itval.e

Should you unbundle your mobile app?

2014-07-22T22:04:00.001-04:00

Unbundling of apps on mobile is in fashion. Facebook Messenger (split from Facebook), Swarm (Foursquare), LinkedIn Job Search are a few examples.

Here are a few reasons why unbundling an app may make sense:

- Consumers on mobile are generally looking to do a more specific and targeted task -- because they are on the go or there is less real estate on mobile -- and single-purpose apps are more suited to the use case.

- Single-purpose apps by nature are lightweight (fewer lines of code, fewer memory requirements etc.) and therefore feel and act more agile.

- Many functions when bundled in one app can make for a complicated user experience. Contrast the user experience of simply sending a message to a friend when on WhatsApp vs. Facebook (a major reason why Facebook Messenger was split as a separate app).

- Sometimes it just makes sense to have separate apps. For example, Amazon Store app and Amazon Instant Video apps have little in common (other than the fact both require an Amazon log in) to make a case for one app.

- The flagship app is too popular to risk wider experimentation and therefore it makes sense to start out as a separate low profile app (Evernote Hello, Evernote Food for example).

- Independent apps make up for a more agile process. Managing a large-scale project is complicated and fewer things a single app does, smaller the team can be therefore making the execution faster. This is especially true for larger companies (however, sometimes coordination and interworking between groups and apps respectively can actually be more inefficient).

- App Store (or Google Play) distribution and economics favor apps that are catered for a specific category: Since all apps need to specify a primary category, they have to excel in that category.

Before you jump on the bandwagon to split apps in your company, however, it’s important to look at reasons when not to split the apps.

- Porting multiple apps to several platforms and then maintaining them can be cost intensive. Similarly, unless you are Facebook with a huge existing user base, distribution and marketing of multiple apps can pose a great challenge.

- It’s not always easy to maintain adequate level of design and branding consistency between different apps (Foursquare and Swarm maintain very different look and feel by choice rather than accident).

- It’s still not seamless to navigate between apps on mobile. For example, I still find navigating between Facebook and Messenger and Foursquare and Swarm a bit kludgy and forced.

I usually use Foursquare for discovering places and accessing my lists, and when I am at a place I often check in as well. I find it odd that anytime I need to check in, I have to switch to Swarm and even odder to switch back to Foursquare anytime I need to find more about a place. While Swarm may evolve to a more involved and popular destination app for social discovery, I think forcing a user to launch Swarm just to check-in to a place is an overkill.

- Individual pieces make sense when put together. Google Maps and Google Places used to be separate apps, but now are bundled in one app. You can find places and learn more about them all in one app. And if you are looking for directions, you just navigate using the same app.

- Just like smaller teams working on individual apps can make for more efficient execution, coordination between app teams (assuming interdependencies exist between the individual apps) can actually mean less efficient execution unless managed and planned proactively. Interfaces between components have to be defined well enough that one team can use another team’s component in their app without the need for a lot of coordination and engineering work.

- Individual apps can cannibalize each other. This is not always a bad thing especially if you can retain or grow the combined user base, but something you should be cognizant of.

Given the guidelines above, which of the following apps you think Apple should combine into one or split from the main app and why?

iTunes Store, App Store, Music, Podcasts, Radio (not a separate app, but part of Music), iTunes U, Videos, iBooks

This post was originally published on LinkedIn.

What might Apple TV look like

2013-10-15T23:04:00.001-04:00

This is part 2 of the two-part series on Changes Coming to TV. In the first part, I discussed why channel bundling is not beneficial to consumers. Today I will discuss what the future of (Apple) TV might look like.

While the TV imagined by Ben provides for a different form of escapism via Facetime, iMessage, apps and games (including those by third parties), I will argue that traditional content will still prove pivotal to Apple's strategy of disrupting the media market.

Content is hard to substitute, and Apple knows that well: It has tried to preserve traditional content, whether it be music via iTunes and iPod, or news via its not-so-successful attempt at resurrecting the media industry with the iPad. Therefore, Apple TV will continue to offer traditional TV content and keep expanding its partnerships with networks and studios, offering new content and apps every now and then.

Apple will disrupt the market not necessarily via different type of content but non-traditional ways of distributing it (for example via apps such as Netflix, HBO Go, and iTunes).

Apple TV will open up the SDK for third party developers, and thus reaching a whole new market of gamers than traditional consoles ever did. (This is also why I think Microsoft cannot disrupt the market as it sustains innovation in XBox).

I also predict that Apple will indeed indeed launch a full-fledged TV set. But I would not be surprised if the TV has no inputs for cable TV and no options to record a show. There are two primary reasons why Apple will launch a TV and not just a box.

One, Samsung and the likes already offer internet TV's that come with their own content and apps out of the box. If Apple does not offer something to compete in that market, it will lose its share of the digital content, where Apple's iTunes today rules.

Two, In order to really simplify and change the end to end user experience for better, Apple has to control the first input (which today is owned by pay TV services like Comcast), and it can only do so effectively by launching a full TV.

The biggest question of course is what would Apple's go to market strategy be, given that networks are reluctant to work with Apple alone for business reasons. The answer might be simpler than most people think: Apple will continue to make inroads and gather more eyes, and once it has critical mass, networks will start to hedge their bets.

And this is also when unbundling will become a reality (for a detailed analysis of bundling, read Part 1: Why channel bundling is detrimental to consumers).

If you like my post, please subscribe to my blog here or here so that I know you are there. You can also like my blog's Facebook page or follow me at Twitter here.

Other posts that you might like related to this topic:

What I want from the new Xbox

Is cutting the cord worth it and how you can do it too

3 reasons TV’s about to get a facelift

Should you buy Google TV or wait for the new Apple TV to launch?

What to expect from Apple's event tomorrow?

Does Apple's "vertical integration" philosophy hurt it in the home entertainment market?

Why channel bundling is detrimental to consumers

2013-06-23T19:40:00.001-04:00

Inspired by Ben's series on Changes Coming to TV, I am going to write a two-part series of my own on the same topic.

In his part 1, he makes a case why channel bundling is beneficial to consumers, and therefore difficult to disrupt using a traditional TV approach. I agree with the latter.

I earlier wrote: While disrupting the TV industry with an all-powerful Apple TV (not just a set-top box, but a TV set) certainly sounds ambitions and more fitting to Apple's DNA, it would be much easier to allow 3rd party apps (and especially games) on the current line of Apple TV set-top boxes.

However, I do not think that bundling channels is beneficial to consumers. It will be instructive to look at when and why bundling works for suppliers (suppliers can be cable providers such as Comcast and Verizon FiOS; networks such as HBO and ESPN; or their parent companies such as Time Warner and Walt Disney).

In general, suppliers use bundling as a pricing strategy to maximize their profits. It works well for suppliers if there is heterogeneous demand amongst the consumers, that is, different users value each channel differently.

I earlier wrote in iTunes turned the music market on its head. Could iTunes TV do the same for TV?: Comcast’s basic digital TV option — its digital “starter” subscription — costs more than $60 without a 6 months offer. And though it does offer dozens of channels, how many do you watch on a regular basis? Except for premium channels such as HBO and Cinemax, for which most consumers have higher willingness to pay, viewers have very different programming preferences. Some like the Food Network, others like TNT or the History Channel. Why would anyone want to pay for a bundle made up of many channels they never plan to watch?

Let's look at a hypothetical example.

Let's assume that cable providers and channel networks split revenue evenly. Since, suppliers can't price discriminate, they only have three viable pricing options available to them.

1. Price each channel at $2. This allows every consumer to watch all channels, each at $2. Each consumer brings in $8 in revenue, resulting in $20 for networks ($5 for each), and $20 for the cable provider.

2. Price each channel at $10. This allows consumers 1 through 4 to watch only one channel, and prices out consumer 5 completely. Cable provider and channel networks both end up pocketing $20.

3. Bundle all channels, and price the bundle at $16. Consumer 5 is still priced out, but now consumers 1 through 4 can all enjoy all channels. This option results in maximum revenue for the suppliers: $32 for the cable provider and $32 for channel networks ($8 for each).

While the numbers used above are very simplistic, the trend shown is reminiscent of how cable industry actually works. Therefore, it's no surprise that suppliers prefer to bundle channels.

Now, let's throw in a premium channel in the mix.

From HBO's point of view, here are three viable pricing (packaging) options.

1. Sell HBO as part of the 5-channel bundle. Since each bundle sells at $22, consumer 5 is priced out. Therefore, HBO makes $12.

2. Sell HBO as a stand-alone but only to those consumers who have the basic 4-channel bundle. This option also results $12 in revenue for HBO.

3. Sell HBO independently. All consumers by HBO at $6, and thus HBO ends up making $15, highest of the available options.

Using this example, HBO would clearly benefit from offering HBO as a la carte without a need for a basic bundle. For example, HBO could offer its programming via Apple TV/iTunes for a paid subscription, without requiring users to buy a cable subscription first. But here are a few reasons it does not do so.

- Cable providers help HBO sell to a much larger user base than would be possible via iTunes today. In addition, HBO gets "free" marketing from its cable partners, and would lose out if it were to anger its partners.

- HBO (and many other premium networks) is not an independent entity. Time Warner owns HBO and many other channels. Time Warner benefits greatly from selling its channels as a bundle to cable providers because it can then offer attractive advertising opportunities (by offering a single ad on multiple channels for example)

- I wrote the third reason here: Comcast and other cable providers already have strong relationships with advertisers. It would be hard for cable networks like HBO to transfer those advertising relationships over to broadband TV, and that means they’d risk cannibalizing their revenues if too many of their viewers switched to iTunes. Unless iTunes can give these cable networks a sweeter deal (more share of the revenue or some other comparable advertising partnerships), it would be hard for them to make a good business case.

Back to my original argument that bundling while beneficial for suppliers does not benefit consumers. Ben concluded his piece by making the following points; let's take a look at each one of them.

Ben: Networks earn much more per viewer than would be sustainable under a la carte pricing.

While more revenue is of course beneficial for networks, I do not think that a la carte pricing will not be sustainable. Beneficiaries will change as they always do with democratization of the internet, but consumers will be better off with a la carte pricing.

There are indeed reasons when bundling is beneficial for consumers (more on this in another piece), but cable industry does not exhibit those characteristics.

Ben: Networks are incentivised to create (or in ESPN’s case, buy rights to) great programming; making your content “must-watch” lets you raise your affiliate fees.

This goes back to my point above: There is no strong evidence that a la carte pricing will hurt networks' ability to provide superior programming. If anything, shuffling in the value chain should only encourage new entrants thus raising the quality of programming.

Ben: Viewers get access to multiple channels that are hyper-focused on specific niches. Sure, folks complain about paying for those niches, but only because they don’t realize others are subsidizing their particular interests.

While individual channels will likely rise in price, they will not increase substantially. More importantly, the total bill of consumers will still be less than what is today. Subsidies work well when a few folks subsidize the rest (as is the case with social gaming); but not so well when masses subsidize a few (as is the case with healthcare), unless there are many unexpected costs (which is indeed the case with healthcare and insurance industry in general).

Ben: Cable companies know the cable TV business, and would prefer to put up with customer disgruntlement over rising prices than become dumb pipes.

I couldn't agree more, and central point of my post is precisely that. However I disagree with Ben's argument that cable bundling is beneficial to consumers. This difference in opinion also impacts how I envision the future of TV to be, and I will write more this in my followup post in the series.

You can read part 2 of the series here: What might Apple TV work like

If you like my post, please subscribe to my blog here or here so that I know you are there. You can also like my blog's Facebook page or follow me at Twitter here.

Other posts that you might like related to this topic:

What I want from the new Xbox

Is cutting the cord worth it and how you can do it too

3 reasons TV’s about to get a facelift

Future of TV from Saad Fazil

(Almost) Everything you need to know about Germany

2013-06-13T08:43:00.003-04:00

Germany is one of my most visited countries, so it’s time I pen a few key observations.

- Autobahn really has no speed limit for much of its length. While I knew this before traveling to Germany, I didn’t believe it until I experienced it myself. I drove my car often at more than 100 mph only to be passed by at least one car each minute at speeds approaching 125 or more miles per hour. On the greener side, there are more windmills than I have ever seen in the US.

- I rarely got 4G speeds on my cell phone. I am not sure whether it is generally the case, or it was only because I was using a US phone (iPhone 5 and Lumia 920 for AT&T) that didn’t roam well. Speaking of smartphones, I see fewer iPhones -- percentage wise -- in Germany than I do in the US. Are Windows Phone street ads (there are many) working?

- Prices in general, and for hotels specifically, are much cheaper than many other parts of Western Europe. But don’t be surprised if you have to pay money to use public restrooms.

- People drink beer like we drink water. Beer Gardens are a big part of the culture. Speaking of festivity, in the holiday season, you will find many makeshift outdoors markets, which they call Christmas Markets. It's really party time.

- It’s hard to get ice for a soft drink. In fact I always had to ask for it, and often times there was none even after I requested. Re-fills are rare as well.

- There are zillions of Turkish restaurants and cafes. You’d be forgiven for thinking you were in Turkey. If you are in Berlin, do check out Hasir restaurant.

- Berlin is the cheapest amongst the bigger cities (Hamburg, Munich) and the most cosmopolitan. It is growing fast and attracting tons of investment and talent. Even my cab driver knew that it is one of the best times to invest in real estate there. Berlin also has a great tech scene: Amen, Unlike, SoundCloud, Txtr, WunderKinder, Getyourguide, Pipe, UPcload are only a few of many startups there.

- While Berlin Tiegel airport is small, every gate gets its own security line and baggage claim! It's a great airport if you want to board or land fast, but not great if you want to hang out.

- I see a lot of idle taxis. Where are Hailo and Uber?

- You can fill car gas from a station, and pay later (or run away if you were in the US). This is not uniquely German; you will experience the same in other countries in Western Europe. What does it tell you about their culture?

- You will see and read a lot of MIT's in Germany. It means "with" in German.

- It's not so easy to tell that Germany is the 4th largest economy in the world, especially after you visit neighboring countries in the Western Europe. This not good or bad; it's just an observation.

Have you been to Germany? Would love to hear your thoughts.

Download the PDF here.

What I want from the new Xbox

2013-05-20T23:06:00.001-04:00

Microsoft is set to unveil next-generation Xbox tomorrow. While there's much to expect from the announcement, one thing is for sure: Xbox as hardware will only be a small part of the whole story. Here're the things that I am personally looking forward to (and as you can tell, none of them have much to do with hard-core gaming that Xbox is today known for):

1. A separate media streaming box with a lower price tag. Xbox's media and home entertainment functions are arguably the best in the industry, but come with a hefty price tag. Many users who simply want a connected TV at home don't see a point in paying a premium for hard-core console games that they are not interested in. As the market for connected and smart TV's grows, Microsoft will not want to miss a piece of it.

2. The media box will likely also have basic gaming functionality and the ability for developers to write apps and games. Unlike Apple, which has not yet enabled Apple TV as a platform, Microsoft would want to be the first big player to the market here (while Google TV already allows developers to write apps for the big screen, it has hardly gained traction in the market to be called the first mover).

As smartphone, tablet, and online gaming disrupt console gaming, it only makes sense for Microsoft to disrupt itself by introducing a smaller gaming box that enriches the ecosystem thus also benefitting Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 platforms, both of which still struggle with attracting developers (and therefore users).

In doing so, Microsoft will be right to consider Apple and Google -- rather than Sony and Nintendo -- as the real threats.

3. This is probably a stretch, but I'd personally welcome a smart TV by one of the technology giants (Apple, Microsoft, Google). More and more users are adopting smart TV's as their next TV, and very soon smart TV's will overtake connected TV's in market share. The Big Four would not like Samsung, LG, and the likes to steal away their digital downloads. Therefore, it's only a matter of time before we see a smart TV by one or more of the Big Four in the market. Apple is almost sure to launch one this year, and it will be a missed opportunity if Microsoft does not.

(More to come on this topic soon)

Of course, there is a lot coming out in the announcement tomorrow, but I have kept my personal wish list small (but still demanding). Microsoft's Greenberg has said "We have so much goodness that there's no way we could have packed it all into one event". My hope is that my wish list is part of the goodness he's talking about.

Yahoo! to buy Tumblr - is it worth it?

2013-05-19T22:45:00.000-04:00

In general, I have liked the changes Marissa Mayer is making at Yahoo! so far, including the decision to acquire smaller companies. However, I am baffled by the rumored decision to acquire Tumblr. Here's why:

- $1.1 billion is a too costly for Yahoo!, which has only about $3 billion in its coffers.

- $1.1 billion is too big a price tag for a company that has a niche following and has struggled to grow beyond a certain size and generate substantial revenue.

- Very few companies (Cisco and Google come to mind) have the knack for making acquisitions work to their advantage, and most fail at creating value for their stakeholders. Yahoo!'s own track record is not very good: for example, Flickr, which could have been Instagram of today, made little progress after it was acquired by Yahoo!

- Yahoo! is better off cleaning its own house and making smaller acquisitions work before jumping onto a bigger venture outside its core.

- Tumblr does not seem like a great fit for Marissa's focus on "daily habits", stuff that people do on a daily basis on the go: Check weather, check sports scores, take a picture, make a call, watch a short video, sending a message, posting a status update, tweeting, and so on. Tumblr is no Twitter. If Yahoo! is after Tumblr's passionate and younger user base, then the acquisition would make more sense, but sustaining that user base with a new product focus (assuming there will be on) will be no small feat.

In the end, I hope that Yahoo!'s making this acquisition because it really has a plan rather than because it is reacting to Marissa's acquisition mania.

Google+ gets a new face, but is it enough?

2013-05-18T22:49:00.003-04:00

Lots of cool things coming out in Google+. Like this and this. Many of these new capabilities sound like great innovations. They will serve to i) make Google+ more attractive for users who already like it, ii) engage more users with individual products like Google+ Photos, Hangouts, and more. What I doubt they will do is make Google+ a viable alternative to Facebook as a social network.

Addendum to "Smartphones do too much: convergence is giving way to divergence"

2013-03-23T23:54:00.000-04:00

Last week I argued that form factors, horizontal solutions, and specialization play a critical role in divergence of devices. There is one more important factor that will drive fragmentation of devices: Internet of Things.

It’s hard to overestimate the role ubiquitousness of internet will play in multiplication and divergence of smart devices. As it becomes easier and cheaper to connect an appliance or a gadget to the internet, it will only be natural to expect functions where they belong: A running shoe can for example detect its wear and tear, and it can order a replacement when one is needed.

I expect that as time goes on, we will, once again, get tired of carrying several devices (smartphone, smart watch, tracking device, tablet, and so on) and the human need will once again drive the trend toward convergence. So just like current account balance, which tends to oscillate between surplus and deficit, rising convergence will always tip in favor of divergence and vice versa.

Perhaps, the only thing that could cause convergence to win in the long run is advancement in materials science and technology: a smartphone could convert itself into a smart watch for example (see this video for what might be possible one day). In the meanwhile, however, creative solutions to leverage a single device to play different "form factors" are already in play: For example, with SYNC AppLink, you can leverage an existing device and data connection you have in your smartphone to enable more car-friendly interfaces.

A puzzle that is Apple TV

2013-03-17T19:44:00.001-04:00

While disrupting the TV industry with an all-powerful Apple TV (not just a set-top box, but a TV set) certainly sounds ambitions and more fitting to Apple's DNA, it would be much easier to allow 3rd party apps (and especially games) on the current line of Apple TV set-top boxes. Arguably, such an addition to the Apple TV is more likely to disrupt incumbents, albeit in a different industry -- console gaming rather than home media.

But first things first. Apple TV's has yet to solve a few very basic issues. Here is a non-exhaustive list:

- Apple TV does not allow music search

- Currently, on Apple TV, there is a "Wish List" in the "Movies" meny, but it doesn't sync back to my iTunes Wish List. Conversely, while iTunes lets me add a song, a TV show, an app, or a movie to my Wish List, none of the items sync back to Apple TV. As a matter of fact, there is no Wish List under TV Shows and Music on Apple TV.

- On Apple TV, there is a Favorites tab under TV Shows, while there is no such thing in iTunes.

- Audiobooks are still not synced to iCloud (likely due to copywriting issues rather than Apple's negligence)

- Podcasts I subscribe to on my PC are completely independent of those I subscribe on Apple TV.

- It takes a genius to figure out how purchased and rented content syncs (or not) between devices. The first Apple statement (first picture below) is factually incorrect, as can be seen by the following Apple statement (second picture below).

A few if not all of the problems mentioned are likely due to issues with the foundation that is iCloud. I have written about iCloud problems here:

iCloud just doesn't work
iCloud reaches 100M users mark, so what?
Mountain Lion solves some of the problems with iCloud
Cloud done wrong

I have written briefly about a hypothetical Apple TV that will support 3rd party apps here:

What to expect from Apple's event tomorrow?

Apple, please fix the basic issues before moving on to dominate the world.

Word of mouth vs. viral marketing

2013-02-06T14:35:00.000-05:00

A lot of people confuse the terms word-of-mouth and viral in context of product design and marketing. They have completely different meanings.

Word of mouth. Your product is so good that people love to talk about it with their friends and family. They don't talk about it because they would benefit directly if their friends used the product; they simply talk about it because they can't resist. Example: The movie "Lincoln". I loved the movie so much that I told many friends about it. I didn't really benefit if they watched the movie. The only direct benefit I got from telling them is perhaps good will.

Virality. Virality is built into a product. Fax machine is a classical example. I benefit if others use Fax too, because I can then send them my documents. The more people use it the better. Skype and Facebook are great examples too.

A viral product has network effects. Network effects can be direct or indirect. If you are interested in exploring more, read this.

A product can't always be viral by nature. In other words, don't force a product to have network effects.

If the product is great, it will surely spread by word of mouth. If you can create a great viral product, that users love to talk about and also benefit if other users use it, you might have a winner on your hands.

Apple vs. Google

2013-01-21T23:53:00.001-05:00

This pretty much captures one of the biggest problems with Apple: "Google is getting better at design faster than Apple is getting etter at web services."

Patrick goes on to say:

- Apple can’t update its online store without taking it offline first.

- A popular Game Center game was able to bring down the entire network.

- Apple requires you to re-friend everyone on Game Center, Find my Friends, and Shared Photostreams.

- Notes requires an email account to sync.

- The iTunes and App Stores are still powered by WebObjects, a mostly dead framework written almost 20 years ago.

- iMessage for Mac lives in an alternate dimension in which time has no ordered sequence.

Ping.

I myself have written about iCloud problems here:

iCloud just doesn't work
iCloud reaches 100M users mark, so what?
Mountain Lion solves some of the problems with iCloud
Cloud done wrong

I have also talked about the biggest risks to Apple here (Is Apple's dominance at risk?).

Last but not least, I have argued why end to end services+devices integration, and not hardware and software integration, is what will determine the next winner here (Will vertical integration prove key in the race to the top?).

Facebook Graph Search fails to impress

2013-01-16T22:41:00.001-05:00

Facebook announced Open Graph Search yesterday. Once it rolls out, users will be able to search for things such as "places that my Boston friends like most". I look forward to trying it out myself, but I am not impressed by what I have heard so far. Here is why.

Every example that Facebook video talks about revolves around friends or users. For example, "friends who like the movie Lincoln" and "people who like to hike in Boston". This type of queries can be useful in certain contexts, but I am not convinced whether they represent major search challenges of today. Perhaps Facebook will prove me wrong and users will indeed start to make make more of such searches, but today most users simply don't do that.

Users often do searches like "best home-made-pizza place in Harvard Square", "number of smartphone users in Boston", "hiking places in the city", "low cost dentist in town", and so on. While, Facebook's graph data can certainly improve and enhance these searches -- indeed Bing and Google already use signals from Facebook and Google+ to solve this problem -- users are not typically interested in explicitly finding out what their friends like. In other words, while I am more likely to trust a place if my friends like it, I am not going to ask a search service "tell me places that my friends have eaten at".

More importantly, Facebook Search at least as it exists today relies on data on Facebook alone. So if a shop you are looking for is not on Facebook, you are out of luck. You will never find it on Facebook until someone creates a business page for it.

Last but not least, while Facebook keeps getting better in its core as a social network and has become a must-have marketing channel for businesses small and large, many of its initiatives have been mediocre at best. Let's take a quick look at a few.

- Facebook Messenger (and Messages on the web) is pretty decent, and gets the job done. With the newly added voice capabilities, it can get much more momentum. However, the way it stands today, it is far from providing a viable alternative to email or SMS; a task it might not have set out to do, but will be gauged by nonetheless.

- Facebook Questions doesn't come close to other services such as Quora in terms of engagement and depth of answers.

- Facebook Places are rarely the destination for place discovery, at least of yet. Yelp continues to dominate, and Google/Zagat and Foursquare seem to have a good momentum going for them. Moreover, user-generated content on Facebook Places is rarely very interesting or relevant for place discovery. As an illustrative example, compare Craigie on Main's place page on Yelp against that on Facebook. (Facebook Places deserves another blog post, which I will write shortly).

To be fair, Facebook Search takes up the search one notch in certain ways. It actually binds objects together. So when I search for "places that my Boston friends like most", it is traversing the graph and connecting the dots between my friends, places they like, cities those places are in, and me. For those of you who know relational databases, a good analogy is a big join between several tables. In some ways, Facebook Graph Search is following the promise of Semantic Web, even if inside a very limited walled garden. This is no easy thing to do for Google or Bing.

Since I am long on Facebook myself, and generally believe in its potential (partly evidenced by my several posts on Facebook here), I will be happy to be proven wrong. But for now, onus is on Facebook Search to live up to its hype.

How to go mobile: HTML5, Hybrid, Native, and more

2013-01-12T19:21:00.001-05:00

Deciding which way to go mobile can be difficult. I came up with the following comparison table highlighting how each approach fares in area like native UI, discover-ability, and others. Green cells indicate areas of notable strength and red cells imply notable weaknesses for a particular approach. For areas such as discover-ability, I didn't highlight any cell because I think pros and cons of each approach tend to cancel each other out.

What approach you end up taking for your product and business will obviously depend on a lot of things, and no single approach is best for all scenarios. I hope, however, that the chart will be helpful in making this difficult decision.

How Apple Maps-Places fare against Google Maps-Places

2012-12-19T20:49:00.000-05:00

When Apple announced Yelp partnership earlier this year, I was pretty excited and looked forward to seeing the integration in action. Since it came out, the integration of Yelp places with Apple Maps has failed to impress me, however. I think Apple could have done a much better job at integrating Yelp content. Let's look at how Google Maps and Apple Maps on iPhone compare with respect to POI's integration (points of interest such as restaurant).

In Apple Maps, when I search for a place, I see only a few reviews and photos from Yelp, but for more information, the Maps app takes me out of the Maps App to Yelp app. I can't imagine that Apple couldn't get to convince Yelp to show their data in Apple's app itself, with proper attribution of course.

Compare this with Google Maps (on iPhone or Android). Not only Google Maps provides better search suggestions (as seen in the first screenshot of the Google slideshow below), it integrates Zagat (which it acquired a few months ago) reviews seamlessly in the place page. What's more, the place page allows you to book a table via OpenTable, right inside the app. The OpenTable transaction happens inside an HTML5 container, but it's largely seamless to the user.

Apple despite having a native Siri integration with OpenTable does not allow a user to book a table from the Place page (within Maps). Siri did return a list of places when I simply asked it to "Book a Table", but when it came to trying to book a table at the place I was looking for (Craige on Main), I simply couldn't find a way to do it either via general "Book a Table" or more specific "Craige on Main" Siri search.

It's a bit surprising how the company that claims to excel at superior user experience lets such user experience nuances slip. Arguably place matching, which is required for bringing OpenTable and Yelp functions together in a single place page -- while not nearly as sophisticated as navigation and search aspects of Maps -- is not very simple either. So my hope is that these user experience gaps are just temporary and will be resolved soon, as opposed to intentional design decisions made by Apple. It will be interesting to watch how another source of place data (Foursquare) makes it into Apple Maps place pages.

Apple Maps Slideshow

Apple Maps

Google Maps Slideshow

Google Maps

Surface is not a loss leader nor it will be Microsoft's sole savior

2012-11-11T17:25:00.001-05:00

Microsoft's consistently low market share in tablets and mobile market, and its recent foray into its own hardware has analysts fall under two camps:

1) Microsoft will get into hardware business itself to protect its high margins in the PC business and have more control over end to end design of the tablets and phones.

2) Surface exits to serve as a north start for Windows Business and Microsoft doesn't make any money. This if true would be very similar to Google's Nexus program which, at least today, doesn't sell too many devices or makes money on them, but serves as a model for OEM's to follow.

(Fore my take on Surface, read: 7 reasons why Microsoft Surface will sell well and 5 Reasons why Microsoft Surface will not sell well)

I will argue that reality is somewhat a hybrid of the two positions above.

Let's look at how making its own hardware will help Microsoft. Tablets are much cheaper than PC's and therefore do not leave enough room for Microsoft to charge a decent licensing fees for Windows and Office on these machines. Making its own hardware allows Microsoft to not just set its products as a north star for OEM's to follow, it also enables Microsoft to make higher profits via sales of hardware and software. Therefore the money it loses on lower prices of software could be made up in hardware profits.

However, this approach risks alienating its very partners that have been and will be key to its success. Additionally, as I argued here, seamless inter-working of devices and services and not vertical integration will prove key to Microsoft's success. Microsoft doesn't have to make and sell only its own hardware to be successful, but it does need to make sure that the whole ecosystem of Windows 8 (XBox, Windows Phone, PC's, tablets, etc.) works seamlessly together. Therefore Micorosft will keep its OEM partners happy, and it will partly do it by not undercutting their prices.

This is precisely why I, unlike Charlie Kindel, think Microsoft does make money on Surface. Indeed Surface's BOM has recently been reported as less than $300. While marketing and sales cost money, note that those costs will be divided over the larger Windows 8 ecosystem, therefore still keeping decent margins from Surface sales. Moreover, Microsoft can further optimize its margins by bundling in subscriptions for XBox and Office.

If Microsoft does sell a lot of tablets, that will not be so bad for its partners either, because it will only help strengthen Windows 8 ecosystem. Moreover, its partners are not in a great position to bargain. Android, their only viable alternative, has been unable to help most but Samsung.

On the other hand, if Microsoft doesn't sell a lot of its own tablets, but its partners do, Microsoft will benefit as well.

I hardly mean to imply that it is an easy road for Microsoft; in fact, it's very slippery road ahead. If Microsoft is successful in its strategy however, we will read case studies on Microsoft for long time to come.

Why Apple is still selling iPad 2

2012-10-31T22:31:00.002-04:00

John Gruber on iPad 2:

"I was confused by this at first. Why keep the iPad 2 around? Then the answer hit me: the iPad 2 must have continued to sell well over the last seven months. There can be no other explanation. If it weren’t selling well, Apple would have dropped it from the lineup. But because it is selling well, they’re keeping it in the lineup, because they don’t know why it’s selling well. If it’s only because of the lower price, the iPad Mini might obviate it."

I don't think there is a question of whether iPad 2 is selling well, of course it is. The question is why not sell iPad 3 instead of iPad 2.

I asked myself the same question a week ago, and here is what I said:

"New iPads have always been priced at $499 for the basic model. iPad Mini is selling for $329, and iPad 2 for $399. This just doesn't leave enough price points between them to justify adding another iPad (3).

Second, the new iPad, while an improvement over iPad 3, doesn't seem to be a makeover. But more importantly, iPad Mini is the real deal here. iPad Mini and not the new iPad (4) is featured on the Apple's home page. Apple expects to sell a lot of iPad Mini's.

Third, iPad 2 and iPad Mini have more in common in terms of components than iPad 3 and iPad Mini. Therefore it makes perfect sense to leverage economies of scale by continuing to sell iPad 2."

I think the key is that Apple simply couldn't justify another price point between what is already a tricky and crowded product portfolio of iPads that also left decent margins on the table for iPad 3.

John Gruber continues:

"But perhaps it’s not that people want the least expensive iPad, but instead that they want the least expensive full-size iPad."

Apple does not have any data to validate this yet. This is the first time Apple is selling a Mini with a full-size iPad.

Lastly, he says:

"My guess is that this is going to play out much like the iPod and iPod Mini back in 2004: the full-size model will continue to sell strongly, but the Mini is going to become the bestselling model."

My thoughts exactly.

How to best sell Windows Phone

2012-10-30T23:01:00.001-04:00

I have always liked Windows Phone since its inception. See my very early piece on WP7 here. With the upcoming upgrade to Windows Phone 8, there is so much to like, as is well evident in this raving review by the Verge.

A few features that really make Windows Phone 8 stand out in the crowd:

Deep Skype integration: This blows Facetime, iMessage, Google Voice and Talk all out of water.

XBox Music: Pandora, Spotify, Google Music, iTunes, Amazon Cloud Music all in one and more.

People Hub and in general task centered (rather than application centered) design. For example, if you have to do something with pictures, simply go to Picture Hub (rather than trying to find zillions of pictures apps).

Seamless integration across Windows Phone, Windows PC, and XBox. Unlike Apple, Microsoft makes some of the features work across platforms (Android, iOS, Mac OS) as well. Skype is a great example, and so are Rooms and Smartglass that are available on other platforms such as Android.

Live Tiles that allow you to customize your phone, see important information on the home screen without opening an app, and even expose your favorites such as recent Facebook pictures posted by friends to the lock screen.

Kids Corner, Office Hub, and many more.

But despite so many powerful and differentiating features, Microsoft chose to pick personalization as its main marketing theme. I do not think that personalization is necessarily the most outstanding quality of the Windows Phone. It might be easiest for users to understand, but I do not think it will be the key selling point. Why else would Microsoft do it? My guess is that personalization will make for really catchy ads, as celebrities (starting with Steve Ballmer himself) showcase their Windows Phone's home screens featuring people important in their lives. Arguably, Steve Ballmer's ad is not going to grab attention amongst would-be buyers but Hollywood and sports celebrities' would.

If I were to pick one, I would choose one of the following two marketing themes:

i) Windows Phone is centered around people, and makes it easier to communicate and stay in touch. This is well reflected in People Hub, Groups and Rooms, and now Skype (video, voice, and chat).

This is a compelling differentiation, a very useful and relevant feature for end users, and easy to explain as well.

ii) Ease of use and task centered design are a big deal. Android and iOS are still using a 5-year old paradigm of app icons. I hardly use more than 10 apps on my iPhone or Android on a regular basis and I am really tired of discovering, installing, and using new apps (while I do it for fun and for my work, I doubt I will want to do it as an ordinary end user). The fact that App Store and Google Play have more than half a million apps is not very comforting in real life.

Windows Phone on the other hand is trying to abstract applications in different "hubs", which are task focused. For example, Facebook, Twitter, phone calls, messaging etc. are all accessible and aggregated nicely in People Hub. Your pictures whether from local camera or Facebook are all in Picture Hub. Select third party apps can write hooks to do the same.

Microsoft has not cracked it yet, but this is a very welcome and extremely well-thought attempt to ease "app fatigue".

What I call "task centered design" is my single most favorite feature of Windows Phone. Arguably, this is not particularly easy to explain and sell to an ordinary end user, however.

What the launch of iPad Mini and iPad 4 means for Apple

2012-10-24T23:09:00.001-04:00

Apple announced the iPad Mini and iPad 4th generation yesterday. Most of the announcements were expected, but there are a few surprises. Here are my quick thoughts on the new iPads and what their launch means.

Apple nixed iPad 3 while launching iPad 4 quietly. Interestingly though iPad 2 is still available for sale. It might sound strange, but there are good reasons for Apple to keep only iPad 2 and 4 (in addition to the Mini). New iPads have always been priced at $499 for the basic model. iPad Mini is selling for $329, and iPad 2 for $399. This just doesn't leave enough price points between them to justify adding another iPad (3).

Second, the new iPad, while an improvement over iPad 3, doesn't seem to be a makeover. But more importantly, iPad Mini is the real deal here. iPad Mini and not the new iPad (4) is featured on the Apple's home page. Apple expects to sell a lot of iPad Mini's.

Third, iPad 2 and iPad Mini have more in common in terms of components than iPad 3 and iPad Mini. Therefore it makes perfect sense to leverage economies of scale by continuing to sell iPad 2. (Thanks to Ryan Carag for scoop on this)

John Gruber had suggested that iPad Mini will be priced below the new iPod Touch. Obviously that didn't happen. Pricing of the iPad Mini in relation to that of iPod Touch (and vice versa) might be the strangest (and perhaps riskiest) thing Apple has done in the recent launch. At only $30 premium, iPad Mini sounds like a better deal than iPod Touch for most. Sure, iPod Touch has the smaller size and better resolution going for it, but I think bigger screen size might just be reason enough for most people to choose iPad Mini over iPod Touch.

This is fine because Apple will just sell a lot more Mini's than iPod Touches. But I imagine that pricing iPod Touch a bit lower (closer to its traditional price of $199) would have resulted in more overall sales across the two devices for Apple.

But iPad Mini doesn't just cannibalize iPod Touches. It will also cannibalize the big brother (iPad 4). True the bigger size and better resolution might be worth spending almost $200 extra, but I think most consumers will be happy with the Mini.

Obviously this is all good for Apple as long as it can keep market share from its rivals, especially Google/Samsung and Amazon. Despite its price premium over other 7" tablets, iPad Mini will sell well (even if I am not as optimistic as Dan Frommer is). And undoubtedly, it is superior than its rivals in Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire. While Nexus 7 has been widely praised, there are several shortcomings as described here.

Could Apple have priced iPad Mini lower? I think that would have hurt iPods even more. While true that the iPods comprise very little of Apple's sales now, Apple cannot simply exit the portable music player business. If it did, someone could attack it from the low end of the market and enter the high end. Therefore, it is in Apple's interest to keep away any entrants in the iPod/music players market.

Most unassuming characteristic of Apple's foray into the 7" tablet however is that it is a defensive move. While I am personally a bigger fan of 7" tablets than 10", it simply shows that Apple is reacting to its rivals than taking the lead as it has usually done. This might not be a bad thing in the short term (and despite the risks mentioned above, Apple will overall benefit from this in the short term), but it's disappointing that Apple's new product line is not really new. It's just a way for Apple to proliferate the market not dissimilar to what many of its consumer electronic competitors have done for ages.

Read Why iPad will sell despite its missing features for my take on the very first iPad before it launched

Read more on Microsoft's new tablet Surface here and here

Read more on whether Apple's best days are over

Why Windows 8/RT will not sell well

2012-10-20T23:38:00.001-04:00

Earlier this week I talked about why Microsoft Surface, Windows 8, and Windows RT will sell well. While I still believe in the potential, I also want to highlight a few big risks with Microsoft's Windows 8 strategy. In general, this is a high risk and potentially high reward move by Microsoft. Let's look at a few reasons why Windows 8 will not sell well.

1. Microsoft's infamous "no compromise" mantra for Windows 8 might very well backfire. After all, there is no such thing as no compromise. In an attempt to make a product that simultaneously addresses laptop and tablet/mobile markets, Microsoft has to have made compromises. The most obvious one is perhaps the battery life. Windows RT Surface's battery is stated to run for 8 hours, more than 20% less than an iPad would run on a full charge. Windows 8 Surface's battery life is worse.

2. Surface with Windows RT might not be enterprise-ready after all. As per official specs, only Windows 8 version supports existing enterprise management infrastructure.

3. I haven't used Office RT, and it will be interesting to see how powerful its is when compared to regular Office that runs today on Windows 7 and other operating systems. Ability to edit documents with ease is one of the main advantages of Windows RT over Android and iOS. However, if Office RT fails to live up to expectations, Windows RT's biggest promise will have failed with it.

4. It sounds like consumer choice is coming at a huge cost: Expect consumers, sales staff, and developers all extremely confused over differences between Windows RT, Windows 8, Office RT, and myriad of other options available. (For more on these choices, see my Facebook note here) (Read The Verge's If Microsoft Store reps don't know the difference, how will Surface buyers? here)

5. Last but not least, needs for mobile design are fundamentally different from those of laptops/desktops application design. Whether Microsoft admits it, Windows 8/RT is designed for mobile use and touch input first and desktop use and traditional inputs (mouse and keyboard) second.

While there are many reasons why Windows 8 is a mobile first design, I will mention only one:

On mobile, only a single window is available at any given time. This requires a self-sufficient design (such that users can do what is required without navigating or switching between windows). This is precisely why iOS, Android, Windows Phone, and others do not allow multiple windows on a single screen. On the other hand, users are very comfortable and actually want to work with multiple windows on a laptop. Windows 8 in metro-style UI emphasizes a single window design. This will only cause frustration for users who are using Windows 8 on a desktop.

Moreover, if developers don't know what settings their applications will be used in (whether on a desktop, laptop, or tablet; and whether on Windows 8 or Windows RT), how would they design apps that are optimized for either?

Conclusion

Microsoft simply couldn't have won in the tablet and mobile market by adopting Apple's or Google's strategy of separate OS'es for tablets and desktops. In that regard, Microsoft's decision to design Windows 8/RT for tablet-use first is brilliant: If and when users upgrade their PC's to Windows 8, they will have become "tablet users" whether they know it or not. In other words, Microsoft may get a huge market share in the tablets market simply by convincing PC users to upgrade to Windows 8.

However, this strategy comes at a considerable risk: By optimizing for touch input, Microsoft might be turning away its biggest user base that is used to more traditional inputs as mouse and keyboard.

7 Reasons why Microsoft Surface will sell well

2012-10-17T20:44:00.000-04:00

Microsoft yesterday announced more details on its much awaited tablet Surface. Despite general skepticism amongst the analyst and blogging community, I predict that Surface (but more importantly, and by proxy, Windows 8 (and RT) based devices (smartphones, tablets, and PC's) will be a resounding success. Here's why:

1. Surface's metro-style UI is pleasure to use on a portable device and gets praise from even staunch critics of Microsoft and Windows Phone (harbinger of metro-style UI). (Read more on Windows Phone 7 and metro-style UI here)

2. Surface will include basic versions of Microsoft's popular productivity suite. Ability to create and edit serious documents is something most users still miss on a tablet. Carrying an iPad doesn't absolve the need for carrying a laptop for many. With Surface, I can seriously imagine myself carrying just Surface (and a smartphone, but no laptop) on my long travels outside town.

3. Many enterprises will be more comfortable with sanctioning purchase of Windows RT tablets on office expense than they would be purchase of iPad or an Android tablet.

4. One big reason, users have hesitated to buy a Windows Phone is stated lack of applications in the Windows Marketplace. Never mind that there are already more than 100,000 apps available in the Windows Phone Marketplace, and are usually enough to serve all needs of an average user.

But there is no denying that some of the newest and coolest apps are only available on iOS much before they even become available on Android. Moreover, many existing apps on Windows such as Foursquare, are not updated as often. (Read more on the latest version of Foursquare available on iOS and Android here)

The biggest trick up Microsoft's sleeve however is its existing dominance in the PC market. Since Windows RT apps will also be available to anyone who upgrades to Windows 8 on a PC, even if a smaller percentage of PC users initially upgrade to Windows 8, they will get access to these metro-style apps. Moreover, since WIndows RT is more suited for enterprise use, developers will be stupid to ignore a potentially huge market, which was not available to them via Windows Phone 7 yet.

5. Another big reason why Windows Phone 7 has not sold well so far is that sales people at AT&T or Verizon Wireless are less inclined to sell it than they are to sell the iPhone or Android. Since Surface doesn't come with a carrier plan (and subsidy) and will be sold via Microsoft Store (physical and online), it will face no such resistance from Microsoft's sales staff. Of course, this also limits Surface's distribution channels.

6. Microsoft just announced its killer app XBox Music, which initially is only available on Windows 8 machines and XBox. It simply sounds to be the best service in the industry (standing up to iTunes, iTunes Match. Google Music, Spotify/Rdio, and Pandora all at once!). While there has been much hoopla and disappointment around unavailability of the service on non Windows 8 platforms, and even though it might very well be just a resourcing and timing issue on part of Microsoft, it will unarguably help sales of more Windows RT/8 machines and therefore Surface. Obviously, Microsoft is in much more need of selling Windows 8 than XBox Music.

7. Lastly, Micorosoft's ecosystem of devices and services is coming together quite well. (Read more about it here). Therefore, for example, XBox users have much to benefit from buying a Windows RT/8 tablet. Smartglass, XBox games, XBox Music, and Office are just some of the services and capabilities that will help propel Microsoft's ecosystem further. (Read more on why an ecosystem of devices and services is critical)

Is Apple's dominance at risk?

2012-10-14T12:37:00.001-04:00

Apple is the most valuable company on the planet, and there is no evidence to suggest it’s slowing down anytime soon. What if anything might reverse or slow down Apple’s rise?

First, let’s look at how Apple is well on its way to become the first trillion-dollar company ever. iPad is still early in its disruption of the PC market, taking away mindshare of PC users and developers. iPhone while a huge hit already yet has to reach its full potential in terms of the world-wide market share: Apple has signed up with only about 250 carriers so far (this compares with 500 plus carriers for Nokia and Samsung) and majority of cell phone users still use a feature phone. If this were not enough, Apple is surely trying to disrupt new markets such as home entertainment.

Yet, there are a few signs that Apple’s best days might be limited.

Apple’s most recent snafu with its Maps suggests a structural weakness with Apple’s business model. Traditionally, Apple has lived happily without owning content, but in an increasingly dynamic landscape, it feels pressed to own strategic information such as location. This strategic conflict with Google resulted in Apple compromising the user experience, something that has set Apple apart from the competition in the first place.

Several bloggers and analysts have praised Apple for its tendency to preempt disruption by disrupting itself, first with iPhone cannibalizing iPod, and then iPad disrupting the Macs. I tend to disagree. While iPad surely cannibalized Mac’s sales, its profit margins are higher than those of Macs, and iPad allowed Apple to disrupt the PC market dominated by Microsoft. Similarly, while iPhone did impact iPod sales, it also helped Apple to enter a new market. Compare this with Microsoft trying to avoid disruption in the productivity suite market with an online offering of its Office. This is a much harder problem than Apple has ever faced. Therefore, when Apple faces a true innovator’s dilemma, which it surely will, I am not sure whether Apple is ready for it.

Lastly, while iPhone might yet not be good enough, it soon will, and when that happens, vertical integration will not play that critical a role as seamless integration of devices and services will. Apple might perfect its iCloud by then, but if current glitches are any indication, Apple is nowhere close.

While vacuum left by Steve Jobs is surely difficult to fill, Apple's rise will be far more threatened by either of the three risks I mentioned above.

The new Foursquare and what it all means

2012-06-10T23:36:00.000-04:00

I took the new Foursquare for a spin. While focus on discovery and recommendations stands out, there are many other subtleties that are interesting to note.

Social

Foursquare has done a good job at making the app more social. For example, note the following features:
1. Ability to add comments to activities such as check-ins.
2. Ability to “heart” activities such as check-ins.
3. Starting page (Friends) is now a time-based feed and shows all sorts of updates rather than just check-ins. For example, if your friends like a place or leave a tip, you will see those activities in your feed.
4. Under the Friends tab, there is no sub-tab called Nearby; all activities appear in one feed. This makes it easier to digest information, though one could argue that not showing nearby friends makes the app a bit less social. There is indeed a Map view in the Explore section however, which shows interesting places nearby, some of which might be based on your friends’ check-ins.
5. User profiles have a feed section as well. In the previous app, user profiles did not have a single feed per se, but check-ins for example were one step removed.

I expect that the average time spent on the new Foursquare per user will substantially increase as a result of making the app more social. Unlike the previous version, where I had little reason to visit the app often, now I'd like to go back more often to see tips from my friends, lists they created, where they became a mayor, what comments they left and so on.

Game mechanics

The new app does not focus so much on game mechanics and user scores. As an example, leaderboards are one step removed under Stats in user profiles. Moreover, after a check-in, what stands out more is a prompt to leave a tip or take a photo rather than seeing how you did in terms of your score.

Focus away from game mechanics might sound counter-intuitive, because after all game mechanics, such as leaderboard, is what helped Foursquare rise on the map in the first place. However, my guess is that while game mechanics played a critical role in getting early adopters to use the app, they do not play that important a role in engaging the new users Foursquare is trying to target. The new users care a lot more about more useful (even if less gamy) content.

User generated content

Almost any blog you read on the topic talks about Foursquare moving away from check-ins. While that might be true, I don't think that's the point. Check-ins are still readily accessible to users who want to check in, but do not stick out in your face if you do not care to check in. Check-ins were key to Foursquare's rise, and users who love to check in will continue to do so with more ease than ever before (as there are lesser steps involved in checking in).

But for new users, Foursquare now offers much more meaningful ways to contribute. You can like (heart) a place, like an activity, and dislike (heart-break) a place in addition to saving a place, leaving a tip, and taking a photo. All these actions are less private and therefore more likely to be taken by privacy conscious users who would rather not check in.

The new app doesn't just offer these new features, it also makes them stand out in the design. As an example, each place page has like and dislike options up top, and your last check-in is always on top of the home page, thus giving users easy access to add a tip or a photo even after they have left the place.

All this is great for Foursquare and users. Users will generate more content, Foursquare will learn more about user choices, and therefore offer better recommendations.

Discovery

I love the new Explore section. Rather than hiding interesting places in categories, it actually shows them in a feed. Recommendations are based on your history, your current location, your friends' locations, your lists, activity of other people, the time of day (lunch etc.), and special offers.

Place page itself shows place info such as address and times it is open, and also allows to call or find directions.

Interestingly, Lists are not so obvious in the new design. This again might seem counterintuitive if you believe that Lists were one of the most popular features of Foursquare. However, just like other design choices Foursquare has made, this design choice is based on the new user population Foursquare hopes to woo. Early adopters love to generate stuff, while majority of users that follow mostly like to consume content. With that perspective in mind, hiding lists in other sections is not a bad thing. At the same time, those who do subscribe to lists will see places based on those lists in their Discover section anyway.

Things that Foursquare could have done better

By very nature of it, design cannot cater to all needs. Some of the following gaps likely resulted as a consequence of making discovery and recommendations better for example, whereas others could be improved.

1. There is no easy way to add friends now (it is hidden under settings, which itself is under profiles). Given that Foursquare’s social graph is not huge, I’d have hoped that adding friends should remain a key priority for Foursquare, and therefore accessible in the Friends section.
2. It's not very obvious what you are liking; whether a place or an activity such as check-in.
3. It's not very clear when a heart is actionable, and when it just means someone took an action already.
4. In Android, leaving a comment accompanies a heart on the left, thus sometimes confusing a user as to what action is being taken.
5. Tapping on an activity takes a user to the place page in iOS, but to the activity itself in Android.
6. Adding a comment to an activity might give the wrong impression that the comment is tied to the place page.
7. Save, Like, and Dislike options on the place page could have used more visual love.
8. Heart and Break-Heart while easy to understand and use are not terribly innovative.
9. Leaving a tip on the place page gets buried if there are many tips on a place.

Overall though, Foursquare has pulled off another very impressive update to their offering, and one that will go a long way in usurping Yelp sometime in the near future.

Mountain Lion solves some of the problems with iCloud

2012-02-17T16:46:00.000-05:00

Almost two months ago, I wrote a piece on problems with the iCloud. Apple's next upgrade to the Mac OS X, dubbed as Mountain Lion, fixes some of those issues.

Here are a few I mentioned earlier, and will be resolved in the next version of OS X.

1) Second is that there is no app called Notes on a Mac. You have to find it under Mail application, which I never use!

Mountain Lion indeed will have a separate application called Notes.

2) With Contacts and Calendars, at least the naming is (nearly) consistent.

I said nearly because on Mac, Calendar is known as iCal, and Contacts as Address Book. Not with Mountain Lion anymore. iCal will be renamed to Calendar, and Address Book to Contacts.

3) Reminders app doesn’t have a naming counterpart on Mac, and is hidden under iCal. With Lion OS moving closer to the iOS model there is even more reason for having a separate app for Reminders.

Mountain Lion will have a separate Reminders app.

There are other improvements as well: for example, all iWork documents, and not just Pages, will be synced to the cloud. This is by no means absolution for iCloud, but a step in the right direction. More than offering a better iCloud, the new OS just goes a step further in becoming an even closer cousin to iOS.

(For more on how Mac and iOS devices are converging, read Back to the Mac or welcome to the iOS?) (iCloud just passed 100M users, but how telling is that number? Read iCloud reaches 100M users mark, so what?)

iCloud reaches 100M users mark, so what?

2012-02-15T16:39:00.000-05:00

Tim Cook announced today that Apple's iCloud, within a few months of its launch, has now more than 100M users. On the surface, the number might look impressive, but is it really? I am afraid not.

I would have liked to see a few other parameters that would tell me a lot more about iCloud's momentum (or lack thereof), but I don't think Apple would be very proud to share them at least yet. Let's look at a few of them:

- Number of paid subscribers (Apple charges beyond 5GB of free storage). Arguably 5GB is a lot because a lot of stuff such as the most 1000 recent pictures and music and TV shows bought from iTunes does not count toward the 5GB limit. But it would still be nice to know how many people tryst iCloud to be their primary cloud storage and are therefore willing to pay for it.

- Number of bytes stores beyond free storage. This is meaningful for bigger items such as media and big documents.

- Average number of applications synced with iCloud. For example, I only use iCloud for Photo Stream and Find My iPhone (does that really count?). While Bookmarks and Documents and Data are also turned on in my iCloud settings, I neither use Safari nor iWork, so both of these options are meaningless for me, and I imagine for many people.

- Number of subscribers using iTunes Match, a service that Apple sells for $25 a year (and I have one).

You might say that 100M is stil impressive in its own right, but keep in mind that any device with iOS5 makes it very easy to "sign up" for iCloud when setting up the device. So I am not ready to read too much into number of sign ups alone. Good news is that iCloud is still young, however if Apple really wants its cloud to become sticky, Apple and iCloud have a long way ahead of them.

(For a detailed analysis of iCloud and why it is lacking, read iCloud just doesn't work)

(To see why iCloud is critical for Apple's future, read Will vertical integration prove key in the race to the top?)

(For a quick comparison of iCloud and Google's cloud, read What's up with iCloud)

iCloud just doesn’t work

2011-12-27T16:33:00.000-05:00

Steve Jobs fired Mobile Me’s Product Manager for not delivering on the promise. I wonder whether he’d react as strongly to iCloud were he alive.

Despite constant rants from several analysts about the way Apple has limited iCloud’s scope to Apple’s devices, I personally do not care much about that (perhaps because I consistently use several Apple devices). I also welcome how Apple has tried to approach the problem of the cloud very differently: Apple’s iCloud marries the power and richness of native applications with the comfort of syncing them to the cloud and being able to access them from anywhere (as long as it is from an Apple device). At least in theory.

If those were the only problems with iCloud, I would not be writing this post. But unfortunately, iCloud just does not work as seamlessly as Apple would have you believe it does.

Let’s look at a few use cases.

Contacts and Calendars

I use Google Voice as a single phone number but also as single place to store my voicemails and send and receive SMS’es. Therefore it makes sense for me to keep my contacts in Google. Since Apple doesn’t provide any calling service per se (yes they have Facetime and iMessage), there is little reason for me to store contacts with Apple. The way I sync contacts with my iPhone is via a Google Exchange account configured in my iPhone Settings. Because my contacts are synced directly with Google on the cloud, I have turned off my Contacts sync in the iCloud.

Same applies to Calendars. While iCloud offers a way to offer calendar over the web, it doesn’t provide the features and ease of Google calendars on the web, which makes it easy to share calendars, send a Google calendar invite and so on. Also, since I use Outlook at office, I sync my device calendar with both Google and Outlook. There is no reason for me to store this content in iCloud, because Outlook and Google are the services that my colleagues and friends use.

In the case of contacts and calendars, I use other providers because they offer better services. But that’s not it. The problem with Apple’s syncing and cloud solution is that Apple not only allows syncing content between a device and iCloud but also between a Mac and a device. So if a user turns on the iCloud and also syncs content with the Mac, she will end up with duplicate entries.

Reminders

With Contacts and Calendars, at least the naming is (nearly) consistent. Reminders app doesn’t have a naming counterpart on Mac, and is hidden under iCal. With Lion OS moving closer to the iOS model there is even more reason for having a separate app for Reminders. I am sure Apple thought about having a separate app for Reminders on Mac rather than combining it with iCal (where it arguably belongs), and ruled it out for reasons I can’t fully understand.

(For more on how Mac and iOS devices are converging, read Back to the Mac or welcome to the iOS?)

Since I don’t use iCal much anyway, I decided to turn off Reminders sync. Instead by virtue of syncing with Outlook, my Reminders are synced with the cloud (Microsoft’s in this case) anyway. On a Mac, they are available in Outlook.

Notes

This is one feature I would have loved to use iCloud for, but when I turned it on, it asked me to create a free Mobile Me account. I understand that there are some technical and legacy reasons (which I won’t get into here) why this is required, but isn’t this what Apple is supposed to hide from the user? I already have 2-3 Mobile Me accounts (one I created for free and didn’t continue beyond free trial, and another created for “Find my iPhone” (which is the same as my Apple ID)), none of which work for the purpose of syncing notes.

So not surprisingly, I decided to use my Google account to sync my notes to as well. Now my notes sync to Gmail > Notes label, and are also available on iPad since I use the same syncing settings there.

Even if Mobile Me problem didn’t exist, there are two additional problems. First problem is the same as it exists with almost everything else in iCloud: If I sync Notes to my Mac as well as iCloud, I end up getting two copies. Second is that there is no app called Notes on a Mac. You have to find it under Mail application, which I never use!

Bookmarks

While I do not use Safari much on a Mac, I do use it on iPhone (since it is preinstalled and works great), and therefore occasionally use iCloud for Bookmarks and Reading List. But this didn’t work smoothly either. If it did, you would not see tons of complaints and questions on the web.

Things that work really well with iCloud are all rich media related. For example I love the way Photo Stream stores the most recent pictures taken from my iPhone and how the pictures become available on my Apple TV as well. I also love how TV Shows are instantly available on the cloud regardless of where I bought them (as long as they were purchased via iTunes of course), and how iTunes Match ($24.99 a year) makes my music available on the cloud. These solutions are not perfect – for example, TV Shows do not synch the playback position, and music is not available for streaming (except on Apple TV), but only for download. But they are good enough.

Final Thoughts

Apple’s stronger relationships with studios make it easier for Apple to “upload” music to the cloud, since all it needs to do is sync libraries rather than the songs themselves. This results in substantial time saving for consumers, and also puts Apple at a cost advantage, even when factoring in the licensing fees and revenue share for the studios.   Arguably, Apple’s hybrid approach with the cloud will also allow it to offer a better streaming experience as compared to to the jittery and delayed streaming associated with the likes of the Amazon cloud.

However, Apple has failed to woo me on any other aspect of the iCloud, and I continue to use other cloud solutions for most of my productivity needs. While I have tuned iCloud settings (see the picture above) the way I want to make things work "seamlessly" for me, iCloud is way too complicated and messy for an ordinary consumer. Apple's cloud solution is embarrassingly unimpressive and not ready for prime-time yet.

Most people are quick to point out that the fundamental problem is with how Apple approaches the solution in a hybrid fashion. Compare it to the way Google does it for example -- since there are no copies, "syncing" and settings are not required. A user doesn't even have to know that "cloud" exists.

I, on the other hand, still believe that Apple's approach is welcome because it is unique in many ways and offers a few advantages (due to native richness) over Google's approach, but if Apple can't figure out a way to make this work seamlessly, this will be a lost opportunity.

(Also read what's up with iCloud and Will vertical integration prove key in the race to the top? to see why iCloud's success is crucial for Apple)