Smart

My coworker and I were discussing software development over some beers and the question arose to whether we should be building work intended on catering to novice users and by doing so, are we helping to create a “dumber” internet. There are two examples to validate both sides:

1. Back in the day of the VCR, very few people ever “programmed” these devices to record TV shows due to the complexity of the procedure. When TIVO simplified the process, it changed the way people watched television because they no longer felt the need to watch in real-time.
2. One of the reasons for creating so many restrictions with the iPhone is to ensure that “advanced” features won’t complicate the device. Can you send multiple photos in a single email? No. Why? Because Apple feels this may be confusing. This in itself is limiting because sometimes the features aren’t really advanced at all.

The most obvious answer would be to find a sweet spot in-between the two, but how exactly does one go about doing this?

Innovation over features

I’ve seen a number of different startups and businesses that focus on bookmark management for browsers. Most recognizable is “Instapaper” which offers a combination of both managing your browser’s bookmarks and viewing pages offline on different platforms. These startups had always tread on very thin ice.

The idea of a “persistent desktop” isn’t new but it’s slowly becoming a reality. The concept is to make your desktop exist in the cloud so that no piece of hardware or platform can dictate which desktop takes precedence. “Synching” your bookmarks had always been just an interim solution to a greater debacle.

As cloud computing ramps up with Apple’s iCloud, these startups will slowly die off because their service offerings were never meant to be a permanent fixture. Did Apple “steal” these features from Instapaper? No. The features that Instapaper offered were a quick-fix until technology caught up with the real idea.

Taxonomy

Since I come from a background of several different cultures, it shouldn't be any surprise that the music I listen to and the films I see aren't necessarily isolated to North American media. My iTunes has an array of music spanning North America, Europe and Asia. From my experience with iTunes, there doesn't seem to be any simply way of organizing my media based on my chosen preferences.

I have jazz music performed by Taiwanese artists. I have pop music from Hong Kong, Hiphop in Korean, and even triphop where the lyrics are a mixture of Japanese and French. iTunes will only allow the music to be categorized into one "genre". How silly is that? Is it possible to organize the film "The Dark Knight" into just one category? Science fiction? Suspense? Crime? Drama?

At the moment, there are independent taxonomy projects on the web where groups of developers are forming standards that can allow developers to create software which will easily talk to each other. iTunes hasn't changed much in terms of features but I'm hoping Apple will consider giving users the ability to organize their collected media.

Adobe or Apple?

It's inevitable that our production team has divided opinions on the Adobe and Apple issue over Flash and its legitimacy in mobile browsing. The Flash developers are sided with Adobe -- mainly because Flash is their livelihood -- while Javascript developers are sided with Apple since we don't rely on Flash. Both Adobe and Apple are claiming their platforms are "more open" than the other but I will try to make my argument based on personal experience.

After working with the Nintendo Wii and experiencing first hand the difficulties in developing for such a platform, I was utterly frustrated by the lack of support provided by both Nintendo and Adobe; there is NO support. Does Flash work on the Nintendo Wii? Yes. Does it work well? No. Were there a lot of problems? YES. Did Adobe fix those problems? Some, but only YEARS after Flash was available for the Wii. Are there still problems? Yes, absolutely.

Both parties are claiming how their platforms "should be considered" as open; which really isn't "open" at all. The goals of open standards are not the same as those for profit-generating businesses. It is currently not in Adobe's best profit-generating interests to fix their issues on the Nintendo Wii so the platform has been left broken. As a result, the developers are left to find web solutions for clients who have been assured by Nintendo and Apple that "Flash works on the Wii"; which it doesn't.

Do I want a similar fate for other mobile devices? Absolutely not.

The grapevine

This morning, the media outlets were all blasting how Apple had been secretly creating their own "Flash alternative" as a means to circumvent their reliance on Adobe products on their platform. I only started reading up on it when someone mentioned "Gianduia".

Apple's Gianduia project is not new. It has been around for about a year and was never a "Flash alternative". It's a framework meant as a tool to assist web developers in building AJAX-driven, rich internet applications. Had these reporters investigated further, they would have uncovered the inaccuracies of the headlines. This isn't journalism; this is gossip. Facts were not checked before publishing.

This is a frightening approach at how media outlets are reporting information; essentially just writing about other writers' articles. There has been a longstanding debate on whether bloggers should be classified as journalists and thus protected by the legislation meant for journalists. This is a prime example against it.

Comic books

Mauricio, a person whom I've worked with over the past three years, illustrates his own comic books. There are only a handful of people in the office who have an appreciation for this medium but it has been quite unanimous how we look at Marvel's decision on producing comic books for the Apple iPad. Some insights:

1. Comics will not require paper; thus the sale of a comic will not require such a drastic overhead.
2. Marvel is cutting out the middle-men. When you buy comics, you are buying directly from Marvel/Apple.
3. Digital copies hold no value.
4. Comic book stores who hold tonnes of back-issues will cease to exist. Why would they be around when Marvel can sell you a digital print?
5. Comic books will cost more. Yes, more. Graphic novels were the comic industry's way of creating books with their comics. With the iPad, there is no need. You won't have the ability to purchase a graphic novel, you'll simply need to purchase each and every individual comic.
6. Those who "collect" comics will cease. As stated above, digital copies will rule and if so, what value is there for comics if a digital copy is always available?

The first issue of Batman or Superman will always retain some sort of monetary value, but this is only true for this generation. The next generation of kids will become exposed to a world where consumable media is disposable. There is no value in collecting digital copies. How we value and commoditize comics will change in the next few years and I will state the obvious: local comic stores will start shutting down because of it.

This is a perfect example of business disruption; those who don't maintain an understanding of where technology is headed will be in for a shocking realization when their business strategy suddenly becomes obsolete.

Gateway drug

The Apple iPod. I keep telling my PC-loving friends that Apple is penetrating the PC market because they have tiny "gateway drug" types of technology that encourages a user to try using Apple products. Those who don't own MP3 players will more likely try out the iPod. Those who own an iPod will more likely try out the iPhone. Those who try out the iPhone will more likely try out a Mac Mini.

PC users who mock Apple's resilience needs to wake up: They have a product out there that is perfect for you and after the first hit, you'll probably come back for more.

iPad

There has been talk about Apple’s new iPad where a lot of the grief comes from the fact that the device doesn’t support Adobe Flash. If I’m not mistaken, I believe everyone already recognizes that this device is meant only for consumption. It is a media consumption device that is not meant to produce media. This is why so many people are upset at Apple’s stance against Flash; it is an integral part of surfing the internet. That said, Flash is a plugin (read: “app”) whose features cannot be approved or disapproved by Apple. As it stands, Flash can do too many things and in a negative way for Apple.

• Users could play free Flash-based games rather than pay for them.
• Developers could build apps in Flash rather than on the iPhone platform.
• Apple cannot regulate the type of apps you use if these apps are Flash and located on a web page.
• Apple cannot regulate what new features Adobe decides to add into Flash.
• Flash can theoretically circumvent some iPhone/iPod/iPad security features.
• Flash developers could create interfaces that mimic and/or confuse –even trick—users.
• Flash is processor-intensive and might affect a user’s experience on the device.

Apple’s decision to ban Adobe Flash is definitely controversial. However, as a business and technical decision, it’s one that has been thought out very thoroughly. There are a lot of intelligent people at Apple and these decisions weren't made on a whim. Adobe, as with the rest of Apple users, can argue this out, the fact still remains: Flash can do too many things that can negative affect the iPhone experience.

(BTW, I still love my Blackberry)

Forgiveness

While chatting with one of the interaction architects at work, he brought upon a topic I have to agree with. Users are very much willing to "forgive" usability mistakes under certain circumstances. For example, when Apple came out with the "puck mouse" back in the late 90s, advanced computer users hated it. Whenever a user placed their hand down on the mouse, they would need to stop working and look at the mouse in order to determine the orientation.

Round mice are a design flaw.

However, Apple users being the enthusiasts they are, willingly forgave Apple because they have a lot of appreciation for the brand. I find this to be a common theme. People are willing to overlook and forgive mistakes when there is a pre-existing emotional attachment to the product or brand. iPhone's initial lack of MMS? Apple iTV? Forgiving is what Apple users do.