RIM's Experience Woes

Rumors have been circulating for a while now that RIM is having trouble setting up their Blackberry Enterprise Server software to support their new QNX-driven devices. This doesn't surprise me as it's a symptom caused from a bigger issue: the experience isn't their primary concern. As RIM faces growing pains due to their OS software transition, they're not making the effort to shield their customers from the effects.

QNX devices are unable to get email, calendar or contact information. The customers suffer. When QNX is available for the Blackberry, there is no guarantee the existing apps will be available. Again, the customers suffer. How will existing customers react to their transition? What type of experience will new Blackberry users feel as they wait 9 months for apps to show up on the app store?

What exactly could RIM do in order to offset these problems?

1. The priority should have been to get the basics working flawlessly (email, calendar, address book). RIM should have focused on video and cancelled their purchasing of the 3rd-party video-editing software company. Communication takes priority over video editing.
2. You cannot put together a software dev team overnight and expect magic to happen. Developers who understand the Blackberry framework are an asset to the company. Laying off your existing devs to hire new ones? The folks in finance might see this as smart, but for the health of the company? It's bad.
3. Secure quality apps. Find the top app developers and offer incentives to produce QNX versions. Quality apps need to be available on the QNX platform. My favourite app on the BB was "BB Alerts". How ridiculous is it that RIM doesn't know whether this app will even exist?

I don't claim to understand the inner workings of a multi-billion dollar IT company, but from these seemingly minor incidents, I'm not even tempted to consider any RIM devices.

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.

Scaling strategies

One of the things that upset me when reading articles written by "social media experts" is how they look to established platforms, like Facebook, and derive strategic conclusions that only work for powerhouses like Facebook. Rarely will I find authors who take into account the size of a company.

A small web development studio creating simple scripts can be seen as an independent startup trying to provide frontend tools to the public. A large web development company, like Facebook, developing the Javascript behind the "Like" feature? They're not creating tools; they're creating a search engine.

With the successful proliferation of Facebook's "Like" feature on tens of thousands of websites, I'd say they now have a very rudimentary search engine which is driven by user promotion rather than (Google's) keyword ranking. Regardless, Google has some insanely smart people on their team. I'm waiting to see whether Google retaliates.

One for the other

Of all the things I’ve noticed about software development, it’s that branding and experience don’t always mix well together. Properly designed, well-written software is supposed to be seamless and non-intrusive. When I enter an equation into my calculator, I expect it to provide me with an answer; I don’t expect the calculator to constantly remind me that it is made by “Casio”.

This poses a serious problem because if the brand isn’t in the forefront of the users’ thoughts, how will they recognize it? On my brother’s computer, the antivirus software makes every attempt at reminding me that it is “Norton” and it is tirelessly working in the background. By being so blatantly intrusive, it acts to reinforce the brand and to reassure those who fear viruses.

Ironically, this over-branding is what makes the experience so counterproductive. Norton does a fantastic job at reminding users that the internet is a dangerous place, but this has a negative effect in that it helps reinforce the fallibility of Windows to its users. As a Windows user, I fear it. How is Microsoft supposed to provide a positive experience when its users don’t trust the product?

Second Life

I never understood the fascination with 3D as a means to provide users with an “immersive” experience; especially with a costly taxation on CPU resources. “Second Life” didn’t have any logical incentives to lure users. Yes, it’s a 3D world and yes, you can chat with people in this world, but what else? The 3D world was only available to PC users with specific hardware requirements and operating systems. Without it, this immersive world was a closed eco-system.

As bad as this may sound, I’m actually quite happy Second Life never popularized. If they did, could you imagine the software and hardware engineers trying port this world so that portable devices could access this virtual world? Shortened battery life, lack of processor strength, overheating, and an operating system overhead absorbing valued memory resources. I’m sure the engineer geniuses could make it happen, but should it be done?

This is the same stance I have with Adobe Flash on handheld devices. Several of my coworkers have openly stated that Flash works extremely well with cellular devices *provided* these devices have the “right” hardware. Ignoring the fact that our desktop Macs have been known to crash due to Flash, what exactly is being asked? Have a mouse-less handheld device attempt to provide a user a similar experience knowing that they’re looking at a 4” screen?

That sounds rather painful.

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.

Creating social networking sites

Several names come into mind when I think of online services offering developers the tools to "create" their own social networking sites from piggybacking off their framework(s). One which has been in the media lately is Ning. From my experience with them, their services and frameworks do seem to give developers the ability to do interesting things; but the question I have is why?

As of yet, I haven't heard of any recognizable brands (Nike, Reebok, Walmart, Coca-cola, etc) who have successfully created a site that has gone critical mass. Yet even with this fact, social networking sites are still in demand by clients who genuinely feel that owning a social networking site is a viable business opportunity which they should invest in; they want to be the next Facebook.

Far be it for me to say that social networking sites are a poor investment decision, but an interesting fact about the web: Ashton Kutcher has almost 5 million subscribers. He doesn't own a website, let alone a social networking site. And as far as I know, I don't recall any recognizable brands like Walmart having even 1 million subscribers (website, RSS feeds, Twitter feed or otherwise); let alone 5 Million.

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.

Font substitution, services & branding

I'm well aware of the different methods in replacing fonts on webpages because designers are always looking to add more tools to their design arsenal. sIFR has had limitations, but the recent methods such as cufón, typeface and Typekit have been gaining attention and I thought I'd mention some issues that are uniquely inherent about technical solutions involving 3rd party services such as Typekit.

Some immediate issues -- if their services go down:

1. How will this affect the client's site?
2. How will this affect the client's brand?

Relying upon any third party's services means your client's brand is susceptible to those services. I was on the Bank of Canada website when this error appeared. The service that provided BOC's date/exchange rates failed and produced an empty page with a horrible error message. Aside from a confusing message which a normal user would never understand, what should a user be thinking?

Not only does this error concern me, it doesn't make me want to trust BoC's online services nor does it give me faith in the BoC brand. There will always be a risk when dealing with external services, Javascript libraries or font-replacement services; the question is whether the gains offset the risks? After seeing this error, how much are you more willing to trust this online bank with your money?

Analytics prediction

It’s easy to recognize the importance of user data and the role analytics plays when trying to improve upon a product or service. The analytics package that I use quite often on projects is Omniture – recently purchased by Adobe – but if I were to guess, Facebook is aligning to become a direct competitor towards online analytics software.

Facebook is a goldmine when it comes to data-mining. Users are actively encouraged to synch their profiles with all valid and truthful data about themselves. Their personal, financial, entertainment and consumer relationships are all mapped out. FB's new tools, allowing other sites to access Facebook's "like" feature, is just another foot-in-the-door.

When you have hundreds of thousands of websites who have already integrated portions of Facebook’s code, bundling additional functionality (such as a Facebook analytics package) will be simple and ubiquitous. Just as much as the comic industry being fearful of the iPad, Omniture should be concerned about Facebook's future because it could directly compete with them.

Real-life gaming

In reference to my previous post about FourSquare and gaming, the presentation by Carnegie Mellon University Professor, Jesse Schell, is an amazing explanation of what he sees in store for our future. It’s scary. It’s plausible. It’s eminent.

When advertisers watched the Spielberg movie “Minority Report”, everyone seemed to agree that the future is about over-advertising. I don’t agree. In the future, people will become so immune to ads that there is no value in producing passive advertisements which people will ultimately ignore.

The future is interactive ads where people are encouraged to "play"; Schell has got it scarily right.

Crowd sourcing

The NYT’s article on “human flesh search engines” scares me in ways I don’t know how to describe. The idea of utilizing crowd sourcing (the act of getting individuals to perform tasks for an overall effect) mixed in with communist society and endorsing vigilantism is absolutely frightening. Only recently did I sign up for an account with FourSquare and the most immediate thing I could think of was the possibilities that crowd sourcing can produce.

Rather than pay or even coax individuals to rate/review/map a city’s business venues and locations, FourSquare makes it into a game with a rewarding system based on satisfying one’s ego: achievement “badges”. People don’t even realize they’re doing work because the “work” has been made into a game. If there is any type of predictions about the future, it is that all aspects of our lives will be made into games; it’s only a matter of time.

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.

Market buzzwords

In every generation, there will be buzzwords that catapult sales. Back in the 90s, it was "i" in lieu of the "iMacs". In Vancouver, we have a restaurant called "iCafe". What does it have to do with internet or web? It doesn't; not even in the slightest. Then came "virtual reality" where even tanning salons decided to get in on it with their "virtual reality" tanning booths. Then came the end of the millennia where everyone jumped onto the "y2k" bandwagon and a rash of businesses started up with "y2k" being part of their company name. Compu20000. iTravel2000.

Just recently, the "dot-two-point-oh" grabbed the attention of everyone and a string of marketing and advertising campaigns focused on "Web 2.0". The pessemist in me is waiting to see what new marketing buzzwords will come and captivate the general public but suffice to say: you can't escape it.

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.

Changing landscapes

Years ago, I helped my friends start up a small, local PC hardware business – they’re still around and doing well – and recently spoke with the initial team about the direction of the business. Over the past decade, computers have gotten so fast that it’s no longer a question of processing power. We don't need to use desktops to run software adequately.

Instead, the real question is how we use computers. We're no longer tethered to a desktop anymore so why is the assumption that we will continue to purchase desktops for home use?

Advertising and charity

There has been a number of different marketing and advertising agencies using charity as a means to gather impressions. Make no mistake; this is an extremely dangerous method of marketing. The most recent campaign I’ve seen consisted of a company offering to give families in Africa clean drinking water provided you join their Facebook group.

The question to ask is:

1.) Is your audience smart enough to differentiate advertising from charity?
2.) If they *are* smart enough, how will this affect the brand? Will such a campaign help tarnish it?

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)

Streaming media

Nintendo recently announced that they've partnered with NetFlix in order to stream on-demand movies from their Wii platform. I'm sure this deal with a lucrative one for Nintendo, but I can't help but think of it as an unsafe business move. With both Microsoft and Sony prepping to release their own motion-sensing peripherals, how will Nintendo stay competitive?

First and foremost, I would think that consoles need to be able to play games and play a large selection of games. I don't need my console to stream movies or produce a slideshow of my vacation photos or connect to the weather channel. I bought it because I want to play games. That said, what has Nintendo done to attract developers to their platform?

Both Sony and Microsoft have put a lot of time, effort and money into creating development tools and packages that give developers the ability to produce games. This is vital for a healthy development community. If there is a limited number of developers creating games for the Wii, there is a limited number of games.

And what is the value in buying a console when there aren't any good games for it?