control over how the Internet is experienced by the vast majority of the population. The second way is through the App Store. Applications acquired through the App Store can be paid or free. Either way, additional content can be purchased through the App Store. It is essentially a frustration-free subscription model that can be processed in the form of micro-payments over an arbitrary length of time, yet the end-user is still able to influence the terms of consumption. The fact that iTunes Music Store is the #1 source of music in the US means that this model is not only workable, it is the winning formula.
Because only iPad runs iPad software, technically speaking, iPad does mean "vendor lock-in" and CD-ROMs "all over again", but only for content meant to be consumed on iPad. The fear-mongering pundits are claiming it’s the end of the world because they know an iPad-optimized app will beat any run-of-the-mill-browser-based one, in terms of native features, responsiveness etc, and so posit a false dilemma. You are either an iPad developer or you are not and thus you are morally reprehensible because, via a series of non-sequitur arguments, you are somehow causing the Internet to be restricted.
But as explained earlier, iPad really offers choice. Choice for the content owner/producer, and choice for the consumer. And that is why I think iPad really does have the potential to change the media industry for the benefit of both parties.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Where is the moral outrage at Google App Marketplace?
Some very outspoken and prominent developers[1][2] are openly lambasting Apple for having a "closed developer ecosystem" that is "detrimental to the fundamental God-given right of 'freedom'" with the iPhone App Store, yet Google gets a free pass with the Google App Marketplace.
Here are some policies of the Google App Marketplace Program:
BTW to get listed as an app vendor, you have to pay a non-refundable US$100, about the same as being on the iPhone Developer Program. Actually it's worse than the Apple App Store cut.
[1] http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2010/03/15/Joining-Google
[2] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2010/01/29/tinkerers-sunset
Here are some policies of the Google App Marketplace Program:
The Google Apps Marketplace Program Policies play an important role in maintaining a positive experience for Google Apps vendors and users. These policies also help us curb abuses that threaten our ability to provide this service. We ask that everyone abide by these standards so that we can all enjoy the Google Apps Marketplace. Violation of these policies may result in the denial of Google Apps Marketplace access, disabling of your application, removal of your listings from the Google Apps Marketplace, being blacklisted from uploading future listings, or deletion of your Google Account. These policies may change at any time, so please check back here from time to time.The rest of it is pretty much legalese boilerplate that is no different from what the App Store asks of you as a developer i.e. no illegal/objectionable/offensive/infringing material.
BTW to get listed as an app vendor, you have to pay a non-refundable US$100, about the same as being on the iPhone Developer Program. Actually it's worse than the Apple App Store cut.
In general, we ask to share revenue on the total amount your customer ends up paying you for your application and related add-ons. Exactly which revenue is subject to revenue share?
1. Revenue from software installed into Google Apps, whenever they begin paying you (e.g. after any free period).
2. If you charge on a recurring basis, we ask that you share revenue on a recurring basis.
3. Revenue from items that are priced per unit of usage (e.g. per GB, per minute, etc)
4. Revenue on upgrades to your product, including:
1. Plan upgrades, like Standard to Premium2. Additional users3. Feature upgrades, like additional GB of storage
Note that these are additional fees above what you already pay for when using Google App Engine which has already factored the computation/storage costs for the application instance based on usage. In essence this policy states clearly that you are allowing Google to stiff you twice. And you have no avenue for objection because, according to the opening clause, you must abide by the policy or your app might be pulled from the Marketplace.
So what is exempt from "revenue" share? One thing jumps out. Ad revenue. But if you go down this path, you are playing right into Google's game because you have very little control over how and what ads are going to be shown in your app. It might very well be an ad from a competitor.
So how is it that the Google App Marketplace and thus by induction Google itself any more "free" as compared to iPhone as a platform?
[2] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2010/01/29/tinkerers-sunset
Friday, February 05, 2010
Why Flash will never be on the iPhone or iPad
Since his return to Apple, Steve Jobs has been played out twice in public. The first time was when IBM dropped the ball with PowerPC. The second time was when Eric Schmidt was on the Apple board and started getting ideas about Android and world domination. Steve is not going to allow Adobe to do the same thing with the iPhone and iPad.
If you understand this, then you will understand why Apple developed its own A4 chips to power the iPad, has its own stores and datacenters, its own mobile advertising company etc. Apple wants to control 100% of its destiny, as any business should. How many corporations can say that today, with widespread outsourcing in the name of "shareholder value"?
Steve Jobs is an angry man. And because he is rich, he cannot be swayed by the promise of money.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
If you understand this, then you will understand why Apple developed its own A4 chips to power the iPad, has its own stores and datacenters, its own mobile advertising company etc. Apple wants to control 100% of its destiny, as any business should. How many corporations can say that today, with widespread outsourcing in the name of "shareholder value"?
Steve Jobs is an angry man. And because he is rich, he cannot be swayed by the promise of money.
Be afraid, be very afraid.
Friday, January 29, 2010
About iPad
Pundits pitting the "netbook" versus the iPad are totally missing the point. Yes, a "netbook" has more ports, cameras, built-in SD card slot etc. But the iPad is not meant to be compared with a full-fledged laptop, just as a "netbook" is not meant to be compared with a full-fledged laptop. A proper laptop would be far better at conventional computing tasks then either of these devices.
Can a "netbook" or even a laptop do something like Brushes? A Wacom Cintiq 12WX alone costs more than the iPad.
The iPad runs iPhone software. For a user, this means instant-on, fast and responsive apps that you know and love on the iPhone/iPod Touch.
From an ideological perspective the iPad runs on Mobile Safari which offers the best web surfing experience on a mobile device, so most web apps are covered. Look at web usage analytics for mobile devices. iPhone OS devices account for a far larger proportion than their actual market share. It doesn't have Flash support, but it does support HTML5.
If it were available 2 years ago, I would've bought it for my mom instead of the Macbook Air she has now.
That's what the iPad is. It is a Macbook Air-killer. It does everything the Macbook Air does, but with a smaller form factor and much lower price without all the pitfalls of traditional computers such as weekly security updates, viruses etc.
So the summary is, if you were never in the market for a device like the Macbook Air, even at the reduced price of US$499, then you would not be interested in the iPad.
Can a "netbook" or even a laptop do something like Brushes? A Wacom Cintiq 12WX alone costs more than the iPad.
The iPad runs iPhone software. For a user, this means instant-on, fast and responsive apps that you know and love on the iPhone/iPod Touch.
From an ideological perspective the iPad runs on Mobile Safari which offers the best web surfing experience on a mobile device, so most web apps are covered. Look at web usage analytics for mobile devices. iPhone OS devices account for a far larger proportion than their actual market share. It doesn't have Flash support, but it does support HTML5.
If it were available 2 years ago, I would've bought it for my mom instead of the Macbook Air she has now.
That's what the iPad is. It is a Macbook Air-killer. It does everything the Macbook Air does, but with a smaller form factor and much lower price without all the pitfalls of traditional computers such as weekly security updates, viruses etc.
So the summary is, if you were never in the market for a device like the Macbook Air, even at the reduced price of US$499, then you would not be interested in the iPad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)