Watching the iPad become "unveiled" yesterday really got me thinking...these people at Apple are geniuses. Evil geniuses. The iPad is effectively a giant iPhone, but what is key about the iPhone is the monopoly Apple has on the app store and its stranglehold on the developers for it. If you want to develop for Apple's iPhone, you have to play by their rules, use their technology, and price based on their decrees. Deviate, and you cant play.
For now, they have given a fair amount of leeway to developers and creativity has poured out, but Apple knows almost better than anyone how to play that game. Give them a lot of toys up front, then start to cinch control once they are dependent on it for their livelihood. We saw how they have done that masterfully with the musical community and iTunes, and the Apps are the same thing. Sinister, but elegant and masterful too, like a spider stunning then slowly sucking the blood of its prey, keeping it just alive enough to aid in its own death.
My prediction based on what I saw is this. The iPad will grow an external wireless keyboard and a stand so it can be used like a monitor. It will quickly replace kiosks at points of sale and cash register types of computers in all retail stores. It will replace computers in schools as "apps" spring up that do every possible thing. People trust apple, and dont see a problem with its monopoly, and the government is weak on vetting these things.
Apple will then slowly phase out its desktop and laptop computers, OSX will disappear, and the iPad in various forms will replace it.
OS's are disadvantageous for software companies. They cost a lot to maintain and support, but can only be charged for once. You cant keep charging people for use of the OS, but you are expected to keep it working and shoulder the ongoing costs of maintenance and upgrades. All the while, software vendors can buy and sell their software and don't have to pay the OS maker any royalty for running their software on their OS.
The iPad and iPhone are an example of the end of this model. OS companies have finally figured out that this model is unprofitable and unsustainable, and are working to rebuild their OS's business models to give them better control over the revenue stream and make money on a transactional basis instead of in a one time license fee. Interestingly, Microsoft figured this out a long time ago and have been acting on it with the XBox/XBox live/Games for Windows, but are going to have a much harder time transitioning consoles to the areas of the market currently dominated by PC's because they have no path to convert a gaming console to a PC.
Apple, on the other hand, has established a perfect path, the smartphone to iPad to PC path. This is very logical and will, within a few years, push their technology in where PC's dominate, and likely also eventually encroach on gaming consoles, leaving sony, MS, and Acer type companies caught with their "pants on the floor".
Its a brilliant strategy, and my hat is off to them.
The future for Apple, and likely our world, is a utopia where Apple controls everything. Microsoft played their cards too fast, and got stuck on the anti trust thing, but Apple has managed to form intensely powerful monopolies while maintaining its "underdog" brand and keeping its perceived market share low, effectively allowing them to breeze past hallways once blocked by anti trust lawyers.
By the time we realize what's happened, Apple will have created a monoculture in the marketplace, and that is why we need to support anyone BUT them right now. Its very important for us as consumers to keep the PC afloat because it represents our power. Once we give that up, our ignorance, laziness, and desire for the convenient/cool will be our undoing...and Steve Jobs is counting on it. We'll end up with one device that does whatever makes the most money for Apple, not necessarily what is in the best interest of consumers.
I would like to add though, if the iPad totally bombs, then it will show that consumers are much smarter than Steve Jobs gives them credit for, and they'll have to come up with something that keeps the power where it belongs, in the hands of consumers.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Why I still dont have a cell phone...and hopefully never will
Cellphones. Smart phones. I like to call them T.I.R.E.D. or "Temporary Intelligence Reduction Electronic Devices". Particularly the ones that have no raised buttons you can feel to know what to press by memory instead of staring down at it. I dont spend any time in a large city, but can only imagine how many people stumble into traffic, trip, walk into poles, or miss important physical cues due to their various "TIRED" devices such as the ironically named "smart phone" or their iPods etc.
Context has kind of gone by the wayside in our society, and we seem to think getting information in any context, any setting, is just as valueable as getting it in the context for which it was designed.
Movies, for example, were designed to watch on a large screen in a dark room free of external distraction. The scripts are written subtley and visual cues are often only noticable on a large screen, so a small screen tends to mess up the experience.
Training is the same thing, you learn best when focussed on the task, and free of distraction, this is why we have classrooms and texts and lecture halls, no one tries to teach calculus in grand central station.
Gaming as well, at least high end simulation games such as WoW, Fallout 3, Second Life, all best experienced on a large screen with surround sound and free of distraction, glare, and external noises, or suspension of disbelief and immersion just arent possible.
Some people do have the misfortune of taking a subway to and from work which means a long period of time in a small space with little to do. This is where context can be created for these kinds of activities and a "smart phone" actually can be very good. You can find a corner on the bus or train and tune out everything with headphones. Same on an airplane, where this kind of coping with being in a very small space for a long period of time is greatly enhanced with some kind of small entertainment device.
If you have a house, though, or an apartment, you can generally find a space for a large monitor, a land line, and gaming system, and for some who work at home a workstation. You can create individual contexts for each of these activities that is optimal for getting the most out of them. Your "phone room" can be small with a comfortable chair and perhaps a notepad for taking notes. Your "TV/Gaming room" can be made dark and cozy, with full surround sound and bass to shake your chair and help create an immersive experience, and your "working/training" room can be a desk perhaps with reference materials handy or various other kinds of equipment necessary for the tasks and an ergonomic chair.
No matter how many apps a smartphone has, it still does not create contexts condusive to using the "apps" and encourages antisocial, sometimes bizarre behavior in public that can and does often disrupt what should be considered normal social behavior. Even in the subway example, phones and ipods break up communities and form tiny isolation booths where once humans would have interacted when finding themselves in an enclosed space with each other. In some cases, cell phones and ipods create dangerous situations such as when driving, operating equipment etc. really doing any physical activity that requires attention.
The iPhone in particular requires the user to put their head in an unnatural position (angled downwards towards their hands) to effectively "navel gaze". This position encourages social isolation and lowers confidence and self esteem. There is truth to "keeping your chin up" because it forces you to look "people in the eye" and acknowledge them, show respect or friendliness, and perhaps interact with them. Not to mention keeping your eyes ahead of you so you can see where you are going and dont trip or walk into something.
What about people being able to reach me if I'm out? Well, when I'm out, I'm out. I'm placing myself in a context that is not likely condusive to giving my full attention to the person calling. I'll either be driving, shopping, meeting other people to spend time with them, or working on a project that requires my undivided attention. I have voicemail to pick up the call.
What if the message is "urgent" ? I think people have gotten far to liberal with applying the term "urgent" to things. Unless you are dying, or someone else will die or become seriously ill and hours or even minutes can affect the outcome, nothing is "urgent" and can wait. If you are expecting a call, you can always check voicemail/email and even in the case of being a doctor, a pager is more than enough to handle all "dire circumstances".
Texting...seriously. An athema to language and communication skills, texting is fullfilling the 'urgent' need of many people to dumb themselves down as quickly as they possibly can. Like "twittering" which removes all context and meaning from information. Now that said, its possible that texting will vastly enhance the interconnectedness of human beings, I suppose it could be considered an important step in the evolution of a collective conciousness, but I can wait until texting has moved to a more meaningful, context rich mode of conversation. I have no doubt it will.
The one place I can concede cellphones are good is a roadside or local medical emergency, but in this case, ANY nearby cellphone will do, so I do keep one in my car with no accout tied to it because by law, 911 is supposed to be free for all cellphones. This is a cost free solution to this issue.
So that is my reasoning for not having a cellphone. I should state for the record though, as they evolve and become more capable, I could indeed have one or whatever they are called by then (perhaps an implant) ? But for now, they are just TIRED.
Context has kind of gone by the wayside in our society, and we seem to think getting information in any context, any setting, is just as valueable as getting it in the context for which it was designed.
Movies, for example, were designed to watch on a large screen in a dark room free of external distraction. The scripts are written subtley and visual cues are often only noticable on a large screen, so a small screen tends to mess up the experience.
Training is the same thing, you learn best when focussed on the task, and free of distraction, this is why we have classrooms and texts and lecture halls, no one tries to teach calculus in grand central station.
Gaming as well, at least high end simulation games such as WoW, Fallout 3, Second Life, all best experienced on a large screen with surround sound and free of distraction, glare, and external noises, or suspension of disbelief and immersion just arent possible.
Some people do have the misfortune of taking a subway to and from work which means a long period of time in a small space with little to do. This is where context can be created for these kinds of activities and a "smart phone" actually can be very good. You can find a corner on the bus or train and tune out everything with headphones. Same on an airplane, where this kind of coping with being in a very small space for a long period of time is greatly enhanced with some kind of small entertainment device.
If you have a house, though, or an apartment, you can generally find a space for a large monitor, a land line, and gaming system, and for some who work at home a workstation. You can create individual contexts for each of these activities that is optimal for getting the most out of them. Your "phone room" can be small with a comfortable chair and perhaps a notepad for taking notes. Your "TV/Gaming room" can be made dark and cozy, with full surround sound and bass to shake your chair and help create an immersive experience, and your "working/training" room can be a desk perhaps with reference materials handy or various other kinds of equipment necessary for the tasks and an ergonomic chair.
No matter how many apps a smartphone has, it still does not create contexts condusive to using the "apps" and encourages antisocial, sometimes bizarre behavior in public that can and does often disrupt what should be considered normal social behavior. Even in the subway example, phones and ipods break up communities and form tiny isolation booths where once humans would have interacted when finding themselves in an enclosed space with each other. In some cases, cell phones and ipods create dangerous situations such as when driving, operating equipment etc. really doing any physical activity that requires attention.
The iPhone in particular requires the user to put their head in an unnatural position (angled downwards towards their hands) to effectively "navel gaze". This position encourages social isolation and lowers confidence and self esteem. There is truth to "keeping your chin up" because it forces you to look "people in the eye" and acknowledge them, show respect or friendliness, and perhaps interact with them. Not to mention keeping your eyes ahead of you so you can see where you are going and dont trip or walk into something.
What about people being able to reach me if I'm out? Well, when I'm out, I'm out. I'm placing myself in a context that is not likely condusive to giving my full attention to the person calling. I'll either be driving, shopping, meeting other people to spend time with them, or working on a project that requires my undivided attention. I have voicemail to pick up the call.
What if the message is "urgent" ? I think people have gotten far to liberal with applying the term "urgent" to things. Unless you are dying, or someone else will die or become seriously ill and hours or even minutes can affect the outcome, nothing is "urgent" and can wait. If you are expecting a call, you can always check voicemail/email and even in the case of being a doctor, a pager is more than enough to handle all "dire circumstances".
Texting...seriously. An athema to language and communication skills, texting is fullfilling the 'urgent' need of many people to dumb themselves down as quickly as they possibly can. Like "twittering" which removes all context and meaning from information. Now that said, its possible that texting will vastly enhance the interconnectedness of human beings, I suppose it could be considered an important step in the evolution of a collective conciousness, but I can wait until texting has moved to a more meaningful, context rich mode of conversation. I have no doubt it will.
The one place I can concede cellphones are good is a roadside or local medical emergency, but in this case, ANY nearby cellphone will do, so I do keep one in my car with no accout tied to it because by law, 911 is supposed to be free for all cellphones. This is a cost free solution to this issue.
So that is my reasoning for not having a cellphone. I should state for the record though, as they evolve and become more capable, I could indeed have one or whatever they are called by then (perhaps an implant) ? But for now, they are just TIRED.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Gambryo needs to be free. Google where are you?
I recently had the opportunity to review a copy of the Gambryo software used by several major titles, including "fallout 3" to make very compelling, immersive gaming experiences.
Its an incredible piece of software that makes turning your virtual idea into a reality much easier than other titles Ive seen in the past.
In order for it to really change the world,though, it needs to become free. Right now it costs something like $80,000 per user per title, which is kind of ridiculous to say the least. I understand their business model, but its, quite frankly, the most short sighted, lame ass thing Ive yet to have seen in the software world.
If Gambryo were free, and anyone could use it anywhere as long as they had power and a simple computer, we could experience a renaissance in art, economic opportunity, turning around 2nd and 3rd world economies by allowing an onslaught of creativity to be unleashed on the planet the likes of which the world has never seen.
Unfortunately for mankind, we have companies like Microsoft and Sony that believe that they need to heavily control all the creativity in the world, and own everything. So the only ideas that get released are ones that are directly aligned with the ideologies of children who get little or no attention from their parents, gamers who spend most of their time in dark, cavernous rooms completely devoid of social contact (and probably bitter about it as well), and nostalgic CEO's who think the coolest games ever made were in the 70's and 80s.
However, if simulations could be developed by anyone, anywhere, with the only limit being the imagination, we might find that Mozart, that Rembrant, the Gallileo of gaming has been living in Mumbai or Nairobi all this time, and we may experience world changing creativity with much more regularity.
Lets look at writing for example. Where on earth can you find more diversity than in the written word? Why is that? Because a pen and paper don't cost $80,000!
Second only to writing is music, and again, anyone can make music and in the past few years we've seen an explosion of diversity in music because the technology has become relatively cheap and available.
Next is movies. Inexpensive video cameras and editing equipment have created an opportunity for an incredible amount of content that has literally exploded and instead of making it harder to make high end movies, high end movies are instead profiting more than they ever have been.
On the web, html pages and flash games dominate the web only because the creation tools are free and relatively easy to get.
In Second life, we have a 3d platform with simple but less than optimal tools for creativity (junk compared to Gambryo) but even there, we see an absolute explosion of expressiveness that barely reveals the creative explosion waiting to happen but is being limited by backwards thinking corporations.
Now, even with gaming tools being so difficult and expensive, we see a massive industry of gaming. Given the potential though, if game publishing were as easy as making a movie on your desktop computer, or writing a blog (at least the expense part), I bet we would see an incredible explosion of revenue to the extent that the gaming industry would 10 or 100x its size practically overnight, and make new, fulfilling, creative jobs for millions of people globally.
Microsoft and Sony have the power to do it, but they don't because they are short sighted, selfish, and afraid. Shame on you folks. Google? Where are you? Buy Gambryo/3d studio max, and make it free!!!
Its an incredible piece of software that makes turning your virtual idea into a reality much easier than other titles Ive seen in the past.
In order for it to really change the world,though, it needs to become free. Right now it costs something like $80,000 per user per title, which is kind of ridiculous to say the least. I understand their business model, but its, quite frankly, the most short sighted, lame ass thing Ive yet to have seen in the software world.
If Gambryo were free, and anyone could use it anywhere as long as they had power and a simple computer, we could experience a renaissance in art, economic opportunity, turning around 2nd and 3rd world economies by allowing an onslaught of creativity to be unleashed on the planet the likes of which the world has never seen.
Unfortunately for mankind, we have companies like Microsoft and Sony that believe that they need to heavily control all the creativity in the world, and own everything. So the only ideas that get released are ones that are directly aligned with the ideologies of children who get little or no attention from their parents, gamers who spend most of their time in dark, cavernous rooms completely devoid of social contact (and probably bitter about it as well), and nostalgic CEO's who think the coolest games ever made were in the 70's and 80s.
However, if simulations could be developed by anyone, anywhere, with the only limit being the imagination, we might find that Mozart, that Rembrant, the Gallileo of gaming has been living in Mumbai or Nairobi all this time, and we may experience world changing creativity with much more regularity.
Lets look at writing for example. Where on earth can you find more diversity than in the written word? Why is that? Because a pen and paper don't cost $80,000!
Second only to writing is music, and again, anyone can make music and in the past few years we've seen an explosion of diversity in music because the technology has become relatively cheap and available.
Next is movies. Inexpensive video cameras and editing equipment have created an opportunity for an incredible amount of content that has literally exploded and instead of making it harder to make high end movies, high end movies are instead profiting more than they ever have been.
On the web, html pages and flash games dominate the web only because the creation tools are free and relatively easy to get.
In Second life, we have a 3d platform with simple but less than optimal tools for creativity (junk compared to Gambryo) but even there, we see an absolute explosion of expressiveness that barely reveals the creative explosion waiting to happen but is being limited by backwards thinking corporations.
Now, even with gaming tools being so difficult and expensive, we see a massive industry of gaming. Given the potential though, if game publishing were as easy as making a movie on your desktop computer, or writing a blog (at least the expense part), I bet we would see an incredible explosion of revenue to the extent that the gaming industry would 10 or 100x its size practically overnight, and make new, fulfilling, creative jobs for millions of people globally.
Microsoft and Sony have the power to do it, but they don't because they are short sighted, selfish, and afraid. Shame on you folks. Google? Where are you? Buy Gambryo/3d studio max, and make it free!!!
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Why flash is better than HTML for presenting information online.
There are a lot of people dissing flash, and I wanted to quickly note a few reasons why Flash is actually a better way to present information and offer user interface/functionality than the old, outdated technology of HTML and its derivatives.
1. Flash gives the author control over how the content is loaded and displayed. Would you want to watch a movie or read a book that had all the scenes or pages out of order? Had the pages come in varying sizes sometimes? let you see the ending before the movie starts?
Perhaps you would, but the director of the film generally knows how you will get the most out of what they have to say, and needs to present the information in a certain order, with a certain context. One of my favorite things about flash over HTML or even second life (www.secondlife.com) is that you can hide everything while it loads so the user doesnt end up seeing only the text with no images, or the layout all mangled like often happens with facebook.
2. Flash lets you discreetly send and receive server infomration without interrupting the user experience. Say you need to fill in a form or something. With HTML the entire page refreshes, so all your UI controls temporarily disappear then possibly reappear but in entirely different places. Session management is entirely haphazard at best.
3. Flash provides the opportunity for extreme precision in placement and timing of information for the user. With HTML, again placement using layers, alpha channels etc, is still difficult and clumsy compared to flash, and the result is either simple websites that are no significant improvement over what AOL looked like in 1995 (IE Facebook, google, ebay, CNN etc.), and cannot use timing and animation to present information on more of an intelligent, as required basis.
Of course, there are lots of poorly built flash based sites just as there are poorly built sites in all technologies, but with Flash, there is the greatest potential for UI perfection, ease of use, and intuitiveness perhaps than any other technology in existence today. HTML represents the lowest common denominator and if your website /platform is entirely based on HTML, it certainly says something about your respect for your message and your audience.
I realize the irony of using an HTML based blog to post these remarks, but I do feel that if Blogger offered a flash based system, they would have the potential for being far more elegant and intuitive for their audiences and would ultimately increase their readership due to the improvements over the potential losses of those who refuse to evolve and install flash players or other "new fangled technology"
1. Flash gives the author control over how the content is loaded and displayed. Would you want to watch a movie or read a book that had all the scenes or pages out of order? Had the pages come in varying sizes sometimes? let you see the ending before the movie starts?
Perhaps you would, but the director of the film generally knows how you will get the most out of what they have to say, and needs to present the information in a certain order, with a certain context. One of my favorite things about flash over HTML or even second life (www.secondlife.com) is that you can hide everything while it loads so the user doesnt end up seeing only the text with no images, or the layout all mangled like often happens with facebook.
2. Flash lets you discreetly send and receive server infomration without interrupting the user experience. Say you need to fill in a form or something. With HTML the entire page refreshes, so all your UI controls temporarily disappear then possibly reappear but in entirely different places. Session management is entirely haphazard at best.
3. Flash provides the opportunity for extreme precision in placement and timing of information for the user. With HTML, again placement using layers, alpha channels etc, is still difficult and clumsy compared to flash, and the result is either simple websites that are no significant improvement over what AOL looked like in 1995 (IE Facebook, google, ebay, CNN etc.), and cannot use timing and animation to present information on more of an intelligent, as required basis.
Of course, there are lots of poorly built flash based sites just as there are poorly built sites in all technologies, but with Flash, there is the greatest potential for UI perfection, ease of use, and intuitiveness perhaps than any other technology in existence today. HTML represents the lowest common denominator and if your website /platform is entirely based on HTML, it certainly says something about your respect for your message and your audience.
I realize the irony of using an HTML based blog to post these remarks, but I do feel that if Blogger offered a flash based system, they would have the potential for being far more elegant and intuitive for their audiences and would ultimately increase their readership due to the improvements over the potential losses of those who refuse to evolve and install flash players or other "new fangled technology"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
