Stritar's chronolog

Force touch is the new multi-touch

Mon, 14 Sep 2015 22:12:37 GMT

When I first saw the video demonstrating Force Touch on one of Huawei’s new phones a few weeks ago, I found the feature pretty much useless. You have this amazing new sensor, and a scale application is the best you can do with it? Supposedly, the Chinese manufacturer has beaten Apple at introducing this new feature, but the fact is, Apple has done something completely different. The ~~Force Touch~~ 3D Touch - iOS integration has the potential to change the way we interact with our phones, in a similar way than multi-touch gestures did years ago.

Surely, there will be subtle modifications in next iterations, but the concept is there and it seems to work. And the results look like a crazy hybrid between a right click, the Spacebar Quick Look preview in Mac OS (which is one operating system's best features in general) and multi-touch gestures on steroids.

Demonstration of the 3D Touch technology with iPhone 6S and iOS 9.

Multi-touch revolutionised user interaction when the iPhone was introduced, but it hasn’t changed much in the past 8 years, even though newer and better gestures have been introduced. But now, a new layer has been added to the equation, and it seems that the flat, layered concept of the new iOS finally received its cherry. App developers, are you ready to play?

Apple's position of controlling both hardware and software has yet again proven itself solid, and Google will surely have quite a hard job to push this component across its platform to such extent.

Tablets were invented for recycling old PC games

Tue, 01 Apr 2014 21:15:33 GMT

Remember when we were playing really great games on our first home computers in the 80s and 90s? Good times. My gaming journey started with the Spectrum 48K (snowman FTW!), and slowly progressed to where we are now. Today's games truly are a piece of art, I have to give full credit to ventures such as Angry Birds and GTAs, but back then, everything was so much simpler, as if different rules applied. Games were there purely for the gameplay, and were awesome even if they came in 4-bit colors.

Luckily, these classic MS-DOS games received the opportunity to be revived. A few months ago, I played The Secret of Monkey Island on the iPad and it was fucking brilliant. Such a perfectly integrated experience, as if the game was originally designed for the tablet. Loved the humor, loved the clever tricks, loved the simplicity. It brought back so many memories... I want to play more games like that! More Lucas Arts and Sierra titles! Street Rod and Duke Nukem 2D! Dune, Syndicate and UFO! Railroad Tycoon!! Starcraft!!!

(Besides The Secret of Monkey Island, I noticed Civilization. Simcity and Prince of Persia are also available in the App Store, while The Incredible Machine seems to have been removed. Don't like the generic modern graphics though.)

These old games were great because they offered so little, but due to today's information pollution, insufficiency is bliss. Imagine a game where you don't need to be impressed with its amazing graphics or clever physics. Yes, we used to enjoy things like that, things that were pure and simple. Things like The Monkey Island, which managed to make me calm and relaxed with its plain ingenuity, besides reminding me of my childhood.

I'm not sure about the legal issues that come with it, but I am certain there's a huge opportunity in republishing classic games and abandonware on tablets and smartphones. The concepts and scenarios are there, they just need to be modified and rewritten for another device. So, if you have the opportunity to do so, please recycle one of those old PC titles, I would love to enjoy every bit of its vintageness on my mobile device before I go to bed. Because people are sentimental, and old times will always mean good times. And there are many of us who are prepared to pay money for that.

Uporabniška izkušnja kot uporabniško doživetje [In Slovene]

Sun, 26 Jan 2014 18:09:23 GMT

Med prebiranjem biografije Steva Jobsa sem naletel na dokaj nenavaden slovenski prevod pojma "user experience", “uporabniško doživetje”. Zadevi nisem namenil veliko pozornosti, saj sem v knjigi zasledil tudi nekaj manj posrečenih strokovnih prevodov, kot sta npr. “brezšivno integriran” ali “predkupna večopravilnost”. Klub temu pa se nisem mogel izogniti občutku, da ima ta besedna zveza potencial, da dobro zveni. Nekaj dni pozneje sem ugotovil, da je “uporabniško doživetje” morda celó bolj primeren izraz od sicer uporabljenega, “uporabniška izkušnja”, katerega razumevanje pozroča preglavice marsikomu.

Začnimo na začetku, pri razlagi besede “experience”. V angleščini ima dve definiciji (vir):

-the process of doing and seeing things and of having things happen to you
-skill or knowledge that you get by doing something

Vidimo lahko, da “experience” pomeni dve zelo različni stvari, ki bi jih po naše lahko imenovali “doživljanje” in “izkušnja”. Po eni strani opisuje nekaj, kar se človeku dogaja (process), pod drugi pa označuje tisto, kar se človek ob temu nauči (knowledge). Čeprav slovenščina pozna obe rabi besede “izkušnja”, ne moremo mimo dejstva, da običajno pomeni predvsem drugo, torej spoznanje ali ugotovitev. Nekdo ima izkušnje z nečim. V prvem primeru pa bi bilo morda bolj smiselno govoriti o doživetju ali doživljaju.

izkúšnja tudi skúšnja -e ž (ȗ) kar kdo ob dogodkih, doživetjih spozna, ugotovi (vir)
doživétje -a s (ẹ̑) 1. kar kdo doživi, s čustvi dojame (vir)
doživljáj -a m (ȃ) 1. kar kdo doživi (vir)
dožívljanje -a s (í) glagolnik od doživljati (vir)

----

“User experience” (UX) je:

"a person's perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service". (vir)

UX predstavlja dojemanje in odzive človeka, ki uporablja nek produkt. Gre torej za proces, ki poteka ob interakciji uporabnika in stroja, proces, ki ga skuša optimizirati načrtovalec UX. Uporabniška izkušnja torej ni obstojna, ne moreš je imeti, enostavno je in se dogaja. Podobno ne moreš imeti doživljajev, po drugi strani pa izkušnje lahko imaš.

Tako kot pri analognih “izkušnjah” (npr. customer experience, content experience) je pri UX jasno, da imamo opravka s prvim angleškim pomenom besede “experience”, ki govori o procesu doživljanja. Povezava besede “izkušnja” z “uporabniška” pa lahko to razumevanje popači, saj nakazuje na nekaj, kar se uporabnik nauči (z uporabo produkta).

Mar ni “uporabniško doživetje” veliko bolj nedvoumen in razumljiv izraz?

He loved to control all aspects of his life, and the only way to do that with computers was to take responsibility for the user experience from end to end.

Rad je obvladoval vse vidike svojega življenja, pri računalnikih pa je to lahko dosegel le tako, da je prevzel odgovornost za prav vse podrobnosti uporabniškega doživetja. (Steve Jobs, stran 347)

----

Seveda ima beseda “doživetje” tudi slabe lastnosti. Z geeki na Facebooku smo imeli debato predvsem o tem, ali predstavlja nekaj preveč subjektivnega in čustvenega za uporabo v kontekstu “user experience”. Izkazalo pa se je, da imata ti dve zadevi pomembno vlogo v samem uporabniškem doživetju.

“User experience (UX) involves a person's behaviors, attitudes, and emotions about using a particular product, system or service.” (vir)

Uporabniško doživetje. Morda se sliši čudno, vendar je s tem izrazom mogoče veliko lažje laiku razložiti, kaj pomeni user experience. Izkušnje so v oblakih, če jih nimaš, jih enostavno nimaš, omemba te besede nakazuje na nekaj nepredstavljivega in abstraktnega. V resnici pa uporabniška izkušnja pomeni nekaj veliko bolj preprostega, doživljanje človeka, s čustvi vred, ki se zgodi ob uporabi sistema/produkta. Uporabniško doživetje.

Apple is just messing with our minds

Fri, 14 Jun 2013 06:50:08 GMT

iOS 7 is all over the place. Some love the new look, others think it's childish and confusing. Some even say the flat look symbolizes Apple's capitulation, since they're abandoning the skeuomorphic paradigm they have been using for ages. The new icons are obviously the most controversial part of the released software, and they seem - yes - wrong and unfinished. But what if the unpolished icons are just a marketing trick, a temporary solution presented on purpose to annoy people, especially the designer community? Rumors have it, they were designed by their marketing team anyways.

The inconsistencies of the new icons. Categorized by GreenGelatin on reddit.

Personally, I like the new operating system. I think the whole 3D concept is great, a good reason why icons and other elements needed to go flat. I like the typical screens and forms, even if they resemble Windows. I didn't have the chance to try it out, but I believe the authors who did and claim it is a huge step forward.

Apple has sold iOS 7 to me, probably also because I can easily ignore the various types of icons, and the different directions of gradients. I admit they could be better, but I can imagine designers hating it. Which means that all that Apple needs to do, is to introduce a new set of icons before the launch, something super coherent and amazing, and it will blow everyone's mind. Bam!, and all the heretics run back to the mothership. If the final icons would manage to exceed expectations as some other things seen in iOS 7 did so far, Apple wouldn't have to worry about their mobile program for years to come.

One of the icon redesigns, published by agent00420 on reddit. If a single person can do this in one day, imagine what Apple can do.

Think about it. Would a company which has been associated with great design for decades present something so weak unintentionally?

It's funny how such a controversy, a potential game changer and perhaps another great manipulation, something that has the power to change one strong emotion into another, is encapsulated in the form of 20 small pictures. It seems Apple has done it again.

(Cover image via @likeluis)

iPhone 5 is Kubrick's monolith!

Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:24:58 GMT

I've been using the iPhone 5 for the past few days. Yeah, so last year, but I would've stayed with my 3GS even longer if it wouldn't die on me. Needless to say I love the new one. It's a great piece of machinery that's done just right. The right size, the right weight, the right material, the right precise manufacturing. But it also has something else that makes it look and feel great, even though it took me a few days to fully understand what it is. Something that makes it more than a phone, something that makes it a fetish.

The iPhone is black. Black aluminum black, no compromises. Nothing special with that, if it wouldn't resemble something that's been embedded in my brain for years. I couldn't really put my finger on it, until I saw it in on a white background. Then it finally hit me - the iPhone mimics Stanley Kubrick's monolith from the Space Odyssey! The ultimate object, the catalyst for the dawning of mankind! And it seems I'm not the only one who noticed it.

iPhone as the monolith. You can compare it to the original.

Even though Apple may not be what it used to be, and Android phones are taking over the world, Apple still has a few tricks up its sleeve. There are things Samsung and other Androids still aren't fully able to replicate. Most users don't care about the specifications, they care about the experience, and those phones simply can't match it. The iPhone delivers a complete package that is able to influence emotions. It's not a generic phone, it's more than that. This brilliant manipulation in a form of a gadget is seducing me, and that's what I want from my phone, and I don't care how it's done. Design is all about shaping someone's perception. Galaxies are boring.

I believe Firefox OS may be on to something

Sat, 02 Mar 2013 22:27:50 GMT

A few days ago, during the Mobile World Congress, Firefox announced its mobile OS, which will be available soon. Teaming up with 18 carriers and 4 announced manufacturers (plus Sony), the release was probably bigger than expected. A few high-profile web services, including AirBnb, Disney, Facebook, SoundCloud and Twitter, also joined the hype by including their apps to the new marketplace. Analysts quickly put down their bets, some supporting the effort, while others denying the possibility of its success. One of the most fascinating things about the new OS is that it's going to be entirely web based, the operating system itself, the apps, everything. Unlocking the power of the web, as they put it. And to be honest, I can buy that.

The situation

Currently, the mobile OS market is dominated by two players, Apple and Google. They both have their own strategies, Apple being the control-freak offering exclusivity, and Google being the easy-going dude appealing to the masses. Windows is trying to find its place somewhere in-between, but it's still struggling to gain its market share (currently at around few percent) - we will see how their partnership with Nokia turns out in the long run. We mustn't also forget about Blackberry and their potential comeback with their new operating system and the newly introduced Z10 smartphone. But that's about it.

Until Firefox OS was introduced.

The history

To begin with, we must take a look at the original Firefox browser, the first-choice browser of the developer a few years ago. That is before Chrome managed to offer a stabler and faster version of it. What made Firefox so useful, were the Javascript console and Firebug, an add-on that all web developers need once they try out. But Firebug supposedly makes Firefox work much slower. Chrome built such a tool for client-side debugging inside its browsers and boom - millions of developers switched to Chrome. I don't know why Firefox hasn't offered a similar tool, they should, especially now, when they have a chance not only to gain mobile OS market share, but also to regain their position in the browser wars. They should fully unlock the power of the web, with their potential mobile OS and browser marketing synergies. Firefox = the internet.

The web is wonderful, and Firefox has always been one of its strongest advocates. And now they are doing it again, by offering an operating system that is fully based on the web. Besides, for many reasons, they are probably in a much better position to do it then WebOS was. Or as they put it:

With Firefox OS, you can simply enter any search term and instantly create a one-time use or downloadable app.

The community

Developers are an important part of every mobile ecosystem, and developing for different platforms is a big pain in the ass. Of course, everybody has the possibility to decide for HTML app instead of a native app, but if the platform prefers native apps, it's a no brainer that those will have more capabilities and better performance. But it's hard to make native apps. I am a web developer, been doing it for years, tried to develop something for iOS one day. I lost interest in a few days, because you need to get used to a totally new environment, and the thought of going through the same with Android and Windows just made me depressed. But here's what Firefox says:

Every Web developer can easily create and distribute HTML5 apps so you can find an app for whatever you want.

Holy crap, the web as the platform! Which means I will be able to make Firefox OS apps already from the start. And when I have that HTML5 app, will I perhaps be willing to easily turn it into a hybrid native / HTML5 app for all other platforms? The thought is appealing. And since HTML5 is powerful enough to access the phone's hardware (camera, GPS, etc.), this makes it much more interesting. Not to mention I would be improving my basic web developer skills if I would start developing for Firefox OS.

The recipe

Firefox OS has the carriers, manufacturers and supporters aboard, and if developing and deploying apps will be as easy peasy as they brag about it, it will all come down to a single thing: the interface and user experience that the rendering engine will be able to provide. Firefox has its own rendering engine Gecko, contrary to WebKit, which powers Chrome, Safari and Opera. Based on the first videos of the Firefox OS, it seems the interface isn't as smooth as the one you can get from the iPhone, Android or Windows Phone, and not as innovative as Ubuntu Touch. Which can be a big, big problem. Manufacturers may need and support alternatives, but it's the users who will decide, and their expectations are very high.

If Firefox can take care of this, and (stronger) devices are fully adjusted to run it, while developers are able to upgrade the user experience, I don't see a reason why Firefox OS shouldn't gain traction. All the components are there, the brand is strong and the race is long. Go Firefox!

Did Apple and Samsung just pull the greatest trick in the mobile universe?

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:09:54 GMT

The verdict is finally in. Samsung has lost the lawsuit against Apple, which means the court decided they were copying iPhone's design and user experience. The decisions seems legit, specially if you saw the internal document from Samsung, a case study comparing and improving the Galaxy's user interface based on iOS's. On the other hand, it's hard to say if the decision is morally right and what it means for the mobile industry. Software patents are a problem and some companies like Google have already made a stance agains them (even though they've supposedly acquired Motorola because of them). But could all of this be just a marketing trick? Where Apple and Samsung set out to dominate the mobile industry?

Collectively, these two companies hold 50% of the smartphone market share, and take 90% of the global industry margins. Samsung is the only Android manufacturer that is really profitable. Around 25% of the iPhone is made by Samsung. The corporations publicly don't like each other, and don't have any problems suing each other while making business. A weird situation indeed.

Apple's biggest quarter brought in $13 billion dollars of profit on $46 billion dollars of revenue, most of it from iOS devices. Samsung's revenue is around the same, with lower margin ($5 billion). Yet the whole legal fiasco ended up in Samsung having to pay around $1 billion to Apple. Peanuts, if you ask me. We have been listening to this bullshit for years now, yet the decision doesn't make any significant different to any of the giants. Except the fact that people are taking side with one or the other. Not Nokia, HTC, Motorola, Sony or anyone else. Other manufacturers don't seem to exist anymore. Just Apple and Samsung, abusing the legal system to own the mobile world. Which could easily be one of the most brilliant marketing stunts ever. Two rings to rule them all.

On iPhone, toys, the enterprise and of course, Windows 8

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 07:34:06 GMT

Flashback 5 years ago. In 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone, the original model, which had no 3G support and cost more than any other mobile phone. At that time, Nokia dominated the market, with almost 40% market share, and Samsung was gaining ground on Motorola, both owning around 15% of the industry sales. Funny, how things change in so little time, but what's even funnier, is how the competition reacted to the iPhone. Some of you may remember how Steve Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO, laughed at the iPhone, saying that it's pretty much an expensive toy that would never penetrate the enterprise. History proved him wrong, and we can only guess if this was one of the most bitter predictions he ever made.

Apple proved that with proper marketing, a toy can find its place in the enterprise, a place traditionally owned by Microsoft. We must understand that even if a lot of Microsoft's revenue does come from the Windows division, most of it still comes from their enterprise business (Business Division + Server and Tools). But is the enterprise ready for a radical user interface such as Windows 8's Metro? I hope Microsoft isn't overcompensating for the totally wrong estimate about the success of the iPhone, because it's hard to believe they will be able to pull something similar off. Sell another toy to the enterprise.

I love Windows Phone 7. The user interface is great, the user experience is intuitive and fun. I like what I've seen about Windows 8. I think it's fresh and modern, something that even Apple could be proud of. But what worries me is its adoption in business environments, which is Microsoft's core business. The phone and a tablet are primarily casual gadgets, the personal computer is not. And there is already quite a bit of bad press around about the upcoming new version of Windows. Some have already said the next Vista situation might happen, and that most people will stay on Windows 7, like they did on XP before.

I think the average user in the enterprise in not that tech-savvy. Imagine a 50 year old secretary, struggling with the new fundamentally different environment of Windows 8. Businesses have already had problems with implementing the new Office 2007, at it was only slightly different than the previous version (compared to the differences between Windows 8 and Windows 7). Who will pay for the massive training required by users to adapt to the new Windows? Which company will risk it?

Of course, I might be wrong and Microsoft isn't primarily interested in the enterprise with this release. Maybe they are just trying to own a bigger share of the consumer markets, and targeting mostly smartphones and tablets, hardware included. This might be an interesting strategy, since adoption of Macs has also grown with the success of the iPhone and iPad. I hope they have a solid plan behind it, because I would like to see Windows 8 succeed. Because Windows 7 and Windows Phone 7 actually did higher my perception of Microsoft, they made me believe Windows can be awesome. But to succeed, Windows 8 will have to be more than awesome, the way it's done, it will have to be so amazing my mother will be able to use it on her first try. Otherwise she won't.

What Apple's headphones can teach us about user experience design

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 12:25:17 GMT

I've always been fascinated by things that simply work. By the details that convince, by the experience that fulfills expectations. Enter the case of Apple's headphones. They may be just an accessory that supports something else, but this little gadget is a brilliant example of how ux design should be approached. I'm not saying other vendors don't make equivalent or even better headphones (don't know, so please comment!), but Apple has proved many times that they really know what they are doing, reinventing stuff as they go along. Bottom line: as weird as it may seem, when your are designing user experience, you should think about Apple's headphones. They are one of the most perfect examples of how to do it right.

Form follows function

As most great designers will tell you, the design is only as good as its ability to solve a problem. The focus is not so much on aesthetics, as it is on function. If you manage to persuade someone to do what you wanted, design did its job well. Otherwise, it failed, even if it looks great.

Apple's headphones come with a controller for the iPod and other phone functions. This controller is ergonomically shaped in such a way, that you can use it with your eyes closed, or while running. Your finger will always find its orientation. The volume up button is physically on the top. The form follows function, being beautiful comes secondary.

The controller is designed in such a way it does exactly what you expect it to do, without guessing.

There are infinite ways you can implement this philosophy into software, but you have to know what you are trying to do. That's the main objective of user experience in general, understanding your goals, and adapting everything to help users reach them.

"Less is more" generates intuitiveness

The controller comes with only three buttons, but these buttons can do more that it seems. The age when a single control could perform only one function is over, and this fact can easily be applied to the new generation of software, supporting advanced (native and HTML 5) interactions (swipes, multi-finger gestures, etc.) on devices such as smartphones and tablets. Here's what these three buttons can do:

volume up and down are dedicated
the main button can play and pause with a single press. The same goes for answering and hanging up the phone.
pressing the main button twice goes to the next song, three times for the previous song
holding the main button activates Siri / Voice control

Less is more is a very important approach, and it's one of the reasons why the iPhone did what it did, having a single button instead of many. Users shouldn't be faced with too many options and choices, it's better to design these choices in such a way they offer advanced behavior. Only then, users will find something intuitive and easy to use.

Think adaptation and multi-functionality

As mentioned before, the headphones controller can adapt its behavior to the state the system is currently in. When you are listening to music, it controls music, when you're on a call, it controls the call, when you are using Siri, you're the weirdo who's talking to your phone. Software can do the same; when I launched this blog, I played around with the idea of the home link adapting to the fact where the visitor currently is.

Software users come in various shapes and find themselves in various situations. First time user vs. second time user, potential client vs. client etc. Advanced systems can adapt to this fact and offer a different kind of experience to each of them, acting multifunctional. You want to present yourself to the first time user, and inform the second time user. You want to close the potential client, and do everything to retain the current client. Software is not static anymore, it adapts to different personas and scenarios.

Consistency FTW

Great user experience is consistent inside a product and across multiple channels. Even if something is not solved perfectly, analog functions must be solved in the same way all across the same and other systems, to avoid confusion. Apple's headphones also work with a Mac computer. With the controller, microphone and everything. The little cherry that makes Apple's complete listening and controlling ecosystem a platform.

The headphones are fully compatible with a Mac.

This is very important fact, making user experience a holistic strategy, that goes beyond the single product / implementation. A part of mentality that CEO is not about Executive anymore, it's about Experience.

Summary

Great user experience is becoming a competitive advantage, but at the same time something that's really hard to master. Knowing what problems and goals you are trying to solve is crucial, everything else must adapt. Thinking outside a single product and implementing the same philosophy across multiple systems and channels is slowly shaping (user) experience design into a strategic business function.

Apple's headphones with their controller are a great example of how to do user experience right. Something so basic, but at the same time so advanced. Solving so many problems with so little, by fully understanding what you are trying to do in different situations, and leaving you only with the choices you need to make in the specific moment. It simply doesn't get much better than that.

Why I don't believe in these crazy technology company valuations

Mon, 21 May 2012 08:14:15 GMT

The debate about the potential second technology bubble is all over the media. One of the first milestones that will determine the outcome of this story happened on friday, when Facebook went public. As opposed to other (smaller) web IPOs of the past years (LinkedIn, Groupon, Zynga, Yandex), the price on the first day stayed on the same level. This was to be expected, since Facebook received the valuation of 100 billion dollars. To put that in perspective, that's around half of Google's value, and about the same value as Amazon has. But Facebook makes 10 times less revenue than Google does, and its revenue growth is slowing down. Was Facebook valued too high? It seems so, and some analysts are already saying that most of the stocks were bought by institutional investors to keep the share price above 38$.

Facebook is not the real problem

But Facebook is not the biggest problem. It is the leading global social service, and an established company with almost 1 billion registered users, besides making quite a hefty amount of revenue ($3.7 billion in 2011). I'm more worried because of others, who make little or no revenue at all. Today, Rovio is valued around the same as Nokia, with yearly revenues of around $100 million. Instagram, with practically no revenue model, was bought for $1 billion, which is 12.000 times what Kodak is worth. A bit silly.

In technology, specially the web, companies come and go. The lifespan of services is short, and people don't hesitate to switch to a new, better alternative, and they switch fast. Remember Excite? Yahoo? MySpace? They were on top of the world not more than a decade ago. Draw Something, which was bought by Zynga for $200 million, already lost millions of users. How long does will it take for people to get bored with Angry Birds? Foursquare, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, even Facebook?

Still looking for a revenue model? Consider this.

Most of these companies have millions of users, and that is probably what fuels their valuations the most. Even though, quite a few of them are still looking for their revenue model. But what if the market simply isn't big enough for everybody? What if that is the real problem behind not being able to find a revenue model? I did some research, and here's what I found out:

the projected global spending on online advertising will be around 97$ billion in 2013 and $113 billion dollars in 2014 (source, source)
around half of that will be spent on search, around half on display (source)
projected revenues of social media ad spending in the US are around $10 billion in 2016 (source)
global mobile ad spending in 2016 will be around 15% of total online spending, or $22 billion (source)
apps and in-app purchases will generate around $46 billion in 2016 (source)
estimated size of the virtual goods market in 2015 is around $5 billion (source)
Google makes around $40 billion a year (source)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but these facts tell me that all of these companies have a market of around $150-$200 billion in 2015. ALL of them, including all the local players. Not really that much when you think about it. Sure, it's a different industry without production, but for comparison, Apple's yearly revenues are about $100 billion.

Trying to understand the math behind valuations

I went even further, and analyzed the performance of these companies; how much they earn, how much they are worth, and how many users they have. Then I tried to compare the price / sales, sales / users and price / users ratios. Since a few of high-valued companies basically have no revenue (Instagram, Foursquare), it seems that they are worth mostly between $20 and $100 dollars per user.

	Sales ($b)	Price ($b)	Users (m)	Price / Sales	Sales / Users	Price / User	Source
Amazon	50	100	/	2.00	/	/
Apple	110	520	/	4.73	/	/
Draw something	0.05	0.2	10	4.00	5.00	20.00	revenue, value, users
Facebook	4	100	900	25.00	4.44	111.11	revenue, value, users
Foursquare	/	0.7	20	/	/	35.00	revenue, value, users
Google	40	200	1000	5.00	40.00	200.00	users
Groupon	2	8	115	4.00	17.39	69.57	users
Instagram	/	1	50	/	/	20.00	revenue, value, users
Kodak	6	0.07	/	0.01	/	/
Linkedin	0.5	14	130	28.00	3.85	107.69	users
Microsoft	70	260	/	3.71	/	/
Nokia	38	11	/	0.29	/	/
Pinterest	0.05*	1	12	20.00	4.17	83.33	revenue, value, users
Rovio	0.1	9	1000**	90.00	0.10	9.00	revenue, value, users
Tumblr	/	1	30	/	/	33.33	revenue, value, users
Twitter	0.14	10	100	71.43	1.40	100.00	revenue, value, users
Yahoo	5	19	170	3.80	29.41	111.76	users
Zynga	1	7	150	7.00	6.67	46.67	users

Data for publicly traded companies are available on MarketWatch.
* - estimate
** - downloads

Google manages to make the most from its users, around $40 per user per year. How much can the others make in the long-run, put together with the estimated $150b market size? How many can even earn anything before their users leave? The equation somehow doesn't add up.

These companies are great, but still…

I'm a big fan of the internet, I truly admire these companies, and use most if their services. But I still think this is madness. Didn't we learn enough from the first dot-com bubble? Today, we're a part of the social / mobile excitement, what can we expect tomorrow, the semantic excitement? The internet is maturer than this, and nobody will take it seriously, if it will behave so manically depressive. Ups and downs every few years surely don't work that well, and another bubble is definitely something the we don't need in these unstable economic times. So, please guys, take it a bit easier. don't be too greedy and enjoy what we have.

Perhaps the best thing that could happen at this point is for Facebook to lose about 30%-50% of its value. That could put some sense into the frenzy, before it goes to far. The situation surely needs more consideration.

You know what's cooler than $100 billion dollars? $50 billion dollars.

The future (of software) is in platforms

Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:26:11 GMT

I don't know if you've had the chance to read What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis. You should, it's a very powerful book, even though it's been written a few years ago. Things have changed a bit since then, when Google was on top of it's game, but that doesn't mean the ideas presented in the book aren't more actual than ever. One of the chapters that made the biggest impact on me was the one about platforms and distributed systems. Google managed to conquer the world of Web 1.0 by being decentralized, allowing others to embed YouTube videos, Google Maps and Ads anywhere on the Web. This orientation provided the fuel for Google's further development and growth. Today, this way of thinking is not a competitive advantage anymore, it's becoming a necessity. As you will see, current online market leaders of various industries are not those who provide the service, they're the ones who provide the platform.

Platforms rule because mashups rule

Platforms, as opposed to products and services, allow others to build on top of them. Not thinking about control and centralization, they provide the basic building blocks other can use to develop even more products and services. In the world of Web 1.0, this meant using an embedded YouTube video instead of having your own video player, but Web 2.0 has been heavily defined by ecosystems of services built around other services. With APIs these platforms provide, developing high-level mashups has never been easier from the technical point of view, and this type of architecture benefits everybody. The platform vendor gets additional developers that extend and market it's service, while the satellite mashup gets the distribution channels, users and data they need to get somewhere faster. A modern synergy packed symbiosis.

Oren Michels, CEO of Mashery, which provides API as a service, talking for Silicon Gardens in Kiberpipa

The technology platforms

Today, pretty much all of the technology market leaders are platforms. Google allows various levels of use of it's services, from embedding things to using different APIs. Facebook's games and other apps ecosystem is huge, with providers such as Zynga already gone public. Twitter and it's massive amounts of tweets generated in real-time produced the Twitterverse - an array of fascinating high-level services. Foursquare, a geo-location network allowed other interesting concepts, such as augmented reality and games, on top of its service. Amazon offers you to build your own store, and Apple's and Android's mobile app stores are hosting hundreds of thousands of apps developers can build, deploy and distribute in short amounts of time. Salesforce offers a platform for enterprise IT, WordPress for writing and blogging tools. I could go on, but you get the picture. Platforms are the future, because they evolve collaboratively, with thousands, if not millions of people co-creating them.

A massive Salesforce conference in San Francisco, which I've visited on my Silicon Valley trip (thanks Davorin!)

The real-life platforms

Not only in software and technology, platforms in real-life are also becoming more widespread. The whole Apple iPad/iPhone gadgets ecosystem is one of the most obvious cases, where various providers offer sound systems, dongles, add-ons and other accessories that upgrade and make the original item even more appealing. Nespresso and Dolce Gusto are another interesting products. Nestlé provides the platform - the small coffee pads, which they are pushing to the market, while different manufacturers make coffee machines and other complementary products. The platform becomes more useful because of its satellites, which make the platform even more successful, turning this relationship into a virtuous circle.

Coffee machines by various vendors for Nestlé Dolce Gusto

So what should I do?

Firstly, you should embrace this way of thinking and understand what's happening. Platforms have been around since the beginning of software, even though you maybe haven't thought about them in such a way. Computer architectures, Operating systems, Programming languages and Development environments are all platforms, on a more basic level - but they provide the foundation which others can build on top of. Other platforms are build atop of these and others atop of those. Platforms are everywhere, and with every new level, they are less technically, and more conceptually oriented. Think about where you fit in.

Next, find a platform that suits what you are trying to do. Personally, against many odds, I believe more in Twitter than I do in Facebook, since Facebook is trying to keep as much as possible inside its service, while Twitter acts distributed. One of our projects is Twenity, a game we've developed around Twitter influence measuring.

If you're feeling lucky, you might want to become a platform on your own. While this may be almost impossible to do, it's something I wish I will have the chance to do someday. Neolab already has its own development framework, and if we do manage to make enough surplus or find an investor that will take us down this road, I'll be the first one in line. That is, if we don't decide to join an established platform and rather build on top of that.

Things have changed. The future (of software) is in platforms. Are you already a part of the show?

The Silicon Valley tour, part 5: Visiting the technology giants

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 05:15:13 GMT

Visiting the global technology bluechips was one of the things I was looking forward to the most on my trip to the Valley. Seeing how things work, the giant campuses they have, the amazing work conditions they offer. But like some other things, this plan didn't turn out as expected. I have to admit I was a bit naive, but a man can have his dreams, right? These corporations have their business to run, so why should they accept visitors like me? The fact is, they do accept them, but you have to have a contact on the inside. No contact, no glory. I was actually lucky enough to have some, and the next time I'll decide on journey like this, I'll make sure I address the situation more strategically.

Apple

I know a person working for Apple, so I was able to visit the famous 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino and eat lunch there. Taking pictures inside was strictly prohibited, but the visit was very worth the while. And since I'm a big fan, this was something that had to be done.

1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino: Apple headquarters

Facebook

Facebook recently moved their headquarters from Palo Alto to Menlo Park. I took a cab there, hoping I could get at least a bit of insight and some pictures, but since the place is still "under construction", I was escorted off the property by security. Trespassing much?

Facebook's new headquarters in Menlo Park

Google

Google turned out to be one of the most welcoming companies on my trip, but this fact had a lot to do with the Seedcamp sessions happening in the Googleplex on which I've participated. Located in Mountain View, this giant campus is very impressive.

Google's Googleplex, Mountain View. For more photos, please visit my post about Google and Seedcamp.

Square

Square managed to become one of the hottest new startups around, set out to revolutionize mobile payments and already employing 200 people. Located in San Francisco, their offices are something you have to see for yourself. I wish I could, but like with others, I couldn't get it. But at least they were very nice about it.

Square headquarters reception, San Franscisco

Twitter

Twitter is one of my favorite online services, so I was really looking forward to talk to a few people there, also because of Twenity. While Nick and I did manage to talk our way past the security desk, our trip ended at the reception. We filed a request, but nothing came out of it. But like on Square, they were very nice. It seems they share a similar corporate culture, since both companies were founded by the same person, Jack Dorsey.

Twitter headquarters reception, San Franscisco

Bottom line

The bottom line is: you are not that welcome as you would like to imagine. Something similar happened to me while I tried to visit the technology blogs located in San Francisco. They also required a contact to get in, so no luck there. So, if you're planning on doing something similar, make sure you do your homework first, try to ping a few people or find a contact form on their website, perhaps you get accepted. Otherwise, you'll end up being just a curious tourist like me.

Check out the complete The Silicon Valley tour series.

Apple should offer the opportunity to merge two iPads (with mockups)

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:14:42 GMT

The iPad 3 is coming out in March, and like its predecessors, it will surely be a huge success. But every time a new generation of an Apple gadget comes out, the previous ones flood the secondary markets, usually followed by massive price drops. Like iPads 1 today, iPads 2 will probably be quite inexpensive in the following weeks, when we'll have a new item on our with list. This may not be a really a big problem for Apple, since their business model of ultra-fast product cycles obviously works, but still, the idea of being able to sell more than one product of the same line to a single person could hold quite a few benefits. Let's take a look.

Why bother

I remember a really cool anecdote about an intern, who was bragging to the management of a pharmaceutical corporation he would be able to double the sales of their shampoo without any costs. Of course, no one believed him (or her), but the idea was very simple and effective. He said the company should simply put a "Wash twice" instruction to the back of the bottle, making people consume twice as much of it. The sales probably didn't double, but it's still a brilliant idea.

What about Apple? It's obvious that the low priced iPads 2 will be eating into the sales of the new iPad 3, since a lot of people will go for a second hand, cheaper version of the still capable-enough iPad 2. But by offering the possibility to merge two iPads into a single unit, Apple could prevent some of that effect, lowering the supply of the old iPads. Not only that, they could identify a totally new group of potential consumers who would buy the new iPad 3:

current: the people who don't own a tablet
current: the people who already own an iPad or a different tablet and will switch because of the iPad 3
new: people who already own an iPad, but don't feel the need to update to iPad 3 (like me)

This third group of people is who we are after, by offering them another added value to buy the new iPad without making them sell the old one. Owning two iPads at once? Why not.

Benefits: real multitasking

While the iPad and most other mobile devices support software multitasking, having more applications opened and one on the screen isn't real multitasking for the user. Split screen apps could solve this issue, but the screen size isn't that big. What would be better than having two apps on two iPads, with copy-paste and other cross-functional support? Like combining books and notes?

Real multitasking on two integrated iPads, using the iBooks and Notes.

Benefits: the book mode

We've already seen quite a few promising prototypes of book-shaped tablets, but I'm not sure if any of them made it to production. As shown on the second mockup, which displays different mailboxes in a TweetDeck type-of form on the first, and the emails on the second screen, this kind of use could prove itself very much useful.

Mailing like a pro: mailboxes on one screen, emails on the other.

Benefits: the laptop mode

At this point, the iPad is still not a full replacement for a personal computer, because of its hardware and software limitations. But it does support remote desktop connections to a computer, behaving as a terminal. Very cool, but not that useful, since it's hard to control a computer using a touch screen. By integrating two iPads into a laptop, we suddenly receive a keyboard and a trackpad, making such tasks much easier. Add a few more features to the iOS, and you could have a full replacement for a laptop. Something similar to the Asus Eee Pad Transformer or the Acer Iconia laptop concept?

Combining two iPads into a fully working laptop.

Requirements

Hardware: Easy. Something similar to the current magnetic sleeve which would hold the two iPads together. A cable wouldn't be needed, since connectivity could be done by wifi or bluetooth.

Software: Hard. Enabling one iPad to become a server and another one to become a client, being able to access and control the apps of the other.

Conclusion

Merging two iPads wouldn't be easy and probably not as useful as imagined in the mockups, since the user experience and controlling would have to be completely reinvented to support dual screen mode. Besides, if you would combine the iPad 1 (around 700 grams) and the iPad 2 (around 600 grams), you would get a 1,3 kg beast. Not very promising, but still not perfectly useless (the current 13' MacBook Air weighs 1,35 kg).

But the idea surely does hold potential. There could be even more interesting uses of such an installation, I've only outlined a few of them. So ~~Steve~~ Tim, if you like the idea, feel free to make it work. I would be more than happy to test out the MacBook Pad concept with the complementary iPad 4.

Special thanks to betmenka for lending me her iPad 2 despite being in a real hurry.

Did Google just admit Apple's Siri is the future of search?

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 15:21:19 GMT

I don't know if you saw The evolution of Google search video, which they've published a few days ago. You should, it's a cool movie, portraying the history of search and Google's vision of its future. But something went wrong. One of the punchlines of the video was a story from one of the engineers, who said that next-generation search engines will be able to answer complex questions such as the following:

"Hey, what is the best time for me to sow seeds in India given that monsoon was early this year?’"

A very legitimate question.

I don't know if you've tried out iPhone's new personal assistant, Siri. It's awesome in every bit. Not only does it have a state-of-the-art voice recognition, it's also packed with super smart artificial intelligence that supposedly allows you to ask crazy things things such as:

"Can you remind me to call my wife when I leave the office?"

Another very legitimate question.

And there's a strong resemblance there. Both requests are really abstract and probably require quite a bit of computational power to be understood by a program. They have nothing to do with mathematical or social ranking currently used by Google (search), they are all about Artificial Intelligence and semantic interpretation. And while Google currently doesn't provide (or at least market) services that would be able to understand such sentences, Apple does.

I've noticed quite a few articles saying concepts such as Siri are the future of search. It's obvious artificial intelligence will play a big role in this segment. Apple's already in. Even if their technology is not superior to Google's, who is also working on embedding AI into search, it's fully available today, and everybody knows it. Google should really be careful with such statements concerning their core business, Web search. Specially if they are competing against the marketing wizards of Apple, who know how to sell things even if they don't fully work.

Promoting a technology you don't have and your competition does? Stupid consumers such as myself might do something stupid.

UPDATE (5.12.2011): You can join the discussion on HackerNews.

The great technology wars and the transition of software from B2B to B2C

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:25:14 GMT

The epic article by Fast Company about the technology wars of 2012 provides great insight into what's happening in Silicon Valley and software in general these days. Four players, or the Fabulous Four, are mentioned to be the real market and innovation leaders: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google. Each of these companies found its place where it dominates and invents new business models, and each one is a role model for new generations of technology startups and leaders. And if you didn't notice, all of them sell software to consumers, not other companies (in case of Google and Facebook, you are the real customer, but advertisers pay for it). Software is becoming more and more consumer-oriented, and the clash of these titans will determine the outcome, the software of the future.

The Fab Four

Who are these fantastic companies? Amazon is the leader in e-commerce. Apple reinvented mobile devices and content distribution. Facebook is the largest social network in the world, a big brother in the making. Google is the biggest web and search company.

I almost won't argue with the choice of the Fab Four. To me, these are truly the technology companies that are moving things forward. To be honest, the list is bit of an understatement for Microsoft, even though that doesn't change the fact I'm trying to put out here. These four corporations (their software at least) are more B2C (Business To Consumer) than B2B (Business To Business) oriented. Even Microsoft, with its XBox, Bing, Windows (Phone and Tablet) programs is shifting focus to consumer markets.

The stock market comparison

The B2B software market is still huge, but electronic commerce, online advertising and the economy of scale of billions of users spending a few dollars is slowly outperforming more expensive business solutions sold fewer times, even if they are deployed millions of times as operating systems, products or services. If you check out the following charts, you can see information about market capitalization, revenue and historical price change of these companies (Facebook is not public yet, but it's IPO could be around $100 billion) compared to traditional technology companies such as Oracle, Microsoft and IBM. The numbers are pretty interesting (source: ycharts).

Market capitalization of Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle in the last 10 years (as available)

Change in market capitalization of Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle in the last 7 years (as available)

Revenue of Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle in the last 10 years (as available)

Change in revenue of Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle in the last 8 years (as available)

Change in stock price of Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle in the last 7 years (as available)

Why does it matter

As a software architect, I see major shifts in user-centered software compared to business-oriented software. Even if you check Gartner's strategic technologies of 2012, it becomes more and more obvious what's happening:

software is made for and "sold" to users, not management anymore
product cycles and new releases are reaching Warp Speed
the focus is shifting from features to benefits
user experience is becoming more and more important
technology used is getting less and less important
system and data integration is becoming trivial with web services and APIs
there's a new generation of devices that run software (smartphones and tablets, the internet of things)
scaling and performance is not measured in Whateverbytes, but in number of users
new distribution channels (marketplaces) are going beyond the Web
platforms and mashups have emerged, where ecosystems of software are being build around the core service
online software is more disruptive and innovative, business software follows (from Web 2.0 to Enterprise 2.0, adoption of gamification in the enterprise, etc.)

Adaptation

Some business software companies, such as Salesforce.com have managed to adapt to this situation, offering a platform others can upgrade and develop on. We're adapting too, on a smaller scale. Neolab is still mostly focused on B2B software, since that's where we've built our market. Sure, we did a few web portals and are working on deploying our own user-targeted service Twitfluence, but it's business-oriented software that we generally work on. But that doesn't change the fact we are fully aware that the concept of software is changing, and we are on top of it, trying to embrace these trends and include new paradigms in corporate infromation systems. Social, user-oriented, user-friendly. Knowing that people are behind every company.

Software is maturing; consumers are getting more and more demanding, brands behind the software are getting more and more important. And as the Web expands even further, this fact will become yet more obvious. It's you and me who are the ones who are "buying" software. Which is great, since in the end the ordinary people, not corporations, will be those who will decide how software and technology of the future will look like. Interactive, useful and fun. Here we are now, entertain us.

Is Dexter and its social game Slice of Life the future of TV shows (but no one noticed)?

Sun, 06 Nov 2011 15:46:35 GMT

I don't know if you've noticed, but a few months ago the hit television show Dexter got it's own social game you can play on Facebook, named Slice of Life. Similar kinds of branded social games have been done before, but it's something else that's interesting this time. This game changes according to the plot of the television series each week. That's right, the show and the game are coexisting and evolving together to bring users a totally new type of experience. And while most technology blogs, obsessed with social, said Slice of Life is a revolutionary new type of a social game, I asked myself: is it rather a new revolutionary type of consuming television?

Television is static - not interactive the way the Web is. You can't do much. More or less, liking and commenting shows, besides tele voting, are the most interactive things you can do. But Slice of Life changes everything. A television show that you can watch, consume and play on multiple mediums, multiple channels, multiple platforms, online and offline. You're actually playing a game inside the show. Or watching a show inside the game. Pretty awesome stuff that didn't get as nearly much attention as it should, attention for bringing a new type of interactivity to television shows.

If the future of television as a medium will be defined by new types of business models (Netflix), physical architecture (Google?) and user experience (Apple?), the future of television content will definitely be defined by the level of interactivity it offers, imitating the Web. And until now, interactivity hasn't been solved in such a smart way than our favorite serial killer's social game. You must watch, you must play, you must do everything to be the biggest of the 10 million+ fans Dexter has on Facebook.

It looks like television is becoming more than just a medium. It's rather evolving into a cross-platform interactive content serving entertainment system. Some have already managed to successfully understand that fact, more will follow soon. I don't know about you, but I can't wait to see more.

Solid-state drives (SSD) are the biggest win in hardware ever

Wed, 21 Sep 2011 08:01:42 GMT

Guess what? My new computer has a Solid-state drive. In case you don't know what I'm talking about, that's the new super fancy high-tech computer storage unit. And I must say it's so amazing it's almost silly. Extra fast boot times, complex applications opening up in seconds, less power consumption and no humming from the hard disk. What else could you wish for in your new sexy computer? I love it, and I love it so much I had to tell the world.

In my laptop career, I went from from Centrino to Core 2 Duo to i5. Never noticed much difference in performance. Well, with the last one, I also got the mentioned SSD and it blew my mind. And I was wondering, besides the famous Samsung SSD in RAID movie, I haven't heard much about it, nor seen impressed geeks writing poems about its awesomeness. Sure, people are testing how faster it is and arguing about the fact if it consumes less battery or more. But who cares, what you really want to know is if it makes a significant difference or not.

So trust me on this one: nothing will make more difference in personal computer performance than a Solid-state drive. By miles. Lightyears even. And while I know they are expensive as gold, I still think you should consider getting one with your new computer. They are worth every penny. If you're not a hardcore gamer, make movies or process calculations with thousand of parameters, you really don't need an extremely capable processor and a state-of-the-art graphic card. Memory, you need that, but it's cheap. What you need the most is a Solid-state drive. Casual user or one of the mentioned.

There's always a downside. After some time, Solid-state drives supposedly start to behave a bit slower and are still not as reliable as hard disks. Luckily, most of these problems have been taken care of with the current generations, so we'll see what happens. At this point, all I can say is that I'm very very impressed and think that SSDs deserve much more than just this post. They're pure win. And another item for your wish list.

Optimizing computer input performance: learning to use the trackpad with both hands

Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:20:05 GMT

I'm left-handed. Which is not that optimal for general use of computers, since they are designed for right-handed people. You use the external mouse with your stronger right hand, which means your weaker left hand stays on the left side of the keyboard, where most of the function keys are. I managed to adopt that. But now a much greater challenge awaits: learning to do the same with the trackpad.

When I bought my first Mac, I also went for the Mighty mouse, which more or less sucked. After some time I abandoned it and started using the trackpad, which is really cool since it also supports multi-touch gestures. The new Macs and their trackpads are a lot bigger, and their multi-touch even more capable, so I'm not even thinking about getting an external mouse. Besides, I think having your hands near the keyboard by using a trackpad makes your inputting (navigating and typing) a bit faster and more optimal, since you don't have to move that much. And of course, it's better if you use the trackpad with your right hand because of the keybeard function keys.

When Apple introduced the first iPhone, people were laughing at its underperforming capabilities. But the iPhone had something significant that made it the success as it is today. The outstanding capacitative display and amazing user experience, which set new standards for mobile industry. I'm not sure if the same capacitative technology is used in Mac trackpads, but the fact is they simply work.

Looking at modern tablets and smartphones, it's pretty obvious that the future lies in devices with touch capabilities. Why should computers be any different? Besides, we will probably be using both hands sometime soon. So this mission of mine may have multiple benefits. Be better today (ok, tomorrow, since adoption will take some time), and be prepared for the super high-tech virtual touch future by having two touch-adopted hands. And when I actually manage to make it work, I already have an idea for the next, even more optimal inputting method: Using the trackpad with my right thumb, so both my hands can stay on the keyboard. Wish me luck.

Why an actual Facebook phone could kick ass (with mockups)

Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:28:34 GMT

The question if Facebook will start producing it's own mobile OS on top of Android made a huge buzz a few months ago. Technology authorities such as TechCrunch and Mashable gave us diametrical coverage about it, the first claiming the rumor is true, and the second denying it. Needless to say the mobile market is one of the fastest evolving. Since 2007, when Apple supposedly revolutionized the mobile telephone by introducing the first popular tablet smartphone without a keyboard with an app market, things didn't change much, but in 2011, Facebook has a great chance to reinvent the phone again.

Today, the world is "going social". The transition to 2.0 has touched most aspects of our lives and heavily influenced software development, some companies are introducing social browsers, and others such as Neolab are trying to put social into enterprise IT. But the most social device of them all, the mobile telephone, despite high competition and increasing hardware and software capabilities, was left behind. Sure, the social potential in mobile contacts was noticed, but we haven't seen it happen yet. So, if Facebook actually gives this thing a try, could we finally see a real social phone?

One of the biggest problems with today's mobile operating systems and their user experience is that they are still built around services rather than around people (contacts). You have your app for calling, your app for messages, your app for mails, apps for different social networks. Different channels with enclosed streams rather than one giant stream that would display all the communication and interactions with a specific person. Android and Windows 7 Phone did enable Facebook contacts syncing with direct links to profiles and some integration, and there are third-party apps that are trying to achieve this (SocialPhone, Phonebook 2.0). Nevertheless, I still made some mockups of my own about how I envision the social phone OS of the future (since I'm more aquainted with the iOS, I worked on that), something that is destined to happen one way or another.

User stream

The most important feature I miss about the current generation of smartphone operating systems is the complete stream of activity and interactions from a single person. All classic mobile services (call, message, mail, calendar, ...), combined with social services (Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, ...) in a single feed. Here's a mockup of how this could look, the icon represents the service, the arrow represents the direction (in case of public posts, which are not between two people, there is no arrow, since it's an action without target instead of a reaction). All services are intended for communication, so why are they kept separated and treated differently?

Single user stream, displaying information from different sources and services. Similar features already exist in some apps.

The contacts

Now that we have an integrated repository of all our social interactions with a single user, we could reinvent the address book. Each action could have it's weight (e.g. a Call would be much stronger than a Twitter reply), and the occurrence of social interactions with a user in recent time period could determine the probability of needing that specific contact (an upgrade to "recently contacted", available today). To make things even more useful, users could set the preferred time period using a slider. Those who have seen how sexy iPhone icons behave while being rearranged, can probably imagine the fancy shuffle of profile pictures upon this activity.

Contact grid, where people are recommended based on the number of social interactions in a specific time period.

The activity log

To top it off, I've made a mockup of the complete activity log, which could combine all owner's social activities together with the interactions on a mobile device and other services. Again, the icons represent the public actions (shown with a service logo) and the interactions (shown with a profile picture), together with the direction of the reaction. This blog does something similar, combining different social activities into an unified stream, but it's still mostly one way - my posts on different social services. But combining one way posts with two way actions/reactions/interactions could provide the component that could actually make the phone capable of portraying the most perfect social stream of its owner. Specially since regular phone activities, such as calls and messages are as social as you can go, but they exists only on the device and the carrier.

Log of all user's activities on the phone and on different Web 2.0 networks.

These are just a few ideas, I've been thinking about trying to pack them in an app, but I really don't have the time to go for it, and similar ones are already available. I also think that this concept of a social phone should be built into the core of the OS, because the phone would need to be completely integrated with and authenticated into different Web 2.0 services (not only single apps). This would make these features available inside other apps, and setup and synchronization would require less hassle.

Facebook, the king of social, is currently the most perfect candidate (and perhaps the only one capable) to make something like this work, so I would really love to see it come alive. It's questionable if they would allow competition like Twitter or Foursquare inside it, but other software giants would surely need to follow the concept and in the end, make it right. I want a social phone!

Trends of 2010, according to Facebook, Google and Twitter

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 07:42:29 GMT

The year is coming to an end, and our favorite big brothers all published reports about trends inside their ecosystems (Facebook, Google, Twitter). Even though the services are not perfectly comparable (information gets pulled and pushed: while you search, you pull data; on social networks the data gets pushed to you), I think they can provide a clear picture about the general state of the Web in 2010. Three obvious winners emerged, coming strong in all the charts. Apple made the iPad the most wanted gadget around, FIFA World Cup mania took over the whole planet, and Justin Bieber topped the celebrity world. I was curious about the comparison, so I've joined all three lists, gave all topics a score, and put the results into pictures. Sadly, I'm not a designer to make a really cool infographic about it, so this will have to do.

#	Google (points)	Facebook (points)	Twitter (points)	Total (points)
1	HMU (10)	Chatroulette (10)	Gulf Oil Spill (10)	iPad (21)
2	World Cup (9)	iPad (9)	FIFA World Cup (9)	World Cup (18)
3	Movies (8)	Justin Bieber (8)	Inception (8)	Justin Bieber (16)
4	iPad and iPhone 4 (7)	Nicki Minaj (7)	Haiti Earthquake (7)	Haiti (13)
5	Haiti (6)	Friv (6)	Vuvuzela (6)	Oil Spill (10)
6	Justin Bieber (5)	Myxer (5)	Apple iPad (5)	Chatroulette (10)
7	Games on Facebook (4)	Katy Perry (4)	Google Android (4)	Inception (8)
8	Mineros / Miners (3)	Twitter (3)	Justin Bieber (3)	Nicki Minaj (7)
9	Airplanes (2)	GameZer (2)	Harry Potter (2)	Friv (6)
10	2011 (1)	Facebook (1)	Pulpo Paul (1)	Vuvuzela (6)

I've only left out "HMU" (Hit me up) and "Movies", because the first is an expression, and the second is a generic term. Hope you like it, see you around in 2011.

Windows-branded computers on TV. Entering a new market or product placement fail?

Wed, 24 Nov 2010 18:02:11 GMT

Lately I've been noticing a lot of television shows that used computers with a Windows logo on their back. Classic product placement, where advertising blends with an event, movie or a TV show. The master of product placement in the mentioned segment is currently Apple, who also has suitable products for most occasions – beautiful and recognizable laptop and desktop computers. But Microsoft doesn't make computers at all. It does make some hardware (Xbox, Zune), but its focus is mostly on software (and lately on consumer electronics), so why the hell would they want to advertise something that doesn't even exist? Have they lost their mind or are they entering yet another market?

The past years have been hell for Microsoft. Bill Gates left, and current CEO Steve Ballmer sold a huge pile of shares a few weeks ago. Apple even managed to become more valuable than Microsoft, and Microsoft is obviously looking for different opportunities to stay in the game. Because I don't really believe they will start producing computers (tablets perhaps?), I can imagine these product placement efforts were created to gain lost ground on the OS market and targeted against Apple, but I think they could have come up with something more appropriate. In my opinion, Microsoft's greatest opportunity still lies in business environments (Office, SQL, asp.net, …), but while they're trying to focus on other segments, they are loosing that enterprise software market to other players such as Google.

Product placement in general makes sense for Microsoft, with Xbox, Windows 7, Windows Mobile 7, even Kinect and Surface as perfect candidates, because they look cool and Microsoft actually produces (or will produce) them. But advertising Windows computers, that's a bit ridiculous. Perhaps this type of marketing actually works on other target groups, but for more tech-savvy consumers such as myself, it looks desperate and fake, because we all know Microsoft doesn't even make computers. Worse, it looks like Microsoft is trying to position itself close to Apple (even the logo imitates Apple's), but doesn't stand a chance against the design perfection of a Mac. In the end, all this money spent perhaps made Apple look cooler and might have even helped them more than it helped Microsoft.

Microsoft should focus on the fields it masters and does best (or at least try to expose their know-how and advantages), because they have little chance to succeed competing on the markets that are dominated by other players (Apple in design, Google in search). And they should stop marketing fake branded computers, because they simply look silly. Perhaps this October campaign was a short experiment or even some sort of the ultimate innovative marketing strategy made by the greatest advertising agency in the world which I don't understand and appreciate, but I think it's actually quite ineffective and wrong. Or am I wrong?

How I Met Your Mother: Season 6, Episode 4. Aired October 11th, 2010 on CBS.

Lie To Me: Season 3, Episode 2. Aired October 11th, 2010 on FOX.

The Mentalist: Season 3, Episode 5 (also other episodes). Aired October 21st, 2010 on CBS.

UPDATE (26.2.2011): Here are a few more shows doing it. It looks like it's a CBS and FOX thing.

The Good Guys: Season 1, Episode 15 (also other episodes). Aired October 29th, 2010 on FOX.

Bones: Season 6, Episode 14. Aired February 17th, 2011 on FOX.

Apple has enough money to buy Slovenia's entire yearly production

Fri, 12 Nov 2010 22:00:34 GMT

Apple is currently hot like a chili pepper. Its products are well accepted, their sales and revenues are growing, and their stocks are going sky-high. A few months ago Apple even managed to dethrone Microsoft as the largest technology company in the world and ~~second~~ third largest according to market capitalization (behind Exxon and PetroChina). Their yearly revenues are currently around $65 billion, which is a lot, and that figure is even more interesting if put into perspective.

Slovenia is a small country in Europe. It has around 2 million inhabitants who almost manage to live in peace. Its GDP in 2009 was around $24k per capita or $49b in total. We are so small that our neighbors are making jokes about it, but we are still a proud nation of capable people, who try hard to make it. Speaking of small - nowadays it's not that unusual for large corporations to have bigger revenues than a small country's GDP, but if a company has more money than a country's GDP, well, that's simply ridiculous. But Apple now sits on more than $50 billion (11 billion in cash + 14 billion in short-term marketable securities + 25 billion in long-term marketable securities), which means that it's actually capable of buying the whole yearly gross domestic product of Slovenia.

Apple obviously won't do that, but eventually it will have to do something. There are speculations about them wanting to buy Facebook (estimated value 33 billion), focusing on mobile payments, and many others. It will be interesting to see what happens, but I'm almost sure Steve will do the right thing. The company is very healthy, the demand is high, so it should be a piece of cake. Just take a look at these interesting facts or the figures below, which display the case of Apple vs. Slovenia. I guess we truly are small.

	Apple	Slovenia
Full name	Apple Inc.	Republic of Slovenia
Established	1976	1991
Capital	Cuppertino	Ljubljana
Government	~~Monarchy~~ Empire	Parliamentary republic
Leader	Steve Jobs	Danilo Türk
Population	49,400 (2010)	2,054,199 (2009)
GDP	$65.225 billion (2010)	$49.217 billion (2009)
GDP per capita	$1.320 million (2010)	$24,417 (2009)

Source: Wikipedia, Apple

Apple's strategy of becoming a content provider might simply be ingenious

Sun, 19 Sep 2010 15:38:22 GMT

Apple is an interesting corporation. Some love it, some hate it, but the fact is, Apple has become the biggest technology company in the world. An interesting turn of events, from a company that nearly went bankrupt a few decades ago, to a player that we know today. Looks like Steve Jobs really is one of the greatest visionaries of our time, as his comeback in 1996 together with the introduction of the iMac and the iPod managed to turn things around for Apple. Looking at these facts in 2010, the iPod may turn out to be even more important than it seems, creating a digital music revolution and providing the foundation for Apple's strategy of becoming the world's dominant commercial content provider.

Apple was always known as the great innovator, and all of its products and services(!) strive towards perfection. This vision of making things people want and need (or don't need but still want anyways) has moved beyond hardware and software, towards a new direction – providing both free and payable content in any form. And because of the loyalty and fanaticism of their customers, they are one of the few that are actually able to make this work on a global scale. And be aware content is more than just actual news, it's multimedia (music, videos), it's software, it's books, it's just about everything, and Apple was the first to notice this potential and put it into action.

It all started with the iPod (2001) and its biggest sister, the iTunes. Today, iTunes is the largest music retailer in the US, with over 10 billion songs purchased. With the introduction of the iPhone (2007), its biggest sister, the App Store became one of the largest software marketplaces in the world, selling more that 6 billion applications in two years. The next gadget, the iPad (2010), was launched with a bigger sister too, the iBooks, which is currently messing up Amazon's Kindle operation, even though the success of this story is still hard to estimate. A few weeks ago, Apple also introduced the new cloud powered Apple TV (2010), which will enable selling (actually renting) fresh HD movies and TV shows using the iTunes platform. And to complete the circle, there are rumors Apple will also provide a subscription service for newspapers, supposedly the iNewsstand, which could actually become the biggest of them all.

So, how did a "personal computer" company come to this position? If you ask me, the answer is simple – Steve Jobs. This visionary was able to predict where the future will go and if you look at the situation today, when this business model is proven to work, it's really trivial. When personal computers were on the rise, it was obvious business and sales will be in hardware and software. But in the present information era, where billions have access to the web, overloaded with information, it's almost obvious that business and sales will be in providing content: data and information in all forms.

Besides Apple TV, Ping, a social network on top of iTunes, was also introduced on Apple's last "mass". I won't speculate on how cool it is, because I haven't tried it and am not sure if I will. But the fact is that iTunes has 160 million users and generates a lot of revenue. Ping actually represents a first integrated wide scale social market place, which probably is the future of social electronic commerce, so it will be interesting to see what will happen. No matter how cool, adding a Facebook Like button on Amazon simply isn't real social commerce.

That's Apple, once a computer manufacturer, today a diversified technology and media corporation with great know-how in electronic commerce and providing content, while pioneering (again) in social commerce. Besides owning a complete set of platforms for providing and selling different types of content, many of them market leaders, they also offer beautiful hardware and software infrastructure for their implementation. Something we will be seeing in most living rooms of the future?

Why are all browser logos and icons round (and blue)?

Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:23:31 GMT

I'm not a professional graphic designer, but I've been doing web development for years and got to know a few things about it, both intentionally and accidentally. I hope my designer friends won't get mad with me simplifying design in this post, but the way I see it, there are mostly two main purposes design serves. One is to support function (present both in industrial and graphic design) and the other is to enable effective representation and communication (specific for graphic design).

Logos are probably one of the most praised elements of graphic design. They make an effective characterization of a company, product or service, besides being aesthetic and memorable to enable high user recollection. It's also good to have an original logo, something that stands out from the rest and helps a brand not to get mistaken with other brands. But there is always a trade-off between creativity and standard, and in our case of browser logos and icons, it looks like this desired representation was a bit more important than originality. Most of the browser logo designers went for a safe and predictable solution, producing one of the greatest graphic design cliches of our time.

When you think about the Internet and the World Wide Web, there are probably not so many geometrical shapes and colors you can associate it with. The net is huge, endless and fluid, so the proper shape is definitely not a triangle, a square or something else with edges. The net is global and it's everywhere, so the color representing it has to be something resembling our planet.

If you compare six of the most popular internet browser icons, you can see this concept in action. Most browser logos and icons are round and contain blue, except Opera, who went for red. But it's not just about the shape and the color, the bottom line is they generally look alike, using similar elements such as Earth, light beams and reflections. Opera logo stands out, but upon second observation, it kinda looks like an uncreative red Internet Explorer clone, so perhaps it's even worse than the others.

Are the designers behind these solutions to blame? Probably not. The internet browser is arguably the most widely used piece of software there is, so it's important that your mother also finds it's icon representable and appealing. The truth is we probably won't reinvent the World Wide Web or colonize the galaxy any time soon, so there is a good chance we also won't see any original and creative browser logos any time soon too. Therefore we just have to accept that round and blue it is.

Trademarks and logos are the property of their respective owners.

Creative online advertising at its best – Wired and Youtube

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:48:41 GMT

I used to work for an online advertising agency. For large projects we were usually trying to make a campaign extraordinary and special, something that would stand out from the rest and be creative and effective. When you are trying to achieve something like that you are usually limited by a great number of facts, such as the campaign budget, creativity of the team, capabilities of the designers and programmers, but perhaps most importantly, the technical issues and platform of the site that will serve the ads.

Looks like Wired.com and YouTube.com don't have those problems and are actually cooperating with the advertisers to go towards perfection. YouTube you know, but in case you haven't heard of Wired, it's an online blog and an off-line magazine, one of the most respectable with focus on new technologies. They have great content, high reach and are a big potential for advertisers and marketers. Some of them are actually prepared to go for it all the way. I have noticed two campaigns on Wired and one on YouTube that really stand out, all of them fully integrated with the site. Forget floaters and takeovers, in-site advertising is the bomb. We can only wonder how much money was spent on the design, development and the serving of the ads.

Acura

The Acura ZDX banner works in a such a way that the site's main menu and some content are reflected onto the car (fake, of course). This makes it look as if the commercial is fully integrated with the site, making it interesting and appealing. It doesn't do anything special besides that, but the graphic rendering is pretty good.

Apple

Apple's iPod nano and iPod touch advertisements on Wired.com are even more outstanding. iPod touch goes a step further, breaking apart the site and its main menu (fake again, of course), trying to communicate the motion sensitivity, multi-player gaming and other features of the gadget. This approach goes beyond in-site advertising, because it uses the takeover ad to emphasize iPod touch capabilities, giving it an outstanding look and probably a very high effect for both branding and direct response. You must be weird not to click it, even though you know where the link leads and you don't actually need or want it.

Nintendo

After Nintendo's Wii console came out, they made a really awesome Wario Land ad on YouTube. Emphasizing the gaming console's capabilities and motion sensitive controllers, they went even a step further than Apple. The final result is a totally destructed YouTube page, with most of the site's elements slowly being kicked off the screen. Creative and amazing, again with great direct and branding effect, use of beyond in-site advertising, and a great demonstration of focused communication. This one looks like it actually really does take the site to bits and pieces, because all the elements look real and updated. Nintendo was probably able to negotiate full control over their YouTube channel.

These are bits of advertising excess I have noticed while browsing the web. The mentioned commercials are usually online just for a day or so, so it's hard to catch them if you're not a regular user. I'm sure there are more similar cases like this on other portals too. It's been obvious for quite some time that advertising is shifting towards online, with effective and amusing results. Technical capabilities of this medium are probably unlimited, so we can expect even more amazing displays of creativity, design and modern marketing in the future.

Slovenian grocers going for Web 2.0 design

Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:12:48 GMT

It’s obvious that Slovenian grocers are using TV as their main advertising medium, the same as many others. Nothing wrong with that. Their commercials are typical for their industry, emphasizing actual promotions and discounts and going for direct sales mostly. Nothing wrong with that too. They finish off with their logo on the screen, so they do a bit of branding too. Reasonable, you have to use all marketing approaches. But wait a minute, why do their logos look Web 2.0?

Using a reflection under a logo, picture or icon was started by the king of design, Apple, and was later on embraced by the Web 2.0 architects and designers. Here is an overview of history of Web 2.0 design, from the times we didn't even know what Web 2.0 was. Today, this stylish feature can be seen anywhere and is already becoming a cliché, but who am I to tell...

After I started being more observant, I noticed that half of the commercials on Slovenian television are using some sorts of reflections, for which we don’t know if they supposedly communicate modern and web (2.0) approaches or are they used just for aesthetic reasons. So much for their creativity anyways. But there is something important they forgot – Web 2.0 is not design, Web 2.0 is a concept.

In our case, the two grocers mentioned are Mercator and Tuš who, interesting enough, don't use the same Web 2.0 logos on their websites. Mercator is ahead though, they have a Facebook page and an active Twitter account, while Tuš failed to recognize new types of media and new Web 2.0 approaches for marketing (and their web site looks like it's from 1995).

I wasn't able to find these advertisements online, so I had to do it old school - photographing the television. The quality is miserable, but enough to prove my point. Looks like Web 2.0 design is so in that it's already out.

Trademarks and logos are the property of their respective owners.

Price elasticity of demand - operating systems and Snow Leopard

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:25:49 GMT

A lot of my colleagues from the Faculty of Economics think their study was mostly a waste of time. Too much focus on old, out of date concepts and approaches, too little focus on real life. I can't argue with that, it is a bit old school and theoretical, so it's up to the student to make the most out of the abstract things he learned. But you can't do that before you see the real world. And you also have to put a bit of thinking into the whole picture. Then you are able to see that basic concepts, such as supply and demand are everywhere (not only in economics and business) and can fully explain why the sweets of the most scarce flavor in the box taste the best.

Another interesting concept in economics is price elasticity. To put it in simple words, it explains how people react to different prices of the same commodity. Elementary goods, such as food, are not elastic; if a loaf of bread costs 50 cents or 2 €, the bakers will sell about the same amount, because people need it for living and they will buy it anyway. On the other hand, luxury goods are very elastic. If a basic car would costs 5.000 € or 20.000 €, the people would react strongly to it, and only a few people would buy cars because they would be too expensive.

There's a whole theory behind it on how to find the optimal price for goods. Record labels don't want to see it and the whole record industry is in a crisis, while music piracy is in bloom. In my opinion, I would buy a lot of records, if they would cost 5 € each. In real world, I won't buy many because they cost 20 € each. So, the big question at hand is: would the global record industry sell more than 4 times the number of records they do if the price was 4 times cheaper? I think they would - and if I am right, this would mean that music records are price elastic.

These days we are witnessing a very good example on price elasticity of software and it looks like Apple has done it again. They're offering their newest operating system Snow Leopard for 29 € to users of the previous version (Leopard). Rumors have it you can put it also on the prior version (Tiger), which I hope is true, because I already bought it (it is possible according to AppleInsider). So, at the same time Windows users are struggling not to let go of Windows XP and are sticking to the past, Apple is giving away their new operating system for a price of a good meal and everybody wants it. Pretty smart for market penetration and building customer loyalty.

I wouldn't pay 150 € to go for a new version of an operating system, which is about the regular price of Windows Vista or Mac OS, specially if the current one works. But 30 € completely changes the story. The result is interesting; it caused a demand overflow and here in Slovenia you had to make a reservation and wait for a week to get it. When I went to the store, everybody was buying Snow Leopards. I understand the cult of Mac, but this was amazing and a good example of market supremacy.

Looks like the strategists at Apple know their economics as well as they now their marketing.

Organizing music collections using iTunes

Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:32:46 GMT

When I got my first iPod a few years ago as a business gift, I was overwhelmed. The thing was pure cuteness and usability. Then I got a cold shower few minutes later, as I tried to put my mp3s on it. The damn thing wouldn't work without iTunes. Apple's strategy to force software to users is a bit Microsofty, and is in my oppinion one of the worst things the company is doing, getting criticism all around. But It turns out this approach is helping them on their world domination tour that's been going on in the past years, as more and more people are switcing to Apple and Macs.

Switching from Winamp to iTunes got me acquainted to music libraries. Winamp also supports it, but it was a bit in the background those days. iTunes had it in the main and at first I though that's just another stupid thing I had to do for nothing. But the more I went into it, the more fond I was of it. Today I am a power iTunes user and I think my library is a piece of art, with houndreds of hours put into it's organization and optimization. Meta data is very powerful, and having songs classified, tagged and labeled leads to simple and flexible use, after the bigger initial investment.

Here are a few approaches that can help you keep my giant library under control:

Labeling and smart playlists: Using correct labels for artists, genres, etc. and rating songs enables the use of smart playlists. I have one main playlists that combines all songs rated more than 2 stars. I have a few similar which focus on specific genres. These are the playlists I use the most. Their biggest advantage is that I can add new songs to iTunes and after I rate them, the automatically go to all the correct playlists, so I don't need to worry about making generic playlists with listenable songs.
Using album covers: This feature is very cool for browsing album collections. Instead of having to read what's in the library, you just look for a specific album cover. They say a picture is worth a 1000 words and it's true. By using cover flow or grid view, you can quickly and easily find the album you are looking for.
Using folders for playlists: Albums should be organized using folders. In my case, I use a root folder named Albums, which contains sub folders according to genres (Rock, Electronica, Pop, etc.), which contain subfolders according to sub-genres (Classic Rock, Alternative Rock, Indie Rock, etc.). This allows me to easily browse (or shuffle) all albums, if I feel more specific, just albums of one genre, and if I am in a really picky mood, just specialized collection of music from a sub-genre. This structure could be achieved by using smart playlist focused on genres, but then all the singles would also be added to the lists, so I prefer managing this by hand.
Using Comment as a tagging tool: Comments can be used as tags, because smart playlists can be configured to play songs where comment contains a word. This means that the system will work even if you put more words (tags) into the comment field. I use comments such as Replace (this song needs a better version), Label (this song is not correctly labeled) and New (this is something new and should be listened to - because date of adding to library is not correct in all the cases) to have a better overview over the songs in my library, and better choice for listening.
Making advanced logical statements: iTunes smart playlists only work with ALL or ANY of the rules or conditions you apply to them, which corresponds to mathematical OR or AND statements. I can set the smart playlist to contain ALL the songs of the genre pop AND rated more than 2 stars AND last more than 2 minutes. Another possibility is to set it in a way it contains ANY the songs that have a bit rate of less thant 192 OR have a comment that contains Replace (these songs need to be replaced). But you can't combine both OR and AND statements in one playlist.
Actually there's a workaround, but you have to put a bit of efford into it and use a folder as a container. All the playlists inside the folder will be treated between themselves as ANY (OR), but each playlist can be configured as ALL. For instance, if you want a playlist of both best and fresh rock songs that will contain (ALL rock songs AND rated at least 4 stars) OR (ALL the rock songs AND made in the year 2009 AND rated with any stars), you just create two separate smart playlists (one for best, one for fresh), add them to a folder and the folder acts as the complex AND/OR playlist, combining both.

These techniques can probably be used also with other music libraries software and can hopefully make easier and better use of music collections. And if you know any other cool tricks, please let me know.

How Nokia lost its mobile interface domination and how Apple took it

Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:17:31 GMT

When first cell phones came around, almost everybody I know had a Nokia. They were working for years and they had a nice interface. You could do everything with excactly four function buttons: Menu (also Yes, Receive and Hang up call), Cancel, Up and Down. Simple and smart, as less is more.

Nokia is still cool in Europe, but they are having difficulties penetrating the US and were forced to leave the Japanese market. And there is another star rising, and it's called the iPhone. Apple was able to take 1% of global mobile market share with just one high end model. The first generation did not make it to Japan, but they were able to do that too with the second 3G model.

Apple made quite an interesting strategy, as they gave the iPhone the thing they do best - awesome software. Ok, first generations did miss a few basic features, but the usability was and still is superior. All other phones's software feels the same, but iPhone OS feels better. And it uses only one button.

If you look at an ordinary Nokia phone today, it has about ten function buttons: Menu, Function one, Function two, Receive, Hang up, Left, Right, Up, Down, OK. That can be confusing and a lot of people end up not using all of them. Luckily Nokia was able to understand this and started going back to basics.

After their acquisition of Symbian, it looks like things will turn out for the better. The N series looks good and the N97 looks amazing. Other companies were finally able to notice that mobile phones should be fun to use.

There are other players, like Samsung, RIM and Google, who are following the little revolution the iPhone made. iPhone may not be perfect and the best, but one thing is certain. Apple showed us that software and user experience do matter, and they matter a lot.

I want it all - the curious case of Microsoft

Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:18:12 GMT

There's Microsoft, probably the biggest software company in the world. And there are others. In the past years Microsoft has been trying to expand it's business to pretty much all the markets, faintly connected with it's core business - developing software. Marketing experts could say this is not a good strategy, because it is better for companies to retain their focus and stay specialized in things they do best. But if Samsung can build bridges in South Korea and at the same time make smart phones, why shouldn't Microsoft make iPods?

There are a few interesting new markets Microsoft entered into. But are they profitable enough to let the Windows family suffer because of this expansion? Here are the most significant:

Gaming consoles market: the Xbox 360 is supposed to be one of the best gaming consoles according to independent tests, because of it's high performance and good online support. They even offer some exclusive Grand theft auto content, which was probably the most anticipated game of this year.
Portable media devices: we are supposed to see the new Zune HD in autumn, designed to kill the iPod dominance of portable mp3 and video devices. But is it cool enough to be able to take this burden upon itself?
Search: a few years ago Microsoft introduced Live search, which was the successor of MSN search. A few months ago Bing was launched, and it is actually successfully taking search engine usage and share from Google and Yahoo, at least for now. But is it just curiosity, or is it actually good enough to replace The mighty one?

In the mean time, Windows Vista was quite a debacle and left most of the users longing and keeping Windows XP. We will see how Windows 7 does, but they surely lost a good position against Mac and Linux in the past years. I still think that Microsoft's business suite is the best there is (Office, asp.net, SQL server), but negative attitude can easily travel from operating systems towards enterprise environment and fun gadgets. People want the iPod and the iPhone because it is easy and fun to use, will they think the same about Zune after using Windows Vista?

It is always fun and interesting to check what the stock market says. The following diagram compares Microsoft (MSFT) to it's competitors from different markets mentioned above, Apple (AAPL), Google (GOOG) and Nintendo (NTDOY), from the beginning of 2005 until now.

It doesn't look that good, does it (even though the dates and players in the diagram were carefully chosen to support the hypothesis)?

Proud: My blog will be a Mac

Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:47:58 GMT

The dispute between Mac, Windows and Linux users is neverending, so we will not even try to go there. Personally, I have been using a Mac for the past two and a half years and I have my reasons to like it. It costs twice as much as an alternative would, but for a guy who spends 25 hours a day behind a computer, this seems not so unreasonable. And the biggest benefit? Mac OS X, of course.

Mac OS X is both a toy and a high performance tool at the same time. It is cute and fun to use, but it also owns many creative in useful features. Many of them are getting implemented into our software and some of them I tried to build in into this blog. Here's a few:

Things that are tecnhically equivalent, don't need to be represented equally in the interface: On a Mac, you can change your network location (with IP settings) with one click from the start menu, a thing laptop users often need. In Windows, you have to go to Control Panel, Network Settings, etc., because this feature is technically similar to changing my computer's name. A feature used very often...
I did a similar thing on my chronolog. Blog is much more represented in the interface, than f.i. Loved tracks, because those posts are more interesting and dynamic. But they are the same thing from the technical point of view.
Ajax: Most tech guys would say that AJAX stands for Asynchronous JavaScript and XML, a meaning that can't be argued with. But for me it also represents a new type of user experience, which has not been seen on the web before it.
Mac OS X user experience is just lovely with all the smooth transitions, transparencies and the the cute "ajax" loader...
Web 2.0 design: Web 2.0 simply loves those pretty icons with reflections, which are, if you haven't noticed, also used on this blog. Hm, where have I seen those before Web 2.0?