Ampers & Dot

Today Apple announced a “Magical!” device - the iPad. I was doing my best to avoid talking about this, mainly because so much has been said already, but I have just too much to say to hold off.

First and foremost, I’m going to assume you know what the iPad is - and if not, please check out this link and once you’ve done that we’ll be set to go. So after all the speculation has quieted down and we know the real facts about Apple’s new Tablet computer, I still have some linger questions:

1. Seriously, “iPad” is the final name? That’s what you settled on? Every time I’ve heard someone say that, they’ve giggled first.
2. How do you carry it with you? And relatedly, how fragile is the OLED screen? Does Apple Care cover the iPad?
3. How do you type on it? Flat on the table? What about when you’re holding it?
4. $30 for “Unlimited” AT&T 3G network - how much does “Unlimited” really mean? Because for all other plans, “Unlimited” is capped at 5GB.
5. $15 for 250MB a month - what happens when you go over?
6. Does it have bluetooth for accessories? Will there be third party docks?
7. If you already own an iPod and a MacBook, why should you buy this? (Thanks @ekmurphy)
8. What will this do to AT&T’s network, that has already had problems with the increased iPhone traffic?
9. How will this change iPod Touch sales?
10. Is there a built in microphone for potential voice use?
11. Is there a built in web cam?
12. Does it handle multitasking?
13. Can it receive push notifications?
14. Which wireless band is supported? A/B/G/N?
15. Now that you’ve crossed the line with a keyboard dock, will there be other dockable add ons? (I’m hoping for a game pad…)
16. Will the keyboard dock integrate with gaming?
17. Does the keyoard docking require the new API or is it pure hardware replacement for the virtual keypad?
18. How well will the “10hr” batter really hold up? If the iPhone’s batter really only last a day, wouldn’t that mean this 10hrs is more like 3-4?
19. No, seriously. “iPad”. You’re kidding, right?
20. Can I have one?

Well, a lot of these questions will be answered in due time - and some might be debated for coming months. Ultimately, I think this is great for the market. I actually really like the Tablet concept and look forward to getting my hands on one - it might not be the iPad, but I see value in the converged, media device. With Apple’s entrance into the market, it will force other manufacturers (I’m specifically thinking about Acer, Archos, Asus, HP, etc.) to step up their game.

If it means a price war - I’m ok with that. If it means speed to market, that’s fine too. But what I’m sure this will help with is overall consumer adoption, which will inspire more innovation. And the more manufacturers innovate, the awesomer the world gets.

A few months ago a colleague of mine at Forrester published a report claiming that “The Smartphone is Dead” (clients only). The argument, with which I fully agree, is that as even the dumbest of phones gains “smart” features and functions, the concept of a dichotomous world of “smart” and “dumb” phones makes no sense.

It’s a fantastic report and has a great series of recommendations on what this means for the broader scope for Consumer Product Strategists, and I was reminded of the research when I saw this YouTube video (in German, which might actually help its cause):

Oh, so your phone has an App for that? Well this phone has hardware for that. Now is this a “smart” phone, or a really dumb idea?

Ok, sure this is a joke, but it brings up a good (and hilariously animated) point: how much function do we really need in our phones? At what point are we overly depending on a single device? Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all about convergence, but how much convergence is too much?

It’s like TV/VCR/DVD combos. How many of these out there still have three functioning parts? My guess is that over 80% of them have at least one of the three components in a less-than-functional state. And once one component breaks, then you either a) have to replace all three or b) have to replace part of it with an additional device giving you a big clunking TV/VCR/DVD connected to a DVD player.

But then there’s the other side of this argument: what if your device only does one thing and instead of a converged device, you carry many devices? I know people who carry one phone for calls, a BlackBerry for emails, and an iPod for media. This isn’t so crazy, right? Well thanks to smarter devices, it seems a little crazier now than ever before.

Converged devices, like the iPhone, have gained so much popularity because of their ability to eliminate the need for carrying multiple gadgets. Maybe a converged Phone, VCR, Toaster, Car-Charger, Printer, etc. is indeed in our future. So what does this do to the market? Mainly, I think it makes single-function devices considerably less attractive in the broader landscape of gadgets.

If, in the future, cell phones have image-stabilized, 12mp, zoomable cameras - we won’t need point-and-shoots. If laptops integrated 3G connections better, would we need MiFis? If phones have 3D, graphics accelerated gaming - would we need Gameboys? (Apple’s hoping the answer is “No”.) And if cell phones have SMS, email, or web connectivity, would we need a Twitter Peek - a device that only does Twitter? Well… no.

And that’s my point. Single-function devices are in trouble as converged devices take over consumer’s pockets. Will we ever get to a point where our phones make toast? I sure hope so. But in the meantime I think three things make sense: 1) only converge functions that naturally fit together, 2) don’t buy any converged device that integrates VHS, and 3) be leery of single-function devices.

The smartphone may be dead - but I look forward to seeing what new smart features converge in future devices.

Starting in the late ’90s, HTC has been a driving force of some of the coolest mobile devices on the market. But because HTC rebranded phones for other companies, until recently, you likely wouldn’t have known where the devices came from. Now, after more than a decade behind the scenes of the smartphone world, HTC’s taken huge steps in marketing itself as a consumer product. (For a little more background reading on HTC’s history, check out my totally geeky post from last fall on HTC’s move from being an ODM to an OEM.)

If you’ve walked around New York, or if you’ve watched primetime TV recently, you’ve probably seen ads for HTC. Here’s one of my favorite current spots:

HTC’s launched an aggressive campaign in the US market to get its name out to consumers. And this is a very, very good move.

For HTC to increase its stake in the US market, consumers need to associate HTC as a company. HTC might have made dozens of phones that consumers know well, but until late 2008 HTC hadn’t even put a logo on a US-released phone. And consumers are very brand conscious with phones: people often ask “what’s that phone?” to which they expect a response like “Razr” or “the new Samsung” or “BlackBerry Bold” (don’t even get me started with phones named like “The Verizon XV6825asdf blah blah blah83425″ because that’s a post for another time). Consumers want brand named devices.

With a successful branding campaign, HTC can become a household name for mobile devices. I mean, it worked for LG. Only a few years ago no one in the US had heard of LG, but with a number of high quality phones, a bit of branding, and good marketing, and consumers go into stores asking for “The LG Vu” or what not.

HTC’s made some of the best quality devices and while that’s been enough to build the company a reputation of success within the gadget community, it’s good to see it take steps towards the larger market. Now, as they combine that with a branding campaign, I expect great things coming for HTC and look forward to seeing more a) awesome devices and b) impressive advertising.

If you’ve been watching any primetime TV recently (or walked through Times Square) you may have noticed ads for something called “Droid”. Here’s its main TV spot:

At first you’re thinking - oh, white screen, poppy jingle, must be another iPhone ad! - but then you start paying attention and realize it’s an ad taking direct shots at Apple and you’re left with an ominous mention of the Droid. The Droid, is an upcoming Android OS phone by Motorola, which launches on Verizon next week. As the anti-iPhone commercial tells you, the Droid packs a big pixel-packed touch screen, full keyboard, 5mp camera with flash, multi-tasking abilities, and more - many things the iPhone doesn’t offer.

Verizon’s dropped the hammer on marketing the Droid. They’ve gone all out to push the message of a superior device to the masses. And you know what? It’s worked. It’s worked really, really well.

From people opting into the Droid’s mailing list, to the bigshot blogs covering the pre-launch hype, the Droid’s marketing is a total success.

Hell, Gizmodo published a post today called “How Motorola Stopped Sucking“. Seriously? It was that easy? One phone and their back? And wait, after all that “iDon’t” jargon, it turns out the Droid is actually pretty comparably built to the iPhone. So it basically comes down to: do you want a keyboard? Apple OS or Android? There’s no “better” for either of those questions. But the Droid’s taken a stab at the iPhone claiming superiority.

Where does Droid get off taken a direct approach at a competitor like that!?

Oh, right…

Here’s my take on all this: is the Droid an iPhone killer? No. Is there going to be an iPhone killer? No. The iPhone is going to continue leading the way for at least another generation to come. But, as I’ve said many times before, there is plenty of room for iPhone-killer marketing. I think the Droid’s launch is a perfect example of what the competition should be doing with each launch. Step up the game and force Apple to keep innovating to remain on top.

In the end the Droid looks like a great device and Android 2.0 is probably pretty sweet too. But does it matter for this hype? No, not really. Thanks to the abundance of marketing, there are enough consumers excited about the Droid without ever touching or seeing one that Verizon’s bound to sell out next week. And in the end, when have consumers been excited about a Verizon phone? I say good job all around.

Today, October 6th, is a huge day in history: Microsoft released Windows Mobile 6.5 to the masses. But you already knew that, right? No. Of course you didn’t. And that’s what today’s post is about…

Loyal readers know well that I’m a Windows Mobile user - and I have been for the last six versions of the mobile operating system (Windows Mobile 2003, Windows Mobile 2003SE, Windows Mobile 5, Windows Mobile 6, Windows Mobile 6.1, and now Windows Phone (apparently what they’re now calling Windows Mobile devices from WM6.5 and on)). So obviously I’m a bit excited about the today’s official release of the new build.

But apparently, I’m the only one.

I’ve previously criticized Palm and RIM for soft-launching devices and not stirring up interest the way Apple does, but we’re not talking about a single phone here, we’re talking about a full Operating System, bound to run on 30+ phones by the year’s end. Microsoft even did the right thing: they set a firm launch date (that didn’t overlap with an Apple announcement) and even told a few people about it in advance (go figure!). But today, the big day we’ve all I’ve been looking forward to, I have to ask: where’s the delivery?

In short: it’s just not there. And the sad part is that I just don’t really have an excuse for the lack of enthusiasm from the tech community. Here’s the best rationale I can do:

• The masses love the iPhone. The iPhone is awesome and has stolen all of the mobile thunder for the year (yes, it did come out two years ago, but has gained enough momentum to steamroll the competition).
• The big blogs love the iPhone. Both Gizmodo and Engadget took the opportunity of Windows Mobile 6.5’s launch to bash the new build. Thanks guys. I’m not saying WM6.5 is perfect (in fact, I’m not saying a thing about it in this post - that’s coming later), but how about a little bitartisan reviewing?
• The tech-geeks have moved to Android. As I said recently, the Linux-based Android handsets appeal more to the geeks. While Windows Mobile has always been great for techies due to highly customizable and hackable Windows CE core, Android has linux. Game over.
• Windows Mobile users often don’t know they’re using Windows Mobile. The biggest problem with WinMo is that it’s just so poorly branded. Most (and yes I do mean “most”) people who own Windows Mobile Phones likely don’t know what version they’re using, couldn’t tell you if it’s 5.0, 6.0, 6.1 or 6.5 - let alone if it’s even running Windows Mobile! But it’s not their fault, no one ever told them.
• Microsoft doesn’t really market Windows Mobile. Ever seen an iPhone ad? Wait, here’s a better question: ever not seen an iPhone ad?! Enough said.

So as today comes and goes, with little hype and a lot of disappointment, I think Microsoft should take a good hard look at the results of the launch and reevaluate how they address the next version of Windows Mobile.

Better yet, Microsoft should take lesson from their own playbook: spend money marketing a product, it can work. Hell, with only $80m spent on Bing, you can take a sizable chunk from Google. Google! I just hope they take a fraction of that and put it towards mobile platforms to go up against the other players quickly creeping in on their marketshare. Hell, it’s worked for Apple just fine.

But hey, let’s not get too down on them today. Let’s celebrate Windows Mobile 6.5’s release - and then start the countdown all over again to Windows Mobile 7.

Update: oh. I found the marketing material

Android, the Google-developed/Linux-based mobile OS, debuted last fall as yet-another platform in the ever fragmenting war over smartphones. Going up against Apple, Windows Mobile, Blackberry, Symbian, and now Palm’s WebOS - Android was positioned last year as an “open source” operating system that could run on almost any hardware.

Unlike Apple, that has one OS and one device, or Windows Mobile, with multiple OSes for various devices, the promise behind Android was that it was a flexible, lightweight, and robust platform (seems like an contradictory adjective list, no?), that could run on barebones dumbphones as well as super-powered, touchscreen, smartphones. The surprise however, is that for the first 10 months of Android’s existence, it was only available on a single device: the TMobile G1 (warning, that link has annoying music playing in the background).

The G1 (or HTC-manufactured “Dream”) landed on TMobile late 2008 and introduced Android to the masses. Now this is tough for me to say, because I’m potentially one of the biggest HTC fans out there, but the G1 is actually a pretty flawed piece of hardware. I previously documented the problems with the hardware design (hint: it has to do with buttons), but beyond the lacking functionality, the G1 just doesn’t feel that great in the hand. It’s a bit clunky and big, but not very sturdy feeling. Its sliding screen feels a little cheap and the keyboard is just junky.

So what does this mean for Android? The answer should be: “Nothing”. But as this was the only piece of hardware out for Android’s first ten months, it means that Android became associated with the G1 - and not in a totally great way.

Now I’m not saying that Android has a bad image - most gadgeteers are quite fond of Android - but what I’ve seen for the better part of this year, is constant speculation on Android’s future. The common statement I’ve heard is that “it’ll be great to see what happens when Android makes it onto more devices”. And I agree. Android has loads of potential, but we won’t really know how it will pan out until more phones run Android.

Fortunately, that time is fast approaching.

Last month TMobile released a second Android handset, the MyTouch 3G (also manufactured by HTC, named Magic) - a device similar to the G1, but lacking a keyboard (argh! I’m not getting into this today). And now, a few weeks later, the floodgates have opened. Before the year’s end, there will likely be a dozen available Android handsets. That’s a big increase from ONE.

So what does this mean? Here’s my take:

This is good for Android because:

• More devices means more consumer adoption. Not everyone wanted a G1, but now there are choices. Really, something for everyone.
• More carriers means more consumer adoption. Not everyone wants TMobile. With Sprint selling the Hero this fall and Verizon and AT&T playing up rumors of new devices, there will be an Android device available to all big US carriers.
• More consumer adoption means more developer adoption. The more Android devices out there, the more desirable it will be for developers to build great apps - making the phones that much better for consumers. It’s cyclically awesome.
• Android is no longer just for geeks. Yes, I said it. I work in Kendall Square in Cambridge, arguably one of the geekiest places in the world - I see more G1s here than anywhere else. Correlation may not be causation - but I’m just saying - the G1 is geeky. New Android handsets are slick and more appealing to the mass market.

But also bad for Android because:

• Fragmenting the platform makes development difficult. Developers constantly complain that Windows Mobile is tough to develop for, because there are many different screen sizes, processors, hardware specs, etc. With each change, developers have to build/tweak to get their apps to work correctly.
• More devices means more confusion. If you have an iPhone, you know it’s an Apple iPhone. There’s no mistaking that. But the more varied devices that run Android, the less consistent the brand recognition. The less brand recognition, the less brand loyalty. Ultimately, more devices dilutes Android.
• Android isn’t geeky anymore. It’s the “Google Phone” or “Linux Phone” - over the last year, I’ve always loved talking to G1 owners who have built their own apps, customized their interface, or hacked it to play Doom - but as Android makes its way to the masses, it looses its geek-cred.

Well in the end that’s 4-3 in favor of this being a great thing for Android and I’m excited about that. I think it’s a great platform and at very least is driving the smartphone market to become ever stronger. Is Android ready to take down Apple? No. But is it going to be fun to watch the platform expand? Absolutely.

We’ve all seen the commercials: white background, hipster jingle, soothing voice, and a hand swiping through an iPhone application explaining how whatever your wildest dreams might be, there’s an app for that. As Apple claims: there are “Apps for Everything“.

Before I get to the rant section of today’s post, I should preface with the fact that I think the App concept is fantastic and has revolutionized the mobile industry in a great way. iPhone app development is cheap, quick, and relatively easy, drawing out hoards of developers making it a strong marketplace where there truly is an app for just about everything.

The app-ification of the mobile industry is even better. Following Apple’s Shaq-sized footsteps, Blackberry has App World, Windows Mobile has a Marketplace, Palm has its App Catalog, Android has App Market, Nokia has Ovi, and Motorola has App Warehouse (ok, that last one was fake, but if Motorola had a platform, its apps likely would be sold from a warehouse). Although I’m vehemently against the fragmentation of development platforms (expect a blog post on this sometime soon) I’m still glad to see mobile platforms deservedly gain developers’ interest because it means more fun and function for consumers.

Now of course, not all the apps are that great, or useful, or appropriate… (you all know that iFart and 30+ noise emulating clones exist, I’m not even going to link to it because they don’t deserve it), but amazingly, that’s not what I’m going to rant on today. Instead, I’m going to rant about feature apps - applications that enhance the phone’s functionality.

Here’s the back story: earlier this week my friend Matt took me to a Red Sox game (thanks Matty!) and we had pretty awesome seats (seriously, thanks!), right down at about field level. In between innings we decided to take a few pictures. Matt pulled out his trusty iPhone (the most popular camera in the world) but wanted to take a picture of a player deeper in outfield. The iPhone’s camera is pretty good, but it has no zooming ability. But not to fear, Matt showed me that “there’s an app for that!” and loaded up a third party application that zooms in the camera, “and for only a buck - well worth it”. Although I agree with him, that only a dollar seems fair for an application that adds such a great feature to the phone, I’m less enthusiastic about it being a third party app.

My question: why doesn’t Apple include these much-needed features into the standard build of the operating system instead of selling them?

As indicated by third party developers, the phone is fully capable of these features, but for some reason or another, aren’t included in the standard build. Is it because Apple makes more money for every time it sells an app? Man, I hope not. If there were security or stabilization issues, then why would Apple release an app to the public at all? If it’s a copyright problem, that third party developers came up with an idea and won’t sell to Apple, well that shouldn’t be a problem for them either (if you don’t know what I’m talking about, go watch Pirates of Silicon Valley. You can borrow my copy if you want…).

Oh, wait… (and here comes the punch line) taking good third party ideas and building them in is exactly what Apple is doing. In the annual iPhone upgrade, Apple is indeed baking some of the most popular apps to give users the features that should have been there all along. Here’s a good list of “15 Apps Rendered Obsolete by the iPhone 3GS“. #10 on the list: Camera Zoom.

Ultimately Apple’s seems to be slow on improving its operating system because independent developers are doing the work instead, a detriment, and cost, to consumers.

So the next time you wonder if “there’s an app for that” - instead maybe you should wonder why it’s not already standard.

This is another post about Palm, Windows Mobile, and the iPhone and ok, yes, the title’s a bit of a stretch, but all the “Take a bite out of Apple” jokes are used up…

But for my 19th straight post about today’s smartphones, I wanted to address the new marketing campaign from Sprint targeting current AT&T (specifically iPhone) customers. As seen here, Sprint is basically throwing a pretty firm punch at the iPhone, touting the Pre’s superior capabilities to run multiple applications simultaneously, recieve push notifications, and not cost a boatload more than it should.

The ad smartly goes right after its main competition, without apology or shame. And you know what? It works.

So I finally got to play with a Pre this week and I was pretty impressed. It’s small and sleek, has a pretty screen and fun user interface, and is all around totally gadgety. But here’s my take: none of that matters nearly as much as Sprint’s ability to market the device. I’ve said this so many times, but the iPhone is an awesome gadget, but is wildly successful because of Apple’s incredible marketing. And, as I’ve asked many times before: why doesn’t the competition do this?!

As you’ve heard me make that argument before, you’ll likely not be surprised where I’m going with this… why doesn’t Microsoft do this with Windows Mobile!?

WinMo fans have always taken pride in their phones’ ability to function beyond the iPhone - for a fairly exhaustive list, check out this link. Why isn’t Microsoft talking about this? All the arguments for the Pre in Sprint’s ad above, also apply to Windows Mobile, a platform that’d been around for years before the iPhone, but you’d never know it because no marketing teams have cooked up the messaging yet.

The point I’m getting at, is that I respect Sprint’s aggressive marketing campaign and I think it’s absolutely necessary. The iPhone has been selling like multi-touch-hot-cakes and it’s taking chunks out of its competitors’ market share every quarter. Only two years ago the iPhone was brand new, zero units sold, and now there are over twenty million units out there. It’s time to start fighting back.

I mean come on, Microsoft, Apple lobbed you a softball with its “Copy and Paste is a Pretty Incredible Thing” ad - go stand up for yourself and let the people know that you’ve been doing that Pretty Incredible Thing within Windows Mobile for the better part of a decade.

Well what can I  say - I was wrong. A few weeks ago I ranted about Palm’s emptiness around marketing its upcoming device, the Pre. Well yes, “I was wrong”. Ok, actually at the time I wasn’t wrong, but since then Palm’s redeemed itself by building up some actual hype around this thing.

First, and most importantly, it announced a firm launch date. (Thanks Drew for pointing this out, 12 hours after I published my previous post.) The Pre comes out tomorrow morning (a Saturday launch? When news sources can’t play up the hype?!…. let’s just ignore that for right now and remain proud that there’s at least a date) But once the date was set, the hype ball started rolling.

Jason over at MrMobile has some solid coverage of this hype, and even Sprint is playing up the Pre hype, hinting at device shortages. And you know what: this is GOOD.

Gizmodo’s reported on how big the hype’s building, with some people (person?) buying into Sprint’s low stock threats by waiting in line and other people (idiot?) buying into the device hype by getting fanboy tattoos. Now, as seen here, Sprint is promoting that “the wait is over”. Awesome! They’re actually getting people excited!

Now look, will the device stand up to the hype? I don’t know. Will millions of consumers flock to Sprint stores this weekend? I’m not sure. Will the Pre launch be a success? Only time will tell. Will it kill the iPhone? No. Am I excited to see what happens this weekend? Absolutely.

Anyone out there waking up bright and early to get their hands on one? Beuller?

I try to steer clear of writing about marketing here (because that’s what I do during the day) but there’s been one big topic bothering me for too long not to address: product launches.

As a total gadget geek, I do my best to always know when the newest and gadgetiest devices are coming out. I read lots of blogs and forums, and go to networking events, and even email and talk to industry experts whenever I can to stay ahead of the curve (I’ll never argue that I have a healthy interest in gadgets… it’s really almost problematic). Over the years of tracking gadgets, I’ve watched dozens of products come and go.

Usually, at least with the cooler gadgets, there’s a fair amount of online buzz long before the device is ever released into the public. For example: any upcoming Windows Mobile device usually has WinMo enthusiasts talking in forums for about six months before it ever hits shelves. With any gadget, the big tech blogs usually speculate on a release date far before one is actually announced. This gives the fans something exciting to read and speculate about to pass the time until the gadget is actually real. (It’s a strange obsession, I know.)

But that’s where things get screwy: launch dates. Why do we have to speculate? Shouldn’t we know? Shouldn’t the company selling the gadget promote the date on which you can actually buy it?

Most recently, there’s the hype around the upcoming Palm Pre. The Pre actually looks pretty cool. It’s this season’s iPhone competitor featuring a brand new OS, obligatory touch screen, and a very Palm-like keyboard. Check out more details on the official Palm Pre site here. Also, while on that site, please notice the “Coming Soon” text on the left. That’s right: we don’t know when the Pre is going to be publicly available. Why not?

Honestly, I have no idea. There’s actually a LOT of speculation around the actual launch date, including a hint from this morning that it might launch as soon as NEXT WEEK. We could be a week away and not know it? That seems ridiculous. Wouldn’t Palm want to get people excited - maybe build some buzz about an upcoming launch… maybe some marketing to build the hype? Well they’re trying… but without a launch date.

See, I think launch dates work. They get people excited, build the online and offline buzz, and get people to line up for your product (which perpetuates the hype and gains even more news coverage). Like the iPhone. (Of course Apple did this right, marketing is one of the things it does best.) With each iPhone there was substantial buzz around the launch date - to the point that people stood in line for DAYS.

When the Google Phone launched, it too had a firm launch date - and people lined up! Overall, the G1 sales have been rather low, but there was still enough hype around the launch to get crowds lining up. Why isn’t Palm doing this with the Pre? Seriously, I want to know!

We could be five days away from the Pre launch. If this were a new iPhone, fanboys would already be packing up their camping gear to wait in line. This is supposed to be Palm’s chance at a resurrection - you’d think they’d let people know about it.

So here’s my question: does a gadget get more coverage without a launch date - having fans and blogs constantly speculate? Or is it better to have a firm date, announce the date, and have people stand in line to build the hype?

Maybe it’s that I’m just impatient, but I think that having a real, confirmed date is just much more exciting. What do you think?