iPad

On the future (and present) of browsers (p.s.)

Chrome, Firefox, Safari, IE, Opera

After yesterday's post about how, apps aside, browsers really are a big part of our online future, this seemed to fall right in place:

[H]owever exciting the app store might be—there is no rational reason to neglect the most obvious iPad news platform: The website. The chance that you sell your app will only rise if your have a strong presence in the browser—given, that it’s worth the money. Developing an HTML based news app is not just cheaper and faster, it also gives you more editorial and technical control over your contents. More importantly, HTML-apps are in many ways more convenient for the user: They’re easy to use, they’re more medium appropriate and in that sense: more appealing and—they’re free. No long downloads, no “how do I get to…”, no weird crashes, no trouble to share, copy, paste, comment, tweet, link to. They just work.

That's going to become even more apparent as web tech and browser get better. Apps have a head start, but no matter how easy it is to download and install apps, that really is a pain in the ass compared to just-click-and-go.

Browsers don't matter? Look at the longer view

iPad screen

I love my apps!

I have an iPad and a Droid. I used to have an iPhone (before I decided I wanted my phone to also be able to make calls). I love apps! They're efficient and fast. Websites on mobile browsers can be difficult to manage. The apps can connect with internet data, but do it with a much improved user experience. No doubt. When it comes to mobile at least, a well-designed app beats a well-designed website 99% of the time. It's a new paradigm today. An interesting read is on O'Reilly, where Mac Slocum interviews Ken Yarmosh on app dominance.

But does this browsers don't matter anymore? David Card seems to think so.

Browsers don’t matter anymore….

...Subsequent competing browsers offered the promise of a similar platform: An application that with the rise of web apps and media could act as a user’s primary UI.

TODAY’S PLATFORM DELIVERY VEHICLE

But today’s platform is the web itself, as browsers and even operating systems have been rendered less important. Companies that deliver mass-market APIs for consumer apps, like Google, Facebook and Apple, don’t depend on specific browsers for distribution. Neither do enterprise suppliers like IBM, Oracle, SAP and Salesforce.com. Even Microsoft can’t depend on Internet Explorer to establish its standards or businesses. Silverlight and Bing underscore that fact. All that’s to say that the excitement about RockMelt arises from the potential of establishing a new browser, but it feels like that potential is based on an outdated model.

Setting aside for the moment that, for front-end developers like me at least, browsers do matter — especially the bad ones that require extra work just to get them to render things properly — I disagree with his assessment on three counts.

  1. The issue has never been requiring specific browsers — at least not since the pre-dot-bomb days when lazy developers would test only for Internet Explorer and the rest of us could just twist in the wind.
  2. Advances in the web, however, have required excluding certain browsers. Google has famously dropped support for IE6, for example. Web technology is improving rapidly, especially in the JavaScript realm — all the more so in how JavaScript benefits from HTML5.
  3. There is indeed a race happening between Google Chrome, Firefox and Safari, and Internet Explorer is working to catch up. (And let's not forget the snooty Opera, either.) Why are people even using Chrome? Because it's fast, its JavaScript rendering is fast! Safari, now already on version 5, is working to make itself more extensible. Firefox 4 (currently in beta) has a new fast JavaScript engine. And IE9 seems poised to (cough) actually support web standards, including CSS 2.1! I'd say the browser wars are just starting to heat up.

But my biggest disagreement with all this is with the supposition that, somehow, the proliferation of apps today spells the long-term demise of the browser. Yes, it makes sense today to create apps, because (x)html/css/js still can't match the power of client-side Objective-C etc. It's near impossible to create the full experience of a Flipboard or Pulse with just a webapp running today's html/css/js rendered on today's browsers.

But as handheld devices get more powerful, and web browsers get better (especially for handhelds), and HTML5 (or whatever supersedes its heir-apparent status), CSS 3+ and JavaScript continue to improve, I predict a trend towards web-served code rendered in browsers to create the handheld app experience.

Why?

Because apps can get to be a pain. In talking about new apps launched this week, Robert Scoble wrote recently how difficult it can be to gain adoption:

My wife? It’s hard enough to get her to try any new iPhone app, much less one that only lets her share photos with a close group of friends. She says that’s what she uses Facebook for.

I love apps, but I am finding the pain of installing and signing up and connecting and all that ends up being a barrier for me. Do I really want to download this new app? Do I really want to go through the 15-30 minutes to set it up, sign up for the service of whatever, connect with my existing networks, assess whether this thing is even worth all the effort? I mean, as easy as it is these days, installing apps is hard!

And that will count when competitor offerings are webapps where you don't need to install anything, you just use your browser, with the UI dynamics executed client side but the data and data management processing happening server side.

In other words, apps are a stop-gap — just a way of bypassing the limitations of the browser. But when browsers get better, things will change.

Browser don't matter? Ha! Ask that again in 5 4 3 2? years.

I pant, you pant, we all pant for iPad?

iPad
Other devices such as the WePad will offer similar kinds of features. In the end, it's about the content.

There's a whiff of desperation in the air. The iPad is now supposed to be the white knight that can save publishing. Is it?

I wrote before how the iPad will define a new market for consumer technology. There's no question of the appeal of a simple, extremely portable device with a decent-sized screen to peruse news headlines and browse magazine articles. But the mainstream media hype seems perhaps overblown a bit.

Despite the restrictions, the iPad's full color touchscreen is seen as a game changer for media companies that have long struggled to make money off digital content, which most consumers expect to get for free or at a very low cost.

Book publishers see a new chance to get their electronic offering right -- and win more bargaining power if the iPad emerges as a viable rival to Amazon.com Inc's Kindle.

"We have all struggled in this industry to find an online model that works successfully in terms of content and the consumer's propensity to pay," Penguin Books Chief Executive John Makinson told a recent media conference in London.

And then there's the mild FUD, such as in USA Today, who claims to have "your questions answered":

Q: The iPad doesn't run Flash, popular software from Adobe that powers many Internet videos. Isn't that a huge oversight?

A: Consumers are likely to find the iPad's lack of Flash incredibly frustrating.

But Apple thinks Flash is buggy and prone to crashing computers. It wants media presented in the alternative HTML5 format. That's fine, but if you bring home the iPad this weekend, you'll find many sites urge you to "Download the latest Adobe Flash Player." If you try, it won't work.

"Incredibly frustrating"? That strikes me as a bizarre claim. I've been finding more and more that sites depending upon Flash tend to be a few years out of date. And when it comes to video, the iPad, like the iPhone and Android, has a native YouTube application to play those videos. The odd sites that have other Flash at work are sites I simply tend to ignore and move on from. It's only "incredibly frustrating" if you feel some deep need to get at content presented by a Flash widget on a site (or a site built entirely in Flash). Absence is Flash is nothing new to to anyone who has a phone with a web browser.

Q: Can you run Adobe's Photoshop image-editing software on the iPad?

A: No.

Actually that's not true. The iTunes store has had the Photoshop app up for quite some time now. [iTunes Photoshop app link] In fact, many software companies have developed lightweight apps that integrate with their more powerful desktop and/or web-based apps.

That's not to say that the iPad is going to thrill anybody as a computer. It's really an enlarged iPhone ... without the phone (and I'd say even the iPhone doesn't really have a phone). And I could see using it around the house as a magazine "e-reader". Maybe even for reading books, though on that score I'm not so sure.

John Erianne has an interesting take on why book publishing won't exactly be saved by the iPad/Apple store model:

Most readers are casual readers. Your average reader reads maybe two books per year. I’m not talking about voracious readers like yours truly — I’m talking about those people that might read the latest Twilight novel or maybe a Stephen King. These people will read a book once and then they are done with it. These people don’t spend a lot of money on books. Ironically, the more prolific the reader, the more esoteric their tastes in books so they may not go for the latest bestseller as gleefully as a casual reader. For perhaps different reasons, both of these groups aren’t going to be overly eager to spend $16.99 on a eBook and, unlike with music downloads, they are not likely to be downloading ten books at a time. Amazon has the advantage in that they’ve pretty much written the book on the selling of online books both the hardcopy and digital variety. Publishers fear Amazon the way brick ‘n’ mortar retailers fear Wal-Mart. And for good reason. Think about this: Amazon still has a virtual monopoly on selling hardcopy books online. They control the lion’s share of this market. As such, is it smart for a publisher to play hardball with Amazon over the Kindle? I’m not saying Amazon shouldn’t be taken down a peg or two, but when consumers are at stake, you’ve really got to pick your battles. And quibbling over a few dollars in price point is stupid.

While the Kindle may eventually go the way of the buffalo, Amazon is in a better position to turn the Kindle into device similar to an iPod Touch than Apple is to duplicate Amazon’s online marketplace for books. Which is not to say people won’t buy the iPad. Apple-o-philes will undoubtedly shell-out the $500 for this new toy just because it’s from Apple as well as other techies and gizmo-lovers who just have to have it because it’s the new thing. Just don’t bet on it as a game-changer the way the iPod and the iPhone were. It-is-not-going-to-happen.

And yet, I think we'll see more than just Apple fanboys snapping up iPads. Who else? Gizmodo has a funny post profiling 6 types of iPad fans and critics in which lot of it rings true — although I don't see myself in one category, but rather see bits of myself in all of them.

Still, while iPad represents at least a small inflection point in how people consume information, it remains to be seen how this will change publishing — let alone, whether it will be "revolutionary" in any way. It really depends upon the market. And on that score, maybe John Etienne is right: Apple is reaching out of its zone of competence and challenging Amazon's core business. And my bet is Amazon isn't going to take it lying down.

My sense, though, is that it's not entirely up to Apple. We have open source Android-powered touchpad devices coming soon, and they likely won't be constrained by Apple's walled market castle business model. How will content producers adapt to these new consumer behaviors? And will the consumers truly view a touchpad as profoundly different than the computer experience to the point of being more willing to open their wallets, as publishing prognosticators are predicting? The market will decide.

Personally I feel we need a new banking system where online transactions can operate in the fractions of a cent, rather than accommodating the roughly 30-cent floor on credit card-based transactions. (But that's a topic for another blog post.)

Meanwhile, it remains to be seen how much of a breakout success the iPad will be, especially when even geeks run into the challenge of finding content. Dave Winer shared his experience this morning:

Okay so the iPad has a problem that lots of software has, when you finish the basic setup -- now what? There are no movies, newspapers or books on the device, and no clue as to how to get them on there. Those are the first things I want to do, see how it plays stuff. Maybe I'm wrong about that. I should disconnect and see what I get....

...Where can I get a book to try out for $0?

I also have to get Netflix. And the NY Times. What else?

Okay I want to copy bigLebowski.avi onto the iPad. How?

How to find good content. Hasn't that always been the challenge?

iPad where there was none: How Apple's new product competes against non-consumption

The iPad is low powered, but who cares for what it's intended to do?

Once I got over the ridiculous name — and thank you, HuffPo, for sharing the Mad TV sketch that long predates the iPad announcement — I started to see how the new Apple iPad fits in the current market.

It doesn't. That's right, it doesn't. And I predict it's going to be a pretty big success, too.

Apple iPad faux pas

The iPad competes against non-consumption. There is no existing electronic device that it effectively replaces. Too big for the handbag, too small for most productive tasks, and with its touchscreen keyboard it really isn't a netbook. This is a new thing. A fun thing.

Let me explain.

Clayton Christensen has written and talked much about disruptive technologies and how they can cause dramatic shifts in existing markets, as well as open new markets altogether. One case he talks about is the advent of the transistor radio. Transistors had been around for years. The problem was that companies could not figure out how to use them in their products. You see, transistors could not take a lot of power, so they would blow out when you put them in a system requiring a lot of power to run.

Then in 1965 the portable transistor radio came out. How did they fix the problem of the transistor's low power capacity? They didn't. Instead they came up with a low-power product that actually could use transistors. Here's the thing: the product did not replace anything. It was completely new, for a new market of radio buyer. The transistor radio had no competition (except with itself). It was a hit because suddenly kids could listen to their own music. The radio itself sounded like crap, but that didn't matter because the alternative of going home and convincing mom and dad to put on rock and roll just wasn't in the cards. The transistor radio was competing against non-consumption. Before the transistor radio, people did not have an option except for home or maybe the car.

Now we have the iPad coming on the market, with its low-power, ho-hum performance processor. People are excited, but don't seem to have a strong sense of what they would actually do with an iPad. But I figure — and my hunch is that this is what Steve Jobs and company are figuring — is that the iPad will find its own place in our technology lives. It won't replace the smart phone because it's not portable. It won't replace the laptop because it's not really designed for much productivity.

No, it's for something new: The casual online consumption of media, away from the computer, free of the television, and with no dead trees to think about.

I see the iPad as becoming the morning newspaper, the weekly and monthly magazine, the video screener — and yes, the means to stay connected via social networks, email, etc. while you're doing all these other things.

When you go to work, the iPad will stay at home. When you go to a conference, the iPad will stay at home. In fact, for many people, I imagine the iPad will never leave the kitchen table.

That's why the mobile connectivity is only a pre-pay option, and not at all emphasized. Because this is a device that will live off of your home wifi.

And though I certainly have other things I probably should do with my money, I want one!

There has been much concern about digital rights management (DRM) in the iPad. Apple is maintaining very strict control over the device and what you can do with the content on it. It's looking like publishers are counting on it, and are pinning at least part of their hopes of salvation in this new media economy on paid subscriptions on this device that is so much more than a Kindle.

Then there are Kindle users who are concerned that Apple seems to be defining a new version of eBooks.

The way I figure it, however, is that the market will sort that out. DRM does not fly with consumers when it makes the purchase a hassle or the experience a pain in the ass. DRM sure didn't work in the iTunes store, when consumers discovered they couldn't play the music they bought on another device. We'll see how that sorts out. (Honestly, there is a lot to say about DRM, but I'll save that for another blog post sometime. Maybe a series.)

Related iPad blogging:

Rosa Golijan points us to Kim Zetter's Wired blog noting that Wired will be coming to the iPad by subscription this summer. It's not surprising to see Wired among the first to jump on board, given their audience.

Katie Marsal reports that, just as the Android app market was starting to pick up steam against the iTunes store, iPad developer interest tripled after the hype.

Apple revealed at its iPad event that there are more than 140,000 applications available on its mobile App Store. That software will be compatible with the iPad when it debuts at the end of March.

But developers will also be able to create new, iPad-specific applications that take advantage of the multitouch device and its 9.7-inch screen.

While the App Store saw a huge increase, new Android applications grew about 25 percent in January, continuing a steady ramp for Google's mobile platform. However, Apple's App Store spike helped to push it even further ahead of Android.

It makes me wonder how long it will be before a company releases an Android competitor to the iPad.

Or has it already happened? Amanda on NetBookBoards gives us the specs on HP's new "smartbook" which....

combines the portability and design of a netbook with the hardware and software often seen in smartphones. The Airlife has a battery life of up to 12 hours, longer than what most netbooks can offer. While the Airlife and iPad are very different in terms of design, they share many similar features such as simplified software interfaces, touch-screens, and ARM processors (most netbooks use Intel processors).

But is the Airlife really an iPad competitor? It doesn't seem to fit the use case I described above.

Staci D. Kramer reports on Disney's enthusiasm about the iPad:

Bob Iger wasn’t on stage for the iPad launch last month, but the Disney CEO just gave a demo spiel Steve Jobs, the company’s largest shareholder, would applaud about a “really compelling” device that could be a game changer. Volunteering and replying to analyst questions about how Disney plans to use the new Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) tablet, Iger reeled off a series of iPad uses that are either likely or already in progress: a companion to ABC’s Lost, an ABC News app, a digital books app for Disney, an enhanced version of the popular ESPN Sports Center app, and apps for Marvel (NYSE: DIS).

Amy-May Elliott shares with us Bill Gates' shrug over the iPad.

"You know, I’m a big believer in touch and digital reading, but I still think that some mixture of voice, the pen and a real keyboard - in other words a netbook - will be the mainstream on that", Gates said.
"So, it’s not like I sit there and feel the same way I did with iPhone where I say, ‘Oh my God, Microsoft didn’t aim high enough.’ It’s a nice reader, but there’s nothing on the iPad I look at and say, ‘Oh, I wish Microsoft had done it".

Notwithstanding various cynical reactions out there to the iPad, self-confessed Apple fangirl, Lorraine Marie shares some iPad accessories she's wanting (as the iPad itself is a given).

Because it’s a known fact that I’m an Apple fangirl, many people feel it’s their duty to let me know that they won’t be buying the iPad. That’s fine with me- people can certainly choose not to buy Apple’s latest product. But I’m not one of those people.

Before wrapping this up, I just have to share the prescient Mad TV sketch:

So what do you think? Do you want an iPad? Why? (Why not?)

[I wrote this for BlogHer.]

Are you wanting an iPad?

I find myself wanting an iPad to read the news in the morning. It would be nice for magazines, too, I think. Of course I'm assuming that the usability will be very good. Maybe I'm wrong.

But I think the iPad will be a big success.

What do you think? Is the iPad a must-have device for you?