Only Joel

There's no iTablet or iPad. Say hi to the new MacBook.

2009-08-14T00:02:00.005-04:00

The internet rumor mill is often business senseless. If doctors make the worst businessmen and businesswomen, then technology evangelists might come second.

Case in point: Apple's new tablet device.

It's referred to as the iPad, the iTablet, etc. But it's not being referred to as the next MacBook. Why?

From a technology perspective, it might share more in common with an iPhone. It's likely that the new device will share the same multi-touch technology and a software framework more similar to the iPhone than a Mac Pro. Some of the usability enhancements will likely spread from the iPhone to rest of the product lines, such as the ease of software installation and upgrading. It will likely come subsidized with a cellular contract. It will act more like an iPhone. It will look more like an iPhone. But it won't be the iTablet.

From a business perspective, the new tablet is clearly being positioned as the next MacBook for several reasons.

Apple dropped the prices of the MacBook Pro to about the price of the non-pro versions. Why keep the MacBook Pro name if you plan on phasing out the original MacBook namesake? There's a naming hole. Apple pays too close attention to naming to oversee this. Otherwise it might have made sense to introduce a new name with the unibody design, a fairly significant leap in notebook design.

From a pricing perspective, Apple will want the new device priced as high as feasibly possible. Calling it an iTablet will make $899 look like a huge premium to the iPhone. Calling it a MacBook might make it attractive at $899 as a low-end notebook. What would you rather have? An expensive gadget or a cheap computer?

More abstractly, the new MacBook will push forward the next paradigm shift in computing. Always-on networking, multi-touch interfaces, abstracting traditional computing concepts (the filesystem, software installation/uninstallation, etc.). The innovations from Apple's mobile unit will find a role in the more traditional uses for a computer -- notebooks and desktops -- so it's advantageous for Apple to push the new device as a computer replacement and not a mobile gadget. The new MacBook could redefine the computer.

Say hi to the new MacBook.

Apple's Touch Future

2009-06-19T14:25:00.014-04:00

CNET often allows its editors to engage in baseless hypothesizing which results in a lot of subpar content. Obviously, publications like to join the Apple guessing games because readers cannot get enough and Apple will not confirm or deny any of it.

But I think CNET editor Erica Ogg is dead right about her most recent observations at Apple's WWDC (though not all of her conclusions). I want to append to her analysis, and extend to you why I'm an Apple investor and will continue to be one after Steve Jobs' inevitable retirement.

In short, Apple's most recent announcements regarding the UI changes of Snow Leopard suggest a more touch-friendly operating system.

I won't regurgitate her observations, but I want to append a couple to them.

The new Finder has an icon sizing control right on the main window. Is sizing icons all that important in our daily traditional use of computers? Is it important enough to give it prominent positioning on every Finder window? Of course not, so what's the purpose? Because it's necessary to control icon sizing accommodate for fat & skinny fingers on a touch screen.

Also, I'd go further than the author and say that Stacks will fully replace file navigation in touch-based devices. With just a few more features, it can become a usable file manager.

What inferences can we draw from a more touch-friendly operating system?

Erica suggests the most commonly cited rumor, the infamous Apple tablet. But, we can go deeper than that with what we know about Apple's existing business.

Yesterday, I played with Sony's new 8" P Series notebook yesterday which runs a full Windows Vista. It's a neat hardware device, but it's hardly usable trying to track the pointer around to click Window controls and buttons on such a small screen with such an impressive resolution. Microsoft has not given much evidence that they are attempting to redesign Windows to scale down to a product that size. Nor have they suggested that they would scale up Windows Mobile.

So it remains overwhelming difficult to develop for this form factor as well as introduce new products around it. It's a useless laptop. Useless not for the hardware but for the software. If the notebook had a well-designed OS to go with it, it'd be a more tempting little machine that's very portable.

Snow Leopard has already taken a few more steps to become a good OS for devices like this, both with and without touch capability, but I'm compelled to believe OS X 10.6 will bring the big UI changes that will bring touch ability to the more mainstream general purpose computers. For example, new ways to close windows, minimize and maximize windows, and navigate menus are all functions that will be important to a touch-based device, but without such a device, the UI changes need not be announced. Apple wouldn't reveal such changes until a device is around the corner.

Begin thinking about the changes they're making to the UI and there are some irresistible inferences to draw. Undoubtedly, Apple is moving to touch-based devices.

Here are my best guesses for the two most popular of Apple's product lines: the mobile devices and more traditional computers.

Touch-based devices sized from 3.5" (iPhone) to 8" using touch-only navigation with cellular technology in all of them.

Always-on Internet actually makes the portability useful. After initial release, Apple can offer cellular-less versions as manufacturing prices drop like the iPod Touch.
Subscription contracts make producing these devices extremely profitable and tempting for consumers (through the infamous contract subsidies).

Traditional hybrid computers with screen 10" and up. All will provide both touch and keyboard ability. Laptops will have both (the infamous tablet). Desktops will have both too, but later.

A line this may be two years away. And when they come out, how long will it take the competition to replicate these products that personally, I find compelling and would like to buy? Apple has a multi-year lead. The Palm Pre is the first arguable contender to the iPhone. It was released *two years* after the iPhone. That's an eternity in technology, and one that makes for huge margins. Microsoft is showing no signs of competing the same space Apple is headed. In fact, they're fighting manufacturers in the netbook space.

I'll have a ton of Apple stock when that happens.

I'll continue to hold Apple stock so long as I can reasonably foresee their product line better than the average of the stock's shares and so long as I agree with Apple's direction.

Right now, I'm on-board with their strategy 100%. And I'll buy more if Steve Jobs retires soon, because I don't need blind faith in their leader to see where they're headed. Most others do, and that will be a great buying opportunity when they unload.

Why iGoogle, not orkut, will compete with Facebook

2008-06-06T16:11:00.006-04:00

Google updated their iGoogle developer sandbox today by integrating Google Talk. While this is not particularly newsworthy on its own, it does give insight into the future Google has planned for iGoogle -- and how it is aiming for Facebook's jugular.

Google Talk has been available as a gadget within iGoogle for quite some time. the new sandbox merely integrates Google Talk as part of the iGoogle frame, rather than within an optional gadget.

While it may appear to be a small feature addition, it's impact is far more significant for two reasons.

First, it reveals how Google is going to develop its social graph.

Users have been asked to create their own social connections since the first social networks began. To become networked, you ask your friend to join the site and become part of your network. Each successive social network followed the same model. Facebook did not leverage the existing social graph on MySpace to build its own graph. And orkut did not use any existing social graph to build its network. They all depended on the traditional handshake.

Google doesn't have as comprehensive of a social graph than any of the social network leaders today in the typical sense. Most people think of orkut as their social network offering and it lags behind the competition. But Google has a more compelling social graph. Instead of building a social graph with a handshake, Google can utilize Google Talk (and Gmail) to build a larger, though less personal, social graph.

Interestingly, Google Talk only became a player in the chat industry after it incorporated Gmail's "social graph" -- it's Contacts manager. Without Gmail, Google Talk would be unable to overcome the network effects of existing chat solutions like AIM. Instead, Google added your Gmail contacts to your Google Talk chat list and integrated the two services. Your email contacts became your friends automatically, thereby bypassing the network effect. It succeeded.

Now, since Google Talk is much more portable than Gmail, Google is using Google Talk to expand its social graph be integrating it into other services. They introduced an iGoogle gadget, a chatback code snippet for web sites, and now most significantly, it will become a part of every iGoogle homepage. Google Talk will help Google overcome the network effect and will expand Google's social graph to the scale of Facebook and MySpace.

Second, it shows how Google plans to replace Facebook -- with iGoogle, not orkut.

Consider iGoogle's history. It began as a whiteboard. It was a sparse Google homepage with space to plugin gadgets. It was essentially a copy of existing personalized homepages like Yahoo's, but it added some AJAX magic to improve usability. The only feature introduction that modified the layout of iGoogle was the introduction of tabs, which was largely a yawner.

Google didn't stray far from iGoogle's sparse layout even with the introduction of OpenSocial in its iGoogle sandbox. OpenSocial's highly publicized introduction initially left out iGoogle entirely. The integration with iGoogle appeared as a secondary priority. When Google finally introduced social functions for gadget developers, iGoogle still hardly looked like a Facebook competitor. The iGoogle service was still merely an aggregator and Google gave no sign it was going to become a platform. The blogosphere and Google itself set it up as OpenSocial (MySpace, orkut, etc.) vs. Facebook.

Now consider the chat integration -- iGoogle is becoming a platform.

Integrating Google Talk shows that they are not restricting iGoogle's role to that of an aggregator or whiteboard. It is the beginning of a highly functional home page. Like Facebook, iGoogle is becoming more of a hub where you can chat, email, and share from the same page.

Google gadgets are increasing in complexity. Not only can gadgets speak OpenSocial, but this month they will be acquiring multiple views which, among other things, allows developers to monetize their gadget from within iGoogle. Google Gadgets are beginning to look less like feeds and more like Facebook Applications.

Undoubtedly, Google will re-release the stale Gmail and Google Reader gadgets to take advantage of the multiple views. Developers are more incentivized to build rich gadgets now they have more opportunity to monetize them. Google Talk will continue to provide developers with the expanding social graph they need.

This model is different from the traditional social network. It is less personal since adding to the graph does not depend on a handshake. There is less focus on profiles, so there is less private information. Privacy controls will lie primarily with the gadget developers and less with the platform supplier.

On the other hand, the graph will be larger. People avoid Facebook and MySpace because they don't understand the benefit. But when they use iGoogle for their own purposes, they become part of the graph anyway. They can see their contacts sharing book recommendations and photos without signing up for a traditional social network. It makes participating easier.

Which model do you prefer?

Google is eating its own dog food, vomiting

2008-05-13T09:50:00.007-04:00

Google's Friend Connect announcement has been grabbing the most headlines, but did you notice how Google Docs played a part in the process?

Neither did I, until Google Docs spewed an error after I tried signing up for the preview release:

How is Google Docs involved? The Friend Connect team is using the newest Google Docs feature, forms, to collect the preview release signup data. The previous screen asked for your name, site, & various information from people interested in signing up for the preview service. Note the URL:

It appears Google is trying to eat its own dog food, but was let down this time. Most likely, the Friend Connect signups was the heaviest load their newest forms feature had to endure. In a rare failure, a Google process failed to scale.

Google's App Engine: The Other Half

2008-04-09T06:53:00.022-04:00

The blogosphere has missed half the excitement of Google's new App Engine.

Perhaps it should be expected, because Google has been focusing it's documentation and Campfire videos on only one advantage of their offering. It's homepage brags that every engine will be able to serve up to "5 million monthly pageviews." Every developer is salivating over the possibility of leveraging Google's cloud. Google is taking the heartache out of scaling. Like Amazon, but obviously different. Most soapboxes have been making this Amazon-Google comparison.

Yet there hasn't been useful commentary on what I believe to be the most interesting feature of App Engine -- that it has already been integrated with Google Apps.

For those without a Google Apps domain, the Google Apps Dashboard has a list of Google services available for your domain, like Gmail, Docs, and Calendar. The dashboard presents another option: Add more services.

This link existed prior to App Engine, but it was curiously useless. Google services were automatically added and set to Active so new Apps users could immediately begin to use Gmail and Calendar. For whatever reason, Google Pages was the only service that was not immediately active on newly commissioned domains. The "Add more services" link allowed you to add Google Pages to your domain with the other Google services.

Now, the "Add more services" link allows you to enter a an App ID of an App Engine application. Any application on App Engine can be limited to your Google Apps domain. The hosted application will utilize your domain users rather than Google's users without any code changes since the option is abstracted from the API.

Why is this important?

Forget scalability for a minute. Google is hosting a lot more than just a web application stack. They are also offering to host your company's authentication mechanisms and single sign-on framework. (It would naturally follow that they add access control later, say, to keep your sales department from accessing your IT inventory web app.) App Engine is not just a place to run a trendy web application that can scale to millions of users, but it's a place to host a small company's internal applications as well.

Google wants to run your company's intranet.

With App Engine, it's offerings are already quite comprehensive. It was an easy decision for many small businesses to substitute Gmail for their existing email infrastructure. It's been a much harder case for Docs and some of the others. Google Sites was the most recent launch and it generally underwhelmed Google Apps users. However, it makes more sense to think about Sites as a useful intranet tool than a public-facing wiki. Have you noticed that a Google Apps administrator can restrict all the domain's Sites to his domain users?

Besides making intranet a misnomer, Google Apps + App Engine makes it even less compelling for a startup to run any of its own infrastructure. Previously, a business was limited to Google's own offerings for its domain. Now, a business will be able to easily expand their offerings through App Engine. For example, a small real estate investment company could use Google's offerings for the typical IT services, then hire a programmer to write a property management application with App Engine that would only run for users on its domain.

Obviously, an unscalable trust barrier stands between Google and a larger company's intranet, but for a small company or a startup, Google Apps has become very compelling.