TechDistortion

No Active Sync For You!

Google announced late last week that it was closing down several functions and features of its services. Namely “Google Sync” aka Microsoft Exchange ActiveSync support for GMail as well as Google Calendar Sync, along with a few others. I, and many others I have spoken to, use both of these services on their devices and this impacts us. One can configure their sync to use the open protocols of CardDav, CalDav and of course IMAP and this is probably okay for most people. What’s interesting is more Googles attitude about this at a time when they previously wanted people to use GMail and Google Accounts to be a central place for people to store their contacts, email and calendars.

Originally they were the underdogs in this area but with Android to push their cause it’s not surprising that they no longer feel the need to consort with their enemies in the market in order to gain some kind of foothold themselves. With Android users effectively plugged into Googles services now and their user base growing by the minute, it’s only natural that Google will become less interested in being interoperable with other platforms.

This is the next step along the road as Google continues to forge ahead with its own platform. It may not be precisely “Evil” but it is inevitable. For many of us now, it’s no ActiveSync for you.

What's Wrong With Windows 8

Microsoft has had years of success at the top of a game that they arguably didn’t play very fairly to win.  Windows has succeeded on the desktop PC more due to the numbers game with dozens of major hardware manufacturers competing against each other to push prices down all with Microsoft skimming the lions share of the profit off the top. Taking features from the Mac, Linux and several other operating systems and doing deals with enterprise ensured their success. A team of talented engineers pushed them forwards with some innovation also coming out of Redmond.

However, Windows did not succeed because it had a beautiful interface. It did not succeed because it was user friendly. It did not succeed because consumers desired it.

The interesting thing is that despite this Microsoft now has many millions of people trained in how Windows works. The “Start” button (replaced recently in Windows Vista/7 with the Microsoft Logo but still in the same spot in the bottom left corner of the screen) and the program menus with desktop folders and static images for wallpapers with a taskbar at the bottom for switching between windows. People were mostly forced to use this in order to do their job and as such they are now familiar with how Windows works.

Microsoft then pushed the idea of Windows everywhere. We can only speculate on how Microsoft think internally but let’s assume that Microsofts success is because Windows is well liked and effective. If that’s true then surely a Windows everywhere strategy would work? Windows CE, Windows Mobile, Windows Tablet Edition all tried to push familiar Windows-desktop-styled user interface ideas that “worked” well for Windows on the desktop, and reused them on mobile platforms with touch interfaces. Unfortunately these were barely useable with these different device types and not widely adopted as a result. The market was dominated by RIM and Nokia, and Microsoft were left out in the cold.

Let’s switch focus. The Zune became the first portable touch-screen product that Microsoft redesigned the user interface for. The interface was called Metro and whilst the product did not survive the idea did. Microsoft then decided to turn its attention to replacing Windows Mobile and released Windows Phone 7 with a significantly more developed Metro interface. The Metro interface persisted and Microsoft then made the boldest step yet: replace the Windows start menu with Metro and push for a common platform on both Desktop and Mobile - this time based around Metro.

Microsoft couldn’t help itself but to prefix it “Windows” Phone 8 and “Windows” 8 but the truth is that there really are no windows - there are tiles and full-screen applications (or apps, if you prefer). The start menu is gone. The tiles are mostly animated with a plethora of information - much of it not particularly relevant (the People tile has a slideshow of your contacts faces for example). Previously simple tasks such as closing a window have become more cumbersome with a left-click at the top of the screen then drag down to the bottom of the screen being much more difficult to master than a simple “click the red X in the top right”. With a touch interface it’s not too bad, but with a keyboard and mouse it’s terrible.

The gestures on the desktop make little sense, aren’t obvious and with all the tile animation is it overwhelming for many people as they try and figure out where they have to click to edit that Word document or Excel spreadsheet they need to get finished.

Irrespective of any one users opinion about whether something is intuitive or not let’s review two key facts:

1. Microsofts Windows interface has significant momentum and any significant change from that user interface style will be met with equally significant resistance that will hurt Microsofts marketshare.

2. Microsoft tried Windows everywhere before and they failed. Why repeat the same strategy with Metro everywhere all over again? Calling Metro “Windows” doesn’t change the fact that it is nothing at all like Windows. Windows is a brand and determining the value of a brand is difficult but then renaming Metro to Windows creates an expectation of what a current Windows customer is expecting. They will likely be shocked, stunned and/or very disappointed as they desperately search for a start button.

Apple have proven that it is possible to succeed with different user interfaces for their desktop and mobile platforms. If Microsoft are trying to prove them wrong then that’s not a good business strategy. It’s clear to me that Microsoft truly believe they can make Metro work everywhere and take the Windows brand along for the ride. But as millions of users choose to stick with Windows 7 or bypass the Metro interface with hacks to take them to the Windows 8 Desktop (bypassing Metro) the less likely those users are to stick with Microsoft in the long term. Macs are similar enough to switch to without too many problems and more productivity software is written for the Mac with every passing moment as their marketshare grows.

Faced with lost revenue Microsoft may eventually fold and allow direct booting into the traditional Windows desktop or at least make it easier for users to do it. If they stick with Metro their momentum may well be enough to force enough people to relearn Windows the Metro way, but the sad question is just how many people will have abandoned Windows by then?

Microsofts arrogance that Metro everywhere will succeed where Windows everywhere failed is what’s wrong with Windows 8. Their choices are bold in the extreme and will lead them down a path where redemption will be bitterly fought and may well be a hopeless endeavour. Let’s see if fortune truly favours the bold.

The iOS Maps and Google Maps Debacle: Why Most People Don't Care

Big businesses are concerned with meeting the needs of the majority of their customers especially in the consumer electronics space. It is possible to serve niche markets with niche devices that are expensive but sell in smaller volumes and still walk away with profit but in general that’s a business most businesses don’t want to be in.

Through innovation and customer focus Apple have produced some amazing products recently including the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad and all are targeted at the mass consumer market. In order to pull it off they needed to rely on third parties to provide key elements that they originally lacked with partners such as Yahoo, Google, Skyhook Wireless and so on. Google in particular had two things Apple wanted: a good search engine and mapping data.

As Apples iOS software evolved (the operating system software that runs iPhones, iPod Touches and iPads) they added more and more features and began to gradually replace their third-party content with offerings of their own. As of iOS version 6, this included Googles Map information. They had decided to do this, one year before their contract with Google expired (it may well have been extended if they had wished to do so) however Google had placed restrictions on Apple such that they could not use turn by turn navigation or the ability to pivot and rotate a map through 360 degrees (Google only allowed use of its static images that couldn’t easily be rotated beyond the 0, 90, and 270 degrees on smaller iOS devices). This was despite the fact that Google themselves had already been providing those features on their own competing platform (Android) for over a year prior to this.

Apple had written the original Maps application in iOS and all that was Googles was the data behind it. For their own Maps offering in iOS6 Apple partnered with other third parties as well as developing their own information internally and produced an excellent Maps application. It did have a few omissions with no public transport information, no street view and many, many serious flaws with its newly obtained and generated map information. On the plus side it introduced a 3D fly-over through major cities around the world (not mine though) that Google later added to their own maps. Google had been developing Maps data for many years before Apple and had a substantial head start. In the months since its release Apple had plugged many of the map data holes and the service improves daily and will continue to improve until it equals or exceeds Googles offering for map data, points of interest and satellite imagery. Their fly-over option is still far superior to Googles offering on any platform but remains the only big feature Apple is ahead on.

Google yesterday released their own application written for iOS (download it from the App Store) that brings the big ticket items that are missing from Apple Maps back to iOS along with their own, more mature map data. In order to keep bookmarks however you will need a Google account and you must sign in first and contact locations aren’t available on either the iOS device or the Google account side. This lack of integration of contact and bookmark locations is one of the few missing pieces but in general, the Android Maps experience is now mostly available on iOS and the data is much better.

I’ve been spoiled over the years with Apples intuitive interfaces and Googles Maps interface is distinctly different from Apples offering. It took me about 30 minutes to figure out where street view was and the lack of bookmarking was a major pain. My city doesn’t get transit information nor does it get fly over but Apple have quickly fixed every bug I have reported with Maps in my area and their maps data is good enough for what I need. I will keep the Google Maps app for Street view perhaps but that is all.

Apple wanted to provide the best experience for their users and Google was holding them back. Their first offering, just like Google Maps many years ago, had serious holes in it but with Apples resources they are plugging those holes very quickly. The experience of using Apple Maps is still far superior to Google Maps in terms of user interface and if you don’t care about transit information or street view and there are few reasons to use Google Maps at all. With time Apple will add more features (likely in iOS 7) and their data will meet or exceed Googles. This is a certainty. In a few years we will be looking back wondering what the big fuss was all about.

The iPad Mini Fills in Apples Tablet Blind-Spot

This morning Apple announced the iPad Mini: a 7.9" screen device which is essentially an iPad 2 with a smaller screen. (For the nit-pickers yes it has LTE, Dual-Band WiFi and a Lightning connector but in terms of performance it’s the same CPU, same number of pixels on the screen and likely the same amount of memory as an iPad 2) With the WiFi version still the best seller for Apple the majority of buyers will look at the iPad Mini and think: $60AUD cheaper for a significantly smaller screen? When buying a tablet most users want the bigger screen as the experience is more immersive and for the additional money the iPad 2 is the winner in that respect.

The only reasons to buy an iPad Mini will be: easier to use for longer periods (as it is much lighter than an iPad 2) and more portable (though still not as portable as an iPod Touch/iPhone). The Mini essentially fills out the space between the iPod Touch (4") and iPad x (10") in Apples tablet line up. Originally Steve Jobs quite aggressively pronounced 7" tablets would be DOA (Dead on Arrival) on an earnings call in reference to Apples competitors at that time. Clearly he believed that the money didn’t lie there initially and had pushed ahead with a 10" tablet design. The truth was there were plenty of people that wanted  smaller tablets as evidenced by the sales of Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire tablets. Apple didn’t get it wrong - the 10" model is still the most popular tablet form factor in the world, but until now they have ignored a clearly significant slice of the tablet market.

People that are truly price sensitive will not buy the iPad Mini - they will stick with the Android alternatives. Many who wanted the iPad but couldn’t justify the $429AUD price tag will likely snap up an iPad Mini at $369AUD for a “it’s close enough” experience. In reality the iPad Mini is expensive* for what it is (compared to other iPad models) however the iPod Nano was considered to be in the same situation many years ago and still sold incredibly well.

Apple needed to make the iPad Mini to fill in its blind spot and now they have. Good for them and good for us.

• Clearly the incremental cost of a larger screen and case is not as significant as the core components (CPU, battery, camera, memory) make up the base cost of any iPad/iPod Touch device and set the minimum price it could be sold at.