Windows 8: Close, But No iOS

After reading this article from Daring Fireball we got the idea that Windows 8 is like that guy who is always modifying his old car. Sure, he has custom rims, tinted windows and monogrammed upholstery. But at the end of the day, he is still cruising around in a ’99 Celica.

While Windows 8 does offer some pretty nifty features- you can view two apps side by side, among other enhancements – the esthetically pleasing demeanor doesn’t equal flawless functionality. Quoting from the page:

I think it’s a fundamentally flawed idea for Microsoft to build their next-generation OS and interface on top of the existing Windows. The idea is that you get the new stuff right alongside Windows as we know it. Microsoft is obviously trying to learn from Apple, but they clearly don’t understand why the iPad runs iOS, and not Mac OS X.

So while Microsoft has built a visually appealing mobile operating system (and it is pretty – see the video below), they tacked this new UI on top of Windows. The result is a potentially muddled experience that aims to power tablets, laptops and desktop PCs. Others have wondered if this new OS is capable of powering both desktops and slates.

Microsoft needs to understand that a great touch OS is defined by restraint and streamlined elegance, while a desktop OS is defined by thoroughness and depth. It is interesting to see how the UI has progressed, but in failing to differentiate mobile from desktop user needs, Microsoft may have just put new spinners on an old Toyota.

Why Usability Matters: A Nokia Post Mortem

Andrew Orlowski has a detailed article in The Register that looks at why Nokia’s mobile ecosystem failed. It wasn’t because their Symbian software was faulty (the article states that Symbian devices actually performed better than others in terms of signal strength and battery life). According to the article, Symbian died because it lacked usability. Quoting from the page:

Nokia’s phones were considered uncompetitive in the marketplace, because new products from Apple and Android had raised the bar for ease of use, particularly for new data applications, and Nokia’s user experience was awful.

The UX matters: it’s the first thing potential customers see when a friend passes them their new phone in the pub. A well-designed UX is consistent, forgiving and rewarding; Nokia’s user experience was inconsistent, unforgiving and hostile.

This last point is especially salient. Apple’s focus on usability and user experience is one of the reasons they have been so successful with devices like the iPad 2. In order to succeed, device makers must deliver well designed products with great UX.

GigaOm delivered their own Symbian autopsy in which ex-Nokia designer Adam Greenfield stated that the cause of death was lack of taste. “There’s nobody with any taste in the decision-making echelons at Nokia,” he writes. Steve Jobs has made similar comments about a lack of taste in the tech sector in the past. Tasteful design and desirable user experiences matter more to consumers than hardware specs and processing power.

While UX is certainly a critical component of successful product development, we see another key factor that led to Nokia abandoning their mobile ecosystem – the rise of 3G and constantly connected devices. In our opinion, Nokia (and Palm, for that matter) got into trouble early in the 3G adoption curve. The company built a bevy of brilliant feature phones up until the 3G paradigm shift, but once technologies like email and mobile web arrived, Nokia failed to adapt in the ways consumers wanted. Its operating system could not handle these newer features and the entire platform stagnated. Eventually, the OS fell too far behind the rest of the market to save it. When people examine the end of the Symbian ecosystem, usability issues will certainly come up.

Great usability must work in concert with a nimble, adaptive corporation that can respond to (and hopefully initiate) tech trends. And this – by the way – is how Apple could one day fail. If a paradigm shift occurs outside Cupertino and Apple fails to pay attention to it, they could move quickly from market leader to tech laggard. As a final aside, placing widgets on homescreens is not something we consider a paradigm shift (hint, hint, Android). When a real computing sea change happens, the winners will be the companies that recognize it and react swiftly.

Why the HP TouchPad, BlackBerry PlayBook and Motorola Xoom are DOA

I was recently asked to do a Xoom review and I have to say that I am pained just picking up the device. And apparently I am not the only one who feels this way. The Motorola Xoom recently launched to tepid reviews and slow sales. Engadget said “there isn’t much here for consumers right now,” and there are already rumors that Motorola is cutting production of their Android tablet.

When the HP TouchPad and BlackBerry PlayBook are released, there is no doubt in my mind that they will suffer the same fate as the Xoom: lackluster sales, middling reviews and generally regarded as also-rans in the tablet kingdom.

Since the iPad 2 came out (and sold a million units over a single weekend), the writing is officially on the wall. The tablet space is Apple’s game to lose.

So here is the message for HP, RIM and every other company developing a tablet computer right now: stop the presses. There is nothing to be gained by releasing these devices as they are now. Unless these firms have extremely small unit goals for their devices (which they don’t), they need to reevaluate how they can compete in the tablet space. And they won’t compete by launching tablets that look kind of like the iPad that are aimed at current iPad owners. Apple competitors need to innovate and differentiate themselves if they want to win.

Let’s be clear. There are markets for these products – I outlined a few of them in this earlier tablet post:

Here are a few sectors that present real opportunities for non-Apple tablets.

Medicine

We are quickly approaching a world where medical records and information will be displayed on tablets. Windows and Android devices could thrive in this vertical.

The Military

Someone is going to sell the Pentagon a lot of secure, battle ready tablets. Smart manufacturers should keep an eye on this space.

Kids

A “cheap,” sturdy tablet for kids is a no-brainer. Part coloring book, part media player, part game center- think LeapPad on steroids.

It’s time that the consumer electronics industry takes a hard look at the iPad’s strengths and comes up with a few interesting alternatives for these specific market segments.

Instapaper founder Marco Arment has a post that talks about the iPad abandoning office productivity apps and moving more toward “casual media creation.” Since the iPad’s role “doesn’t include office productivity for most of us,” there is an opportunity for an enterprise tablet built for business needs. If someone other than Apple made an amazing office tablet, people would love it- they would just love it differently than they love the iPad. HP could own this enterprise tablet market. It isn’t hard to imagine a scenario where people absolutely adore their HP work tablet. In order to thrive, though, these devices must be inspiring, not merely functional. There is an opportunity here to connect with people and improve their working lives (and maybe surprise and delight them in the process). HP (and others) just need to seize it.

RIM, HP, Motorola and others can’t deliver products that are a little better than the iPad. Their offerings need to be far superior or far different to the iPad in order to succeed. They need to create a user experience that people love. The fact is that the PlayBook and TouchPad – as they are designed and marketed now – won’t capture people’s emotions the way the iPad has. Which is why they should not be brought to market.

10 Rules for Connected TV App Development

We recently ran across the following presentation that covers “10 Rules for Connected TV App Development.”

Only Apple Could Make The iPad 2

In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Spock recalls an old Vulcan proverb that says, “Only Nixon could go to China.”

I firmly believe that only Apple could deliver a device like the iPad 2. Their focus on usability and user experiences ushered in a post-PC paradigm in computing. The Cupertino company defined the tablet space and is expected to ship 30 million tablets in 2011. There is a reason other tablet makers don’t have Apple’s market share- their tablets just don’t measure up at this time.

I recently reviewed the Motorola Xoom, and in the first few seconds of interacting with it, it became clear that it was not an iPad. From the moment I picked it up, it just felt wrong. The first time use feels cumbersome and even languid. Motorola’s tablet asks me for account information – user names and passwords – before I can do anything with the device. When I pick up the iPad, it works – quickly and effortlessly. There are other differences, as well. Stability, for one. As the venerable Walt Mossberg puts it in his iPad 2 review: “[The iPad] never crashed in my tests, unlike every Android tablet I’ve tested.” Then, of course, there is the price point ($800? Really?). And finally, the news that Xoom owners will have to send their devices back to the manufacturer for a 4G upgrade. Quoting Dvice:

Poor Motorola Xoom. We all wanted to love you, but you may have popped out of the oven a bit too soon. If you want 4G LTE on your shiny new Xoom (goes on sale today), you’ll have to return it back to Motorola for the upgrade.

This debacle is more Motorola’s fault than Android’s. Someone at Motorola said that this tablet was ready to ship when it clearly wasn’t. Who is that guy? What motivated his decision making? At what point did making customers return their product for an upgrade seem like a good idea?

Hardware makers must innovate tablet technology while delivering fun, functional user experiences. The reviewers and consumers have weighed in and at this point only Apple can deliver a tablet worth waiting in line for.

Is Your Cell Phone Making You 48% Dumber?

Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox has a well written piece up today that looks at mobile usability. The post examines a recent article in the International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction that studies how screen size affects reading comprehension. The article found that “when reading from an iPhone-sized screen, comprehension scores for complex Web content were 48% of desktop monitor scores.” That means it is twice as hard to understand what you are reading on a mobile display.

A smaller screen hurts comprehension for two reasons:

* Users can see less at any given time. Thus, users must rely on their highly fallible memory when trying to understand anything that’s not fully explained within the viewable space.
o Less context = less understanding
* Users must move around the page more, using scrolling to refer to other parts of the content instead of simply glancing at the text. Scrolling introduces 3 problems:
o It takes more time, thus degrading memory.
o It diverts attention from the problem at hand to the secondary task of locating the required part of the page.
o It introduces the new problem of reacquiring the previous location on the page.

The study, performed by R.I. Singh and associates, highlights the need for mobile application developers to deliver clear, simple content to their users. Both the content and the UI must help people understand key messages of the application.

Why You Won’t Beat the iPad by Building an . . . iPad

Hey, you look familiar.

If anyone really wants to compete in the tablet space, they can’t do it by creating products that look and feel almost exactly like Apple’s iPad. We’ve blogged on this topic before, but it bears repeating here. Chasing the iPad’s form factor, feature set and price point will not differentiate PC tablets or attract new customers (with the rare exception of the Apple haters, which isn’t really an exciting market to fight about). If anything, we can easily see the decision to copy the iPad driving even more consumers to Apple’s tablet.

The three most prominent tablets in the news right now (that aren’t the iPad) are the Blackberry Playbook, the Motorola Xoom and the recently announced HP TouchPad. What do these tablets all have in common?

They all feature interfaces that look the same as iOS.

It doesn’t matter if competing tablets run Android, Windows or webOS. They all run operating systems that look like the iPad’s iOS. Sure, some tech enthusiasts (read, fanboys) will line up for the next version of Android, but for the vast majority of consumers, all the tablets look the same. This is a disadvantage for iPad competitors. They have failed to innovate and differentiate themselves.

They all have a form factor that mimics the iPad.

All of these tablets look like the iPad (sure, the Samsung Galaxy is a bit smaller, but the device hasn’t sold all that well and suffers from a 16% return rate). For the most part, other tablets are following Apple’s lead. The TouchPad even has the same one-button design. Engadget writes that it “is shaped almost exactly like the iPad.” The Xoom and the Playbook also have a physical profile that mirrors Apple’s original. Where is the innovation from Apple competitors? Where is the tablet that has ten physical buttons (hyperbole here, to be sure, but why only one button)? Where is the tablet that is easier to hold? Where is the slide out keyboard? There are so many ways to create a unique tablet experience, but most tablets today are content with imitating the iPad.

They all have prices similar to the iPad.

Almost all of the competing tablets have price points near the iPad’s (except the crafty Xoom which costs $200 more than an iPad). The failure to differentiate on price is a de facto win for Apple. Quoting from my earlier blog post:

No consumer will want to spend more than $500 for a Windows or Android tablet. At that price point, they will simply purchase the iPad. It is desirable, it is stable, it is fun and has a cultural allure attached to it thanks to Apple’s brilliant design and marketing.

Even pricing below $500 is problematic for Apple competitors. A $300 tablet is just close enough to the iPad’s price that people will probably wind up mowing a few extra lawns or clocking some overtime to get their hands on the genuine article from Cupertino.

They all have the same target customer as the iPad.

Sure, there are a few specialized fields where non-iPads can grow rapidly (think medicine, defense, kids tabs, and enterprise solutions). But apart from those arenas, it seems that every tablet coming out from PC makers is competing directly for potential iPad customers.

They have all announced products that haven’t shipped yet.

There is almost no upside to announcing products that are not complete. All you wind up doing is telegraphing your punches and revealing your plans to the industry at large. And, as if that wasn’t bad enough, these other companies have announced their unreleased tablets prior to the iPad 2 shipping. Has no one read The Art of War?

“The spot where we intend to fight must not be made known.”

-Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Why would a company move its “army” (read, tablet) into field when it knows the enemy (read, iPad 2) is coming very shortly? What advantage is there in telling the world about a new device that isn’t quite ready yet and will ship sometime soon? There is almost no discernible advantage. In general, do not share your product road map, and do not announce products publicly until they are ready to ship.

Conclusion

Hardware manufacturers will not erode iPad’s first mover market position by copying the iPad. In order to gain market share (and mind share) tablets need to show people something they haven’t seen before. Where are the tablets that let you divide the screen into multiple sections and run different programs in each “zone”? Why do all the other choices seem to be copies of the original iPad? Given the explosive growth of the iPad, other tablets need to innovate, not imitate.

Fortune: How Steve Jobs Gets Things Done

We ran across this interesting Fortune article today that examines how Apple CEO Steve Jobs gets things done.

He doesn’t just develop new products; he changes games. The iPod, iPhone, and iPad, along with iTunes, have created massive disruptions, forcing players in the music and telecom industries—among others—to change their business models.

The piece is well worth a read. It examines how Jobs is able to create successful consumer tech again and again during his “second act” at Apple. While there are a number of factors at play here, the article pays particular attention to how Jobs focuses on product design and User Experience.

He views a product as an experience, not just an object. He can visualize what it will look and feel like, and can then execute it to near perfection. He makes advanced technology friendly to consumers based on his uncommon talent for connecting it to user experience. He has an innate feel for design, convenience, simplicity, and elegance in the product.

Fortune also points to his ability to manage people, make critical decisions and identify new opportunities as contributing factors to Apple’s meteoric rise in the past 12 years.

Steve Jobs didn’t invent phones, MP3 Players or Tablet PCs; he made them simple to use and desirable by focusing on how hardware and software design relate to the user experience. Steve Jobs gets things done by demanding the best from his people and building technologies that people desire.

5 Technologies That Have Impeccable Taste

As we wrote in an earlier blog post, consumers care less about the technological muscle “under the hood” of new gadgets than they do about functionality and simplicity of those products. Added bells and whistles do not make the difference between winning and losing technologies. Rich feature sets are not the deciding factor between amazing products that consumers love to use and sub-par products that users abandon quickly.

Taste is the difference between great products and disposable, disappointing tech.

Anyone can grab a bunch of parts from an overseas warehouse and deliver a functional product. Given enough resources, they can even deliver cutting edge technology to the masses. Lifestyle technology is easily made: a new phone, a cool gadget, a computing device.

The winners of the consumer electronics industry really differentiate themselves from the herd of also-rans in the taste department. Tasteful tech is beautiful. It is functional. It is simple design that delivers an intuitive, meaningful experience to the user.

Taste is not useless innovation (does my phone really need a kickstand? Answer: No!). Taste is, well . . . tasteful.

Here are 5 examples of our favorite tasteful technologies.

5 – XBOX 360

The XBOX represents one of the most successful convergence devices produced to date. Heck, it might be the only successful convergence device produced to date. Microsoft’s second take at home gaming fuses internet, music, TV and movies. The thing plays DVDs and also streams online content. Never mind the red ring of death (although I’m still bitter about spending $99 bucks on that), this machine is gorgeous. It is beautiful to look at and the user interface is clean and simple. I mean, even the box is beautiful. The new Kinect opens new, interactive experiences for living room entertainment. When form and function combine in a simple to use package, there is a clear level of taste present behind the technology.

4 – RED by Virgin America

Virgin America delivers tasteful technology before, during and after the flight.

Even before they board the plane, passengers can check in to their flight and print their boarding passes online- no more waiting in a ticketing line before waiting in a security line before waiting at the gate. Eliminating redundancies is elegant and appreciated.

Once on board, travelers experience RED, a state of the art media environment embedded into the seat. Every passenger has an individual media remote (complete with QWERTY inputs) and a personal viewing screen (that responds to touch). Passengers order in flight meals, watch live satellite television, chat online and purchase media from their seats. Google maps display the position of the flight in real time. Even the safety video is entertaining. The overall experience is personalized, novel and fun.

3 – Bose

Bose has a reputation for delivering great product design with their quality speakers (we know there are those who would pooh pooh Bose and say you need to have X Brand to have good sound. We are not getting into that debate right now). There is no doubt that the company understands consumer audio. But they also understand that taste, not tech, can be the difference maker when consumers decide what to purchase. Just look at their QuietComfort 3 Accoustic Noise Canceling Headphones.

They look more like ICBM launch keys than headphones. From the refined finishes to the museum-like presentation, the taste level that Bose brings to the headphone space is one of the reasons these headphones command a $350 price point in a space where people can purchase ear buds for around ten dollars. You can’t walk through a first class cabin without seeing at least one person wearing these things.

2 – Jawbone

Ever since its launch in 2006, Jawbone has set the standard for design excellence in the Bluetooth headset arena. Their earpieces are gorgeous. Their packaging sparks an emotional reaction in individuals. Even their website is beautiful.

Great tech and tasteful design attract sophisticated customers who don’t want a Plantronics headset for less than the cost of a sandwich.

1 – Sonos

For full disclosure, Sonos has – at multiple times – been a Stage Two client.

Sonos delivers multi-room music wirelessly. Did you catch that? A complete music solution that is scalable, customizable, beautiful and wireless. Sonos delivers ease of use, simple set up and controls – and – oh yeah, no wires harshing your feng shui. You might think this is a small thing, but when I was remodeling my house, I designed it with Sonos in mind. (Sonos is also the only technology in my house that my wife appreciates and uses on a regular basis).

Sonos has garnered many positive write-ups from tech reviewers. That is expected. What is amazing is that the simplicity and functionality also hooked one reviewer’s wife:

I find it very hard to send the Sonos review units back.  Even my wife, who normally doesn’t get sucked in by tech has said she wants to buy a Sonos system…so we’ll be whipping out our credit card soon, I imagine.

And that is probably the best example of why it is important to craft tasteful technologies. Technophiles will appreciate robust technical solutions because they love technology. When gadgets display taste, however, average users and non-users take notice, become believers and adopt these products into their lives.

What are some of your examples of tasteful technology? Let us know in the comments.

Microsoft Kinect: A Usability Review

We recently ran across this well written piece over at Alertbox that looks at the ten foot gestural UI of the Kinect.

Kinect, the XBOX peripheral that lets users control games with their bodies, breaks new ground in ten foot usability.

Despite having few established usability standards (this makes sense for a new product) the article points out the many strong points of the device. Quoting from the piece:

Kinect has many great design elements that clearly show that the team (a) knows usability, (b) did user testing, and (c) had management support to prioritize usability improvements, even when they required extra development work.

This makes sense; the only reason for Kinect to exist in the first place is as a casual game system that’s easy to pick up. It’s not for hardcore gamers who are willing to suffer through contorted combos of button-pushes to make their game characters do moves. Kinect is targeted at the much broader masses, which requires strong usability. (Indeed, the game sold 4 M units during the first 6 weeks after launch.)

The article then compares the 10 foot usability with the iPad’s 2′ usability.

While Gestural UI is not a viable path for corporations, governments or NPO’s, the piece concludes that the device makes a strong showing in game usability.