Adaptive Thinking

The Remote Migrant

2014-08-29T10:00:00.000-04:00

Here's an article I wrote for the British Computer Society about the pros and cons of remote working.

Over ripe Apple

2014-02-28T19:11:00.000-04:00

This article about debunking Android myths is a good summary of why Apple's days are numbered, unless they can pull another rabbit out of the hat. It ties in to my long-held view that open software will always beat closed software.

Sure, if you're an investor, Apple is a reasonable bet: great brand, awesome margins, great history of innovation. Some might argue that its laurels are getting dusty (if not musty), but the financials are strong, and the innovation pedigree is still ostensibly there.

But Android is like bacteria. It simply evolves faster because it can. Android's biggest competitors are rapidly becoming... itself. Kindle's OS is based on Android. Firefox OS, same. Even Ubuntu, the most popular open source desktop OS on the planet, has a mobile version based on, yes, Android.

Even Nokia have released Android phones, right under the shadow of the Microsoft mothership. Do Microsoft care? Probably not. I think they've realised what Google long ago understood and thrive on: that there's no point in trying to lock people into your platform. It just pisses the customers off when your stuff doesn't work with their preferred stuff, and even if you succeed in cornering the market it just makes you complacent. So, the trick is just to keep evolving faster. That's ultimately what software is all about: being pliable and adapting.

Many argue that, in the age of cloud and devices, the operating system is fast becoming irrelevant. Mostly true, except if you're an app developer. While there are common frameworks, like Titanium and PhoneGap, there is still friction/effort/cost in developing for multiple OSes. More and more voices argue that this friction is needless. After all, what is its purpose? Why should Apple use a different OS to everyone else, and not let anyone else use that OS in their devices? It's certainly not for consumer benefit, despite what Apple may say. Sure, they are good, but better than the entire software industry?

I use a macbook air and an iPhone 5, and I like them a lot. But my macbook has to run Windows in a VM for work. I have an old android tablet, with SIM, and, from an app perspective, it could readily replace my iPhone. There is nothing the iPhone can do that the Android cannot. The reverse is not true.

The iPad still outclasses its competitors, but for how long? As long as it takes for them to truly permeate the enterprise. Then the iPad is reduced to becoming what iBooks became: toys and ornamental computers for receptionists. The sheer volume and diversity of the rest of the ecosystem will overwhelm it.

Unless Apple adapts, its very incompatibility with the rest of the software world will be its undoing, once again.

Tech trends, with double insights

2013-11-12T11:39:00.000-04:00

This is a good article. It's a summary and opinion on the latest Gartner Tech predictions.

I agree with most of the opinions. Gartner makes its money on research, and, as such, is prone to exaggerate some preferred predictions - possibly in the hope that the very act of proffering them will lead to them occurring. Given their influence, it's not unreasonable, but it is a bias. So it's always healthy to view such research through the lens of a few opinions.

I agree with most of Chris Taylor's opinions, with some caveats of my own. It will be fun to review this post in a year's time...

Mobile device diversity & management: I'm with Chris on this. Enablement always trumps caution in technology, for better or worse. Technologists are always more interested in whether they can do something, rather than whether they should, and especially in software (that's why it's 'soft', right?). So ubiquity will work by 2018. The only constraint to it will be vendor lock-ins, not policies or standards.

Mobile apps & applications: I think Javascript is coming to the enterprise, so more enterprise apps will become web-based (or, more specifically, more desktop software companies will be able to build desktop-equivalent apps for browser). However, mobile-native apps will continue in the consumer space because there are a lot of vested skills in iOS and Android out there, and because companies like the vanity of having an app.

Internet of everything: it's seeping out, rather than exploding as many enthusiasts predicted it would. All it needs is one killer app, though, and it could rapidly come into its own. I imagine that app to be something like a cheap, SD card-sized Raspberry Pi, with sensors, micro USB connectivity (2, one for power, one for device(s) and really simplistic, user-friendly dev software.

Hybrid cloud and IT as service broker: I'm mostly with Chris on this. The issue with cloud is not security (that's a perception to address, though), it is integration. But, living in a developing country, I would not be as dismissive of the connectivity and jurisdictional issues.

Cloud/client architecture: this is just the same as the old client/server arguments. It ebbs and flows in roughly 5-10 year cycles: it's all about the client, then all about the server etc. I see no reason for that to change just because those servers are moving to the cloud.

Era of personal cloud: Agree, but I prefer to see it in more simplistic terms. As Marc Andreesen once wrote (in the WSJ, I think): software is eating the world. As more of our media is encapsulated in software (be it music, documents, patient records, news feeds, address books, hotel bookings etc.) the amorphous, invisible nature of software is taking hold in a very personal way.

Software defined anything: see above. Same thing, just the developer side of it.

Web-scale IT: see above. Same thing, just the enterprise side of it.

Smart machines: bit ambitious of Gartner to make predictions to 2020 (that's a century in IT terms!), but I agree with the gist that there will be some inflection point ahead based on smart machines, when we'll look back on Siri and Google Now as quaint pre-cursors to the main event.

3D printing: not convinced that this is any more than a cottage industry enabler. It's like printing: nearly everyone has a printer in their office and in their home, but we only really use them for office and home stuff. If we want business cards or brochures we still go to the professionals. Same with 3D printing: the key inhibitors will always be cost of materials and mass customisation (why print my own trainers, when Nike can build me a custom pair for $120?). So the main benefit may be contextual: it stimulates the customisation efforts of mass producers.

Chris' own list is good for 2014, I think. That's the near-term direction things are heading.

OSX Mavericks: free, because it's not worth paying for

2013-10-23T17:50:00.000-04:00

Apple's reality distortion field often engendered a wry smile, even from hardened Apple fans. You knew they were stretching the truth horribly, but you forgave them because you knew that on most other dimensions they were surpassing your expectations.

The trouble with hyperbole is that it can tip from ballsy to bravado very quickly. Leading edge may become bleeding edge. Cool dude abruptly becomes 'bit of a dick'. So when I read a headline that
Apple Just Ended the Era of Paid Operating Systems my instincts prickled. Is it really a whole new OS? Or is it like Windows 8.1, which has some pretty drastic changes over Windows 8, but Microsoft decided to release as an update, for free?

Having duly ~~upgraded~~ installed the new OS X Mavericks, I could see little visible difference. No whizzy intro sequence like OSX of old. Hardly a 'new' OS, then. More an upgrade, which is fine unless you're spending a few $mill on pitching it as a new OS, with all the hyperbole trimmings.

So what has changed?

There were just a couple of extra icons added, without my permission, to my dock. Maps and iBooks: neither of which I use, or have interest in using. I live in Barbados, which Apple Maps, until recently, rendered as a triangular blob. It's slightly better now, but I still live in a field, according to Maps, so can't get directions to anywhere. So I'll stick to Google Maps/Earth, and forego the 'amazing' integration with Calendar, until I move to Cupertino, where I'm sure it works.

I live in the middle of a field, apparently.

As for iBooks, I think Apple's foray into books is faintly reminiscent of Microsoft's foray into music: Zune vs iTunes? Pah. iBooks vs Kindle? Good luck, iBooks, you will need it. Try supporting a couple of non-Apple devices for a start.

Almost all the other new Mavericks items are furniture re-arrangement:-

Finder: Tags? Already had them, they're just more prominent. Tabs? Long overdue - 3rd party Finder replacement apps have had them for years. Still not as good as Windows Explorer, I'm afraid.
Safari: reading list and bookmarks on a sidebar? So what? And a Sharing sidebar? Because it's too much effort to open Twitter in another tab?
Multiple displays: is different to Airplay.. because you have the menu bar on each screen? Jaw dropping.
iCloud keychain: so we're syncing my keychain to my iCloud account. That's just like syncing my bookmarks only with more encryption, right?
Notifications: like my phone. So my mac is now almost as good as my iPhone? (But is it as good as my Android phone notifications? Or Google Now?)

Apple have always been confident in their dictatorial stance, eg. "you don't need removable storage or spare batteries in your phone". And after some initial whinging you usually come round to their way of thinking, which grows into an admiration that perhaps they know your tech needs better than you do yourself. I had that with Apple from 2001 to 2011.

With this latest 'new' OS I think they're starting to look like a dick. Have the balls to spare us the hyperbole for when it really matters, Apple.

Windows 8 verdict: daft UI

2013-06-11T03:30:00.000-04:00

Here's the summary. Don't expect stats & benchmarks, just well-reasoned rhetoric.

Beware Android users

2013-06-07T11:47:00.000-04:00

The most sophisticated bug for a mobile phone ever has recently been found by Kaspersky Labs.

Not only can it do real damage (eg. sending SMS to premium rate numbers), it has no user interface, no indication of the privileges it has (circumventing all of Android's usual 'this app can..' lists) and cannot be removed from compromised devices!

The hackers found no less than 3 unknown critical vulnerabilities, one even obfuscating the code to prevent analysis.

Details here (Securelist.com).

Kaspersky have notified Google, but this could cast serious doubts on the enterprise use of Android.

The battle for the living room

2013-05-30T10:42:00.000-04:00

This article (ReadWriteWeb) makes a good case for the next big consumer electronics battleground being in the living room.

It mentions, but doesn't really expand on, the key success criteria too: content, intelligence and user experience. Two of these are radically from traditional media. User experience is generational: older generations are used to being served content, to 'tuning in' to a broadcast. Whereas kids these days are very selective, and fickle about their content - they have to be because there's so much of it. So how to find the middle ground? That will be the critical challenge, and I suspect Apple will crack it first because that's what they excel at.

Intelligence on the web is massive, literally: every click or tap you make is tracked by something, somewhere. At the very least, it's the site you are on, more likely it is tracked by Facebook (if you browser is aware of your Facebook account), Google (ditto) and a few of the common advertising cookie trackers. Attach that to your TV and movie watching habits and that's a considerable portion of peoples' lives fully mapped. But data capture is only half the story. To engage and monetize you have to use the data intelligently. That's where Google have the advantage.

Content (which the article mainly focuses on) is the same issue as traditional media: it is still king, but cheaper to produce than ever. Sure, good stuff is still expensive, but that's about production, not distribution.

There's one other aspect that the article does not mention, but that I think will be vital: social. Sharing content is a big thing already, but there's still some friction when you do it. Imagine a monetized version where you get a micropayment whenever you successfully share a piece of content (like, say, a movie trailer). There's also the participation aspect of social: gaming. Currently, there are very few multi-platform online games: an Xbox player cannot play with a Playstation player online. On some games they can play against PC players, but for quick reaction games the PC players have the advantage of a richer, more responsive interface (a mouse has a greater more accurate range of movement, plus a keyboard has more programmable combinations than a gamepad). This limitation is tolerable because consoles are primarily about games, with media playing being a bonus feature. In the future living room, audiences will not tolerate being restricted to sharing only with others on the same platform.

Optimum smart phone size?

2013-05-23T16:14:00.002-04:00

I think smart phones are getting too big.

Usually technological progress is about miniaturisation: packing the same or more into less. The computer industry, while adhering vigorously to this principle -to the extend of inventing a law about it (Moore's Law) - also has a propensity to get ahead of itself. PC specs in the 1990's were all about mega and giga hertz processors. These days clock speeds are pretty standard: about 1.5GHz for small laptops, 2.5GHz for larger laptops, and 3GHz for desktops. They've plateau'd.

Now think about the progress of mobile phones. The first mobile I had was a Nokia 2110 that was the size and weight of a slim brick. It was cool because, as well as making calls, you could manage your contacts. Phones were less about features and more about size/weight, coverage and cost. Then came feature phones, with cameras and basic apps. Software and computer companies stirred at the potential: a new battle ground. The smartphone was born.

Software, by its nature, evolves rapidly and has an insatiable appetite for hardware. The old PC expression was that "Intel builds them, and Microsoft fills them"- no sooner was the latest PC processor released, then the latest Windows OS would require it to run properly. And the software process was always linear: more features = better.

But mobile is different. A modern mobile already has enough processing power for me to write a book, do my accounts and even edit and shoot a short film. But would I do any of that on my phone? Not if I valued my eyesight, thumbs and patience. What I want in a phone is still just portability and connectivity. Sure, I want to connect in more ways than ever before: text, voice, video and all the social gloop in between, but try carrying your phone around in airplane mode for a couple of days. It rapidly devolves into a toy: a walkman or a gameboy. Amusing, yes, but not essential.

So, it's really just a screen to all the things I want to connect to. A little window to my online world. So I sort of understand the implied trend that this little window should be as big and bright and hi-res as possible.

But what about that other essential attribute: portability? If I can't wear it and it doesn't fit in my jeans pocket it's not portable. Pouches on belts do not count: I'm not on maneuvers, nor am I a hobbit. While the latest big 5" screen, flat smartphones look slick and fun to fondle in the shop, once you get one and put a protective case on it, you're basically trying to carry a 1980's calculator in your pocket. I may have been a geek in the 80's but I only ever had a calculator in my bag for maths lessons.

So why bigger? Because marketers need a killer feature to brag about and screen size is simple to understand and literally visual. There's another more cunning reason: battery life. Mobile processors are getting faster, hotter and more energy consuming. That kills battery life, so make the battery bigger but do not make the phone thicker because thick is ugly. So make the screen bigger. People think they are getting more screen, and they are, but really it's for the bigger battery to support the bigger processor (and bigger screen!).

Apple did a clever thing with the iPhone 5. They made it bigger, but only taller: they kept it narrow, so that it could still fit in a pocket. Also, the screen is still small enough for your thumb to travel to all corners without having to adjust a one-handed grip, unlike all the bigger screen smartphones, that effectively require two hands to use.

The final silliness: screen density. The latest smartphones have over 400 pixels per inch. The naked eye can only effectively discern 300 ppi. So all those extra pixels are for the marketing feature lists, not for your eyes.

Where I'd like to see it go is where Mark Shuttleworth's Ubuntu are dabbling: using your phone as a PC. Hook it up to a display, keyboard and mouse, and you have a proper PC. Take off the peripherals, and you're back to simple touch interface. Add a secure wireless display standard to all displays (TVs and monitors) and you have no need of oversized screens. The touchscreens of today will become like the little outer screens on the old clamshell mobiles. That's worth putting in your pocket.

China hacking

2013-05-08T07:45:00.001-04:00

While watching this video ( http://bloomberg.com/share/video/mB_vR3VcTA$pjOWVcVRO7w source: Bloomberg) it struck me as ironic that China's supposed control over it's people could work so badly against it, at least from a diplomatic perspective.

The telling stat is that 40% of the worlds hacks emanate from China, but only 10% from the US. Yet nobody accuses "the US" of hacking because state-sponsored naughty behavior is not what the US is about, right? Whereas when a hack comes from China it is heavily implied that it is state-sponsored.

Maybe they just have script kiddies and organized crime too? There are 1.2 billion Chinese, so they could have hacking clubs larger than formal cybercrime entities in the West. Certainly, the organized crime is bigger. Also, given China's regime, those hackers would have to be pretty adept at covering their tracks, so you'd imagine that they'd figure out how to point the blame at the regime's institutions. Especially as it would suit the west's ideology to blame the Chinese state rather than a bunch of very good hackers who happen to be from China.

Maybe it is state-funded Chinese hacking, and they are probing ways to disrupt western economies and defense industries. While I can appreciate the latter, I don't think they'd need to resort to hacking to disrupt western economies. So who has been hacking Wall Street firms? Organized criminals seems a better bet to me.

Biometric security

2013-02-21T13:38:00.001-04:00

Nearly 7 years ago all 23 chromosome pairs of the human genome were mapped, after over 10 years effort and billions of dollars spent.

Now, you can get your DNA mapped for about $5000-$10,000 and that's expected to drop to $1000 soon. And the data amounts to about 8.5GB - small enough to store on your phone. This is amazing science and bodes well for disease cures and longevity, but what about security and identity?

Right now, if I handed a thumbdrive to you with my personal genomic sequence on it, there's not much you could do with it, except take it to some clever people to find out what diseases I'm genetically prone to. But what about in the future? Science fiction writers like to rave about DNA fingerprinting: locks only unlocked by your DNA, or guns imprinted with your DNA so that only you can fire them. Crimes solved because the perp's DNA was found at the scene.

Now, what if you could use my DNA to grow a replica of my hand, my blood, my eye etc.- enough to trick the lock, or the gun, or the forensics team? How would I then prove I was me?

The worrying thing about DNA for identity is that you can't just reset it, like a password. It IS you. That 8.5GB dataset is your recipe. Maybe the boffins have thought of that, or maybe not? From a security access perspective it's no big deal: we've had multi-factor security for years, whereby access requires something you have (eg. a card), and something you know (eg. a PIN). But if someone takes your card, you can cancel it. If someone takes your DNA, what can you do?

Apple Developers

2013-01-07T17:45:00.002-04:00

My team has an iPhone app, that was originally developed over a year ago. It's not great, developed by a third party who clearly didn't understand our core product, but it was a good start. The project manager at the time got us onto the Apple Enterprise Developer Program because it was envisaged that we'd only distribute the app per client, through their existing secure web interface.

I arrived and decided that we needed to make the app generic (rather than recompiling it each time for each client) and distributed through the App Store. The Apple Enterprise Developer Program was up for annual renewal in December so I renewed, thinking that, since it cost double the Basic Developer Program, that it would be an extension of the basic Program. That I could simply log into iTunes Connect and publish our app to the App Store.

But no. I had to pay extra for the Basic Developer Program. Not only that, but the only way I could find this out was by phoning their support people. The Developer website was curiously dumb (user unfriendly, Apple?) about my options. It also listed the Programs I was enlisted on as though I could join multiple Programs, yet is seems I could not. Even the support staff person seemed surprised that I could not add the Basic Developer Program to my existing Enterprise Developer Program license.
So now I have to start the entire licensing process from scratch. If you've never done it, it is a palaver involving Dunn & Bradstree numbers, certificates galore (user certificates, app certificates etc.) and patience. Lots of patience.

All this so that I have the privilege of paying them 30c of each App Store-earned $ - the so-called Apple Tax. I'm not adverse to paying taxes if they are going towards a good cause, but when they're forcing me to pay twice for effectively the same thing (the Basic Developer Program), and then taxing my revenue stream I have to ask why I should bother.

The reason most people bother is because it's the "Jesus Phone", the darling of trendsetters and jetsetters all over the world. But the sheen is starting to fade, and the competition has not only closed the gap but they appear to be evolving faster. Faced with such adversity, the key audience you must do everything to retain are your loyal acolytes: the developers. That is the true essence of Microsoft's longevity, and Apple would do well to learn from it.

Android, the linux to Apple's Windows?

2012-04-02T12:21:00.001-04:00

Interesting article here about the role that Android really plays for Google. Money quote:-

Android is the only thing that has prevented Apple from completely taking over the mobile market. All Google ever hoped to do was provide a shell-shocked smartphone industry with the tools to build a credible alternative to the iPhone that didn’t come with Apple’s tight-fisted control.

This does align with Google's previous, often-cited statement that "open always wins", and that Microsoft, Facebook, and Apple are creating short-term money-grabbers, rather than sustainable business ecosystems. Which is easy to say when your revenue stream is based on billboards everywhere on the information superhighway.

A future for HP's WebOS

2011-12-23T10:07:00.002-04:00

A friend recently bought an unlocked HP Veer in the recent HP WebOS fire sale for about 100 USD (inc shipping & duties to Barbados). Decided he didn't want it, so offered it to me for the same price. I thought "100 USD for an unlocked smartphone is worth a punt, right? Worst case, it will be a cool toy for the kids." This is a 4G smartphone, with wifi, GPS, 5MP camera, capacitative touchscreen and a slide out keyboard in a tiny 103 gram package. For 100 USD... and it rocks!

Don't get me wrong, when I say smartphone, I mean in terms of equivalent features. In comparison to the iPhone or a decent Samsung Galaxy or Motorola Droid its 2.4" screen is really too small for anything other than glancing at notifications, just as the keyboard is too small for typing anything other than quick questions / searches / tweets. But that's all I really need when I'm totally mobile. I'm not one of those idiots who sends a lengthy text standing in the middle of the pavement or while sitting in a traffic jam. If it's not urgent enough to call the person, it can wait until I'm sitting with my tablet or laptop in front of me. So this tiny phone, at 100 grams (most smartphones are 135+ grams) is perfect for me.

But it runs WebOS, not Android or Apple's iOS.
That's actually a benefit. Here's why: the user interface for webOS is based on 'cards' (apps, basically) that you can arrange in 'decks'. You swipe up to move out of a card, and swipe left/right to move between cards, and tapping the card to reopen the app. To discard the card (close the app), simply swipe up from the deck. It's like Expose on the mac, except even easier. And here's the clincher: it works on tiny screens. WebOS doesn't even need the single button that Apple iphones/pads have.

But WebOS is dead, right? HP killed it after their tablet and phone sales tanked, primarily due to lack of apps because all the developer effort/money was in iOS and Android phones and tablets. Well, HP have opensourced it (so licensing it is free), but many are still predicting that it is simply too late for this admittedly neat OS. I'm inclined to agree... for smartphones. But not for other simpler devices that need easy-to-build, intuitive functionality on robust, simple interfaces (a touchscreen). Like watches. Or kiosks. Or musical instruments. Anything with a simple LCD screen could conceivably swap that out for a touchscreen and run a simple app on WebOS.

With some deft industrial engineering to tweak the physical chassis, the HP Veer could be an incredible smart watch. Just turn it on its side and add some wrist-friendly contours: make the back curved, with a curved slide-out keyboard (tricky), add a nice wide strap. It would be chunky, but chunky watches are cool right now, at least for men.

Even if Apple upgraded their iPod Nano to be an iPhone Nano, the only way they could compete with the usability of WebOS would be to fork iOS (again) and integrate WebOS features into it. Ditto for Android. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Android integrates the features into its next version, as it is already opensource.

So, HP: forget the phones and tablets. Think watches and LCD replacements (you could start with your printers!). Give us a shout if you need a hand.

Have a great festive season everyone..!

(thanks to ZDnet and Engadget for the images)

Google Currents: the key is production

2011-12-12T11:56:00.002-04:00

So Google released their 'Currents' mobile app the other day. At first glance it looks like a number of other swishy, turn-your-newsfeeds-into-a-magazine style apps: flipbook etc. So is this just an update to Google Reader? After all, you can select your existing GReader feeds to add to your, uh, magazine rack, in addition to the showcased titles. Well, yes and no.

It is definitely a more narrative reading experience than Google Reader: pick your site/magazine, and you can flip through it page by page, or pull up the contents bar to hop to sections you prefer. The layout is magazine boxes, with pictures, rather than lists of headings. So Google are giving the reader a more tablet-friendly experience on their existing newsfeeds. But why that showcase content? Huffington Post, Forbes etc. all have ~~apps~~ content icons (appzines?) on there. Are they seriously trying to compete with the Flipbooks and Pulses of this world? And what about all those publishers with their own apps, like the FT and Economist? Just what is the point?

Well, I stumbled upon the Google Currents Producer this morning and it all became clear: the power of Google Currents is not in its output, but in the ease of production. Bloggers and content managers, amateur and pro, who have invested hours and money on buffing up their blogs to pixel perfection only to have them shredded by crap formatting on tablets and phones, now have a tool with which they can create a tablet- and phone-friendly appzine in minutes. We're not just talking RSS feed aggregation, either: Google Docs, Youtube vids, Google+, photo streams... basically you can curate your life as an edition, broken down into rights-controlled sections (of articles, photos, videos, news feeds, social feeds etc.) and publish it, magazine-style, via Currents.

It's good for consumers, but it's great for producers. And that could be the key difference. Especially if they put in-app payments into this thing: imagine being able to charge micropayments by the section.

Atos bans internal emails

2011-12-05T10:06:00.001-04:00

Interesting news last week that the French Consulting firm Atos is banning internal emails. While I'm not sure it is practical across the board, it is a bold step in the right direction.
So much email is bulky, repetitive trash, either because senders are not judicious enough about who they include on their distribution lists, or because some recipients use it to throw the monkey back on your back ("could you resend me that report?").
Pushing such a policy should at least drive staff to focus on what is important. IM is both synchronous and asynchronous, so it should, if coupled with decent document collaboration tools, tidy up and speed up office communications. It remains to be seen whether the collaboration tools are up to it, though.
An interesting stat from elsewhere (source?) shows that only 16% of teenagers use email as a primary form of communication - most use IM and voice. This would imply that email's days are numbered, but, as we broach the festive season, there's clear evidence in xmas cards and annual letters that old communication media never die, they just mutate to different, more specialised purposes.

OS vs Web vs Apps

2011-10-11T14:32:00.002-04:00

This post provides excellent advice on anyone planning to develop a mobile app. Infographic republished here, as it is so good (from Vision Mobile originally):-

Apple over-hyped

2011-10-04T15:21:00.001-04:00

Having just seen the Apple event liveblog today (thanks @arstechnica), I'm actually disappointed. I shouldn't be, but I am.

Is it because there was no iPhone 5, just an updated iPhone 4S, with some upgrade bits inside? Not really.

It doesn't have 4G support, just lots of +ve spin about new twin antennae that make it 'faster than most 4G phones claim' - so Apple are reduced to fighting claims with claims now? I thought they left that to lawsuits.
It has a new camera, which is x% better than the old one - which was perfectly adequate. Let's face it, we're never going to be doing portraits or feature films on phones, so who really cares?

Is it because iOS 5 just copies a bunch of stuff from Android (notifications, universal messaging, twitter built-in)? Not really.

It still doesn't have Android's killer feature: the universal 'share' button. Imagine the built-in Twitter, but not just for Twitter, for any app that you allow. So you want to share that document/pic/webpage to your blog? Fine. To Evernote? Sure. To another NFC device? No prob, if your phone can do it.
It still doesn't have WebOS's brilliant way of handling multi-tasking, with card decks and swipes.
iCloud is just doing what Android already does with Google (email, calendar, contacts) and Amazon (books, music, vids); it's probably more seamless, but taking 5 years to untether your iPhone from your PC/mac is rather more self-serving than customer-centric.

No, what bothers me is the same level of hyperbole, the same reality distortion, but without the innovation sparkle that used to justify the swagger. I get the sense that Apple have reached an innovation plateau, like every successful company does, and rather than consolidating, toning down the hyperbole and just modestly pushing out these modest updates, they continue to shout about being the all-time most successful and revolutionary company of all time.

The Apple fan community doesn't help matters, as they all want the scoop on the next 'revolutionary' product, but I rather suspect that the next truly 'revolutionary' product is a few years away.

Apple, you're good: be comfortable with that. Tone it down and delight people with your modesty: don't let your words outstrip your actions.

Facebook is not free

2011-09-23T20:31:00.003-04:00

With the recent fuss about Facebook adding some functionality and changing it's look yet again, I've seen some friends moan about it and others retort that they have no right to moan because they get the service for free.

Since most people don't use Facebook metrics it's fair to assume they don't appreciate the full power of Facebook as a marketing tool. The metrics that it provides companies whose groups you join and promotions you like are at least an order of magnitude better than typical web analytics. The reason is simple: every time you click on that blue 'Like' button on any website, you have effectively filled out a fairly comprehensive questionnaire about your sex, age, hobbies, preferences etc. - most of that stuff on your Facebook profile. In some cases this information is anonymous to the company in question, and in others it is full disclosure. Either way, it is extremely valuable to them.

If you're not paying, it's because you're the product. So be demanding about your Facebook, holler if you don't like it, and stamp your feet at the Facebook developers. It is your inalienable right because, after all, without you Facebook would have nothing to sell.

Facebook's intrinsic value

2011-09-07T12:32:00.000-04:00

At nearly 800 million users Facebook is a phenomenon, although not because of the aforementioned number. Facebook's tech celebrity ancestors, Microsoft Windows and Google, have many more users. [Microsoft even got (gets!) to charge each user a fee, which remains beyond Facebook's capability!] The reason for Facebook's hefty valuation is, basically its position as a media channel. While more people use Google, they typically land, search, and head off to the intended destination, maybe clicking an ad or two on the way. With Facebook, people loiter, like teenagers at a bus stop. Average Google session: 20 seconds; average Facebook session: 20 minutes. That's sixty times more advertising potential. That may justify a high valuation to investors, but what about the intrinsic value of Facebook?

Well, let's take a look at the Caribbean context. Most internet technology doesn't reach the Caribbean, either because the commercial aspects don't work (I can see it, but I can't buy it!) or because they are surplus to requirements (I don't needs Google Streetview because I know most of my island). Yet Facebook has been a quiet phenomenon here, at least in Barbados. Why?

First, there's the technical: there are no transactional complexities (buying, selling etc.) and Facebook comes included on most mobile devices, which is still by far the most common access platform to the internet in the region.

But there's also the cultural: social networks have always been extremely important to Caribbean societies. The Caribbean (as in CARICOM states) is a micro diaspora, a plethora of small towns: 15 million people, scattered across 500,000 square kilometres and 20 states (that's less than 5% the size of Europe in half the number of countries). Communities are close-knit, yet inter-island living is also very common (for work, for school, to visit relatives, for vacation and sporting events). Such conditions are an ideal structure for an online social network.

There are also the social habits: Caribbean folk are gregarious, be it at church, beach, sports event or rum shop, we bump into the same people quite often and are usually slightly wary of strangers, unless they are tourists, in which case we'll be polite and chatty because they typically have no long-term value in our social networks. Our social networks are also important for commerce: most folks know that the way to get best service/price is to know someone in the company, who can do you a deal. Even if the deal is just a standard deal, the common perception is that it's always better if you know someone on the inside. If I'm buying a car, the first question I ask is "who do I know in car dealerships?". Social networks matter here.

But does Facebook matter? Sure, it's popular. But is it adding value?

I'm not sure it is, at least not in the way that an investor might hope. I've been using Facebook since about 2006, when I lived in Bermuda and it was a great way to keep in touch with family & friends in UK and in the Bermuda diaspora (Bermuda is a big expat crossroads because strict work permits mean the expat workforce turnover is quite high). But my way of using Facebook has changed in recent months.

Most of us only use Facebook for the newsroll: that perpetually scrolling screen of updates from friends and groups we subscribe to. I started using Twitter, and the interface is very similar, scrolling through people's updates (tweets), except in Twitter you 'follow' people's updates - they don't have to accept you as a friend first. So you can follow your favorite celebrity or publication or acquaintance or friend without having them potentially knowing all about you, your friends, your photos etc. So I wanted a way to splice the two together into a single newsroll, as well as send an update to both at the same time (or toggle to just one for those private, friend-only thoughts). Enter Tweetdeck. Just what I wanted: it supports multiple Twitter accounts, allows you to comment on and 'like' people's updates, including photos, and it includes Google Buzz too. Perfect. It's owned by Twitter, too.

Now, I no longer use Facebook. Oh, I subscribe to it, and I update it - still very much an active member of the social network. But the adverts? The apps? All these 'value-added' services? Nah. I just have a screen full of updates, grey for Twitter, blue for Facebook and red for Buzz. And that's it.
Consumer 1, Producer/Investor 0.

But for how long?

Testing from BlogAway

2011-09-01T09:10:00.001-04:00

Just testing posting directly from BlogAway app for Android (the best I have found in terms of being able to manage and edit multiple blogs, both off- and online)

Adaptive Consulting blog is up

2011-08-30T11:15:00.000-04:00

So, the Adaptive presence is now extending to the blogosphere!
Consider this blog an Adaptive lens on news events in Technology, Banking and Media - commenting on them, and, where appropriate, trying to put them all into the Caribbean context.
This blog includes Twitter favorites (follow us @AdaptiveC), and will be mirrored on the (obligatory) Adaptive Consulting Facebook page, as well as LinkedIn, and when the APIs come out, Google+.

Please feel free to comment & share your experiences/opinions.