For the last 2 hours, I have been asking people to sell me on the iPad, the tablet computer Apple launched this morning a couple blocks away from the GIPS office. No one has succeeded. I had to ask people to do this because Steve Jobs sure as heck didn’t. When I first heard about the iPad, I didn’t really know what it did, and I am still not entirely sure why someone would want it. According to Jobs, the iPad “is so much more intimate than a laptop, and it’s so much more capable than a smartphone with its gorgeous screen”. More “intimate”? What does that even mean? The only thing that quote tells me is that Jobs wants to make out with the iPad. I know what it isn’t (a smartphone or laptop) but don’t know what it is. Put simply, what problem that I currently have does the iPad solve? I asked my dad what he thought, and he put it very nicely; “My sense is it’s a solution looking for a problem.”  

Let’s back up and try to figure this out. I asked my coworker, Larry, to sell me. He started with the same approach as Jobs. “It’s more than a smartphone,” he said.  “All right,” I said, “so you can make calls from it? Is it supposed to replace my phone?” “No, it’s too big. It would be silly to make calls with it. It wouldn’t replace your phone” he said.

Ok, stop right there. If the iPad will not replace my smartphone, and the only features it shares with a phone are ones a smartphone also shares with a PC, stop comparing it to a smartphone. I am sure the iPad is also more capable than a USB memory stick, but since the iPad does not compete directly, or even indirectly, with a USB stick, a comparison between the two is irrelevant. Comparing the iPad to a smartphone confuses things.

So, now that we know we can ignore any comparison to a smartphone, and I still don’t know what unique need it fills, let’s focus on why the iPad is a better alternative to a laptop. This is the only approach that will convince me the iPad is worth its $500-$800 price tag. Since no one else has done this yet, let me try to convince myself. Here we go.

The iPad makes a great alternative to a laptop. First, it is smaller and more portable than a laptop. Yes, that is nice. Second, has a larger screen than a netbook, which means it is great for watching movies and browsing the web. Good, I like that. Third, just like your laptop, it runs word processing, spreadsheet and presentation programs with Apple’s iWork suite. Excellent! I need those. Wow, I am really selling myself on this. So, since the iPad is great for multimedia entertainment, it must have a pretty large hard drive to hold all those movies I will watch, and all the music I want to listen to. Well, kind of. The cheapest model has 16GB of Flash memory, but the $699 model has 64GB. Ok. That’s a little pricey, but I am sure I can store all those files on an external drive and just take what I need with me. Maybe, but you would probably need a PC to do that, since the iPad doesn’t have a USB port. Oh. I thought I was trying to replace my PC. All right. I guess I can figure out how to get by with that much storage. Well, I bet the iPad is great at all the basic productivity tasks if I need to take work home or on the road with me. I can easily work on all those spreadsheets and presentations when I am on the go. Maybe. But the touch screen and lack of a keyboard and mouse might make that difficult. Oh, yeah. It might be hard to get work done without those things. You can get a separate keyboard and mouse. Right, though that kind of kills the idea of portability. Ok, well I bet it will be great for sharing photos. Yeah, except you need a PC for that. Oh, right. No USB port. Or memory card reader. Oh. Hmmm. So, what would I use this for? It is great for surfing the web! Right. Tell me again how it is better than a smartphone.

So, it turns out the heavily rumored Google phone  exists, but there is much we still don’t know. I read a good piece this morning that covers the topic quite nicely, but here are what I consider the biggest unanswered questions:

1)      Can the Google phone be successful without carrier assistance? The current phone handed out to Google employees is unlocked. Most of the rumors around the phone seem to indicate that will continue to be the case. If this is true, it begs the question of how successful a phone can be that, according to Om Malik, will most likely cost $400-$600. American consumers are accustomed to buying subsidized phones bundled with service through a major carrier. While the overall cost of the Google phone might be comparable to or even cheaper than other smartphones when one considers the 2 year service contracts they usually come with, the large upfront cost will still require a major paradigm shift for people used to a $100-$200 price tag.

 2)      How will Motorola and other manufacturers of Android phones react to what appears to be a competitive offering from a current partner, and how will the move impact Android’s market share? I have said that I think the open approach Google had been following until now would prove more successful than Apple’s closed model of bundling hardware and software. Malik disagrees, comparing the Google phone launch with Microsoft’s unsuccessful strategy of competing with the iPod. He claims Microsoft rested on their laurels and launched the Zune too late in the game, and that Google needs to aggressively go after the iPhone before it gobbles up too much market share. However, I think the market for mobile devices is more closely related to the PC market than the MP3 player market. As great as the iPod is, it is an incredibly simple device. At its core, it is just a hard drive with a media player. The growth of the smartphone market can largely be attributed to the kind of functionality (web browsing, email, social networking, applications) that is typically reserved for more advanced devices like PCs. While Apple has been successful in that market, they are dwarfed by Microsoft in terms of the number of end users, largely due to Microsoft’s strategy of sticking to what they do best (software) and offering it on a variety of hardware platforms. In one sense the Google phone may be even more open if it remains unlocked because users can take it to any provider they like. In addition, this design should make it easier for developers to create apps, encouraging the growth of the Android Marketplace. However, I was hoping to see a variety of Android devices continue to proliferate. Google may still choose to offer their OS on multiple phones, but their latest move seems to be a step away from that strategy.

Speaking of carriers, there was an interesting article in the New York Times today about the impact of the iPhone on AT&T’s network.  You can read it for yourself, but the gist is that the iPhone’s poor reception may actually have more to do with the device than network capacity.

A few months ago, I wrote a post about my struggle to find a decent mobile phone. My conclusion was that I liked the iPhone’s features, but the lack of a full keyboard was a major inhibitor, and I didn’t like the religion that surrounds Apple products. So I continued with my Blackberry Curve in no hurry to get a new phone. Then a few weeks ago, I saw the first Droid commercial and knew there was a good chance I would end up buying it. Well, as fate would have it, the day after the Droid was released, my Blackberry decided to stop receiving SMS and emails. You can guess how this story ends.

Now, I could do an in-depth analysis of the phone and all its features, but there are hundreds of blogs and news articles that have already covered that ground. Let’s just say, I like the Droid. Its way better than my old Blackberry, but isn’t perfect (note to self: remember to ask if a phone will work outside the US before you buy one). However, I have been amazed at how engaged people are when they notice that I have a Droid. I have had dozens of conversations in the last couple weeks about the phone. People want to know how I like it, and especially how it compares to the iPhone. It is this last point that I find most interesting.

Right after I got the Droid, the developer of the iPhone Facebook app announced he was leaving that project due to the cumbersome App Store approval process. That same week, while I was struggling with what I can only guess was walking pneumonia, I read a piece in SF Weekly about the founders of Pystar, a company which sells low-cost computers pre-loaded with the Mac OS, and their legal battles with Apple. These two stories, combined with the consistent refrain from iPhone enthusiasts about the number of apps available through iTunes, made me realize how vulnerable the iPhone may be to competition.

As it stands, the iPhone is the unquestioned popular leader in the smartphone market (though last I checked it still trailed Blackberry). However, is it possible that Apple’s iPhone strategy could yield results similar to those for personal computers? Mac, no doubt, has carved out a very nice niche for itself. However, it still only accounts for just over 5%  of the PC market. Macs are very nice computers, but they are expensive and, Pystar aside, you can only get the MAC OS on an Apple computer. Will Android’s more open business model, where you can theoretically run the Android OS on any phone, over any network, prove more successful? Will iPhone’s supposed advantage in 3^rd party apps disappear as developers realize they don’t have to go through a long and possibly arbitrary approval process to get their apps on Android? Obviously only time will tell, but from what I have seen, Android seems well positioned to take over as leader in the smartphone market.

It has been a while since I posted anything. Since I am located in Sweden, not much happens during the summer except vacations. But as summer winds down, I am back in the saddle. While I was out, a number of interesting news stories broke. The rest of the world moves along. 

Perhaps the biggest news involves the first major customer GIPS ever signed.  In the midst of Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Nortel has been selling off its major business units, and today, their CEO, Mike Zafirovski left his post. Given that heavyweights like Ericsson, Nokia, and Avaya have been the buyers so far, it looks like Nortel had some pretty solid stuff. It will be interesting to see how the new carrier-centric Nortel will perform, but I think they will be just fine.

The continuing saga involving Google Voice, Apple, and AT&T is also intriguing. In one sense, I think the developments are a positive sign because they signal a new approach to voice communication. Any resistance to these kinds of applications is just a sign of growing pains from old institutions trying to adjust to a new paradigm. From GIPS’ perspective, the continued innovation in the mobile VoIP market can only be a good thing, and should lead to some technological progress in the long term.

These are just a couple examples of interesting stuff that has been happening in the last month or so. I guess it just goes to show you how quickly things move in the modern world.

Last week in the US, the FCC took notice of Apple’s (and maybe AT&T’s) refusal to approve Google Voice for distribution on the iPhone App Store. In individual letters to the three aforementioned technology giants, the FCC launched an investigation into the relationship between Apple and AT&T and how the fate of applications submitted to the App Store are determined. To date, there are several open FCC proceedings regarding wireless access and handset availability, but to me this signals that the government is seriously interested in promoting openness of the wireless internet. The App Store reject pile is littered with VoIP applications deemed not suitable for the Apple/AT&T offering, however, the FCC has now decided to question Apple’s practices. Using Google as a test case is not surprising as the US government has a predilection to target higher profile cases.

Significant action by the FCC to promote openness within the wireless internet is a huge plus for the voice and video over IP community particularly as LTE and WiMax technology are rolled out to the public. Assuming new regulations are crafted to ensure a high level of openness the challenge will become how service providers and their networks manage the demand created by new IP communication applications. Even today the AT&T network is stressed. The GIPS San Francisco office is located in the shadow of the San Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge and during afternoon rush hour, traffic chokes streets around our office.  When leaving the office for the evening, I frequently will make try to make a call as I walk to the MUNI Metro Station. Quite often my call is met with a “Network Busy” or is dropped in progress. I can only surmise that the network is oversubscribed due to the volume of calls placed from cars idling at the approaches to the bridge. I am also an avid user of mobile web and mobile email. Again, while navigating the streets of San Francisco, I am less than overwhelmed by the capability of the AT&T 3G/Edge data network.

Is there a reasonable solution that will provide excellent coverage and appropriate data throughput at reasonable price? I am not sure; however, I applaud the effort by the FCC to attempt to break down some of the barriers which are limiting innovation.

 Ok, I realize I have been pretty harsh on Apple lately, but this is just too good to pass up. Check out the Onion story  about the new iPhone 3GI.

“Retailing for $599, the iPhone 3GI offers only the most special Apple consumers—the ones who believe in the company more than anything else in the world, and who would never, ever dream of questioning it—the ability to open dozens of powerful applications at once.”

Now that’s out of the way, I promise I will refrain from hating on Apple for at least a month.

Yesterday, news broke that the next Apple iPod Touch will have a built in camera and microphone. On the face, most people would wonder what they would do with a microphone on a device that is not a phone in the strict sense of the word. But as Andy Abramson points out, this is great news for anyone looking to do VoIP over WiFi, as it instantly turns the iPod into a communications device capable of running Skype or any other popular VoIP application. And unlike applications built for the iPhone, it also means people won’t have to be tethered to a mobile service contract. While voice calling capabilities are really only an option as long as users are within range of a WiFi access point, this is still a step in the right direction for mobile VoIP. The more people use VoIP over WiFi in lieu of standard cellular calls, the more pressure is put on mobile carriers to offer VoIP services. 

Now, as people who have read my other posts know, I am definitely not the biggest fan of Apple or the iPhone. Furthermore, I have often wondered how much better off we are because of Apple’s continued innovation. On one hand, new features like those rumored to be included in the new Touch, sound pretty cool. However, as with most products Apple launches, there is the trade off of that comes with built in obsolescence. About a year ago I had purchased a 60GB iPod, which at the time I believe was a relatively new product for Apple. I didn’t need a WiFi connection, a touch screen, or even the ability to watch video. I just wanted an MP3 player on which I could store all my music. About 2 months after purchase, while I was boarding BART, my iPod fell out of my pocket and tumbled between the track and the platform (if I had been cognizant of it happening at the time, I am sure I would have witnessed it in horrified slow motion). When I went to the Apple store a couple weeks later to look for a replacement, I was informed that Apple no longer made a 60GB iPod. However, they did have a 120GB iPod for $50 more than I paid for my old 60GB. 120GB!? Who needs that much storage? As someone who has walked into a record store and asked if a copy of The Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds included both the original mono recording as well as the remixed stereo version, I consider myself somewhat of a pop music connoisseur. But even I have no use for 120GB of music (my current iPod has about 23GB of music loaded on it, which equates to a little over 6200 songs). So in a matter of months, Apple had done away with a perfectly good product only to offer a more expensive one with features for which I had absolutely no use. The result was a loss in what economists call consumer surplus, leading me to actually be worse off than I could have been if I had more money to spend on other goods and services.

Beyond the possibly theoretical economic consequences of a march toward more features to justify a higher price point, Apple’s hype and secrecy may end up having negative effects on the workers and companies in the Apple supply chain.  Apparently a prototype of the fourth generation iPhone has gone missing from a Chinese factory that produces the phone. According to a story in Digital Beat, the worker responsible for the incident was subsequently questioned, perhaps harshly, and has allegedly committed suicide. I am in no way insinuating that Apple is responsible for such a tragedy, but as so often happens in an ever more competitive global economy, pressure to produce the best products at the lowest prices can lead suppliers to mistreat workers or behave in otherwise socially undesirable ways.

The bottom line is that Apple’s innovation should be applauded. However, this innovation is really only meaningful if it leaves everyone better off and doesn’t create a world in which people are so rabid to produce and consume that we lose our humanity as a result.