Category Archives: mobile commerce and communications

The rolling disaster of Windows 8

With disappointing sales of Windows 8 dominating computer biz news, perhaps it’s time to revisit this article from the Nielsen Norman Group and take a look at some of the biggest mistakes Microsoft made in the design of their latest OS — which appears increasingly likely to go down in history as the most consumer-hated release in the Windows series.

Windows 8 — Disappointing Usability for Both Novice and Power Users

Summary: Hidden features, reduced discoverability, cognitive overhead from dual environments, and reduced power from a single-window UI and low information density. Too bad.

With the recent launch of Windows 8 and the Surface tablets, Microsoft has reversed its user interface strategy. From a traditional Gates-driven GUI style that emphasized powerful commands to the point of featuritis, Microsoft has gone soft and now smothers usability with big colorful tiles while hiding needed features.

The new design is obviously optimized for touchscreen use (where big targets are helpful), but Microsoft is also imposing this style on its traditional PC users because all of Windows 8 is permeated by the tablet sensibility.

Read it all: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/windows-8-disappointing-usability/

Share

How Facebook’s paid advertising initiative undercuts your FB presence

Facebook might have seemed too good to be true to many blogs, nonprofits, and businesses… a free venue geared to spreading positive word of mouth (you may have noticed there are no dislike buttons on Facebook)… prestocked not only with your existing customers — who can hopefully be primed or prodded to say nice things about you by promotions or special offers — but, better yet, with their friends and friends of friends who form a big buzz chamber of word of mouth.

Or at least, that’s what you thought.

Turns out that your posts may not be seen by nearly as many folks as you were hoping, on average, about 15% of those who have liked your biz page.

Want to reach more of your fans?

Facebook has a solution — pay them money to get inserted into more of your fan’s news streams.

Here are two articles analyzing the new FB advertising initiative and what it will mean for businesses, non-profits, bloggers, and social organizations.

The Dangerous Minds blog gives us this lengthy analysis/diatribe:

Facebook: I Want My Friends Back

That article takes an earlier article in the New York Observer as its jumping off place:

Broken on Purpose: Why Getting It Wrong Pays More Than Getting It Right

Share

Can Windows 9 come too soon?

MS does some things well, and some things, well, not so good. Whenever they try to pull a page out of Apple’s book — it’s a big look-out-below. And the ‘applification’ of Windows with the Windows RT/Windows 8 (aka ‘Full’ Windows) split — which parallels Apple’s more organically evolved OSX/iOS computer/mobile duo — seems destined to go that route…

As with the disastrous Vista release, insiders are already calling for an early release of Windows 9 — which is already being worked on by an entirely different team (like other MS OS’s before — these things are like battleships, building one takes years)…

Making sense of the confusing world of Windows 8

 

Share

Mobile apps — native versus web — where do we stand and what’s the future like?

Many companies have struggled to develop an overarching strategy for dealing with evolving ways of using the web,  the explosion of social media, and the growth of casual — and sometimes not so casual — web use by mobile users.

While platforms like Blackberry, iPhone, and Android have for some time had  the ability to browse to and present conventional websites designed for desktop browsers, much of the ‘action’ for early adopting companies has focused on the native application scene — where users go to an official download ‘store’ to get their free and paid apps which are then downloaded and stored on their mobile’s internal storage. Because such native apps typically have access to a fairly complete application programming interface (API), they can manipulate parts of the phone (like the camera or storage systems). Of course, with power comes responsibility resting on the back of developers — as well as a potential for paranoia or at least a certain amount of nervousness about granting such apps access to all the personal info stored on their phones.

That — combined with costs, time delays and other difficulties in native getting apps approved by various platform gatekeepers — has opened the way for app-like mobile-centric pages with features optimized for mobile platforms. There may not be access to the working innards of the phone — but that may actually make users feel considerably more confident.

And then there’s the hassle factor. If your company wants to create a mobile gateway app to their public facing online services or for basic promotional/informational purposes, which sounds like a more streamlined process: trying to persuade the user to go to the app store for his device, search through thousands of competing apps, find your app, confirm it’s really what they want, confirm any permissions you have to grant to the software to run, download it, and finally run it  – or give them a simple URL, QR code, or search keyword that they can point their phone browser to, automatically loading the web app. No need for multiple sites or apps, just write your web app once in standard HTML5 code and serve all modern platforms. When you need to update, no need to push updates out or hope that your users will approve the update.

Of course,  without a full device API,  there are very real limits to what a web app can do — but many of those limitations will be unlikely to be of great concern to many enterprises who, after all, aren’t angling to be the next Instagram but simply want to serve and inform customers and potential customers.

But even those limitations will will be easing as web standards continue to evolve and provide us more access to generic mobile device features, as this article from .NET Magazine suggests…

The age of mobile web apps dawns

Share

Trial of the century? It’s a young century…

The epic courtroom battle between Oracle and Google revolves around controversial patents and copyrights, alleged betrayals (by both parties) of the Open Source movement, and the inevitable spectacle resulting from a  Goliath vs Goliath courtroom collision.

The Java language at the heart of Oracle’s intellectual property claims was created by Sun Computing and put into Open Source long ago. Oracle bought Sun, many would suggest, in order to gain control of Sun’s trove of patents and other intellectual property, including patents underlying Java and MySQL, the Open Source database system that has come to be a preferred platform on the web (presumably much to the chagrin of high-end database system provider, Oracle).

Patents on techniques and features have a long tradition in the software world — but one of the most interesting aspects of this case is Oracle’s controversial assertion that copyright can be applied to the application programming interface of a language. This is seen as a potential way for Oracle to be able to reassert proprietaroy control over intellectual properties like Java and MySQL that had been put into Open Source by prior owners.

In this Forbes guest post, Oren Michels, CEO of Mashery, an app branding firm working with 150 major brands, lays out some of the most profoundly troubling considerations…

Oracle Vs. Google And A New Kind of Patent Troll

Share

We don’t like to say we told you so… but… oh, wait, yes we do…

From Business Week comes a report of more bad news for 15 minute wonders, Groupon…

The company had announced 4Q net income of about $15 million on revenue of $506.5M. But a revelation of faulty accounting accompanied a revised revenue figure of $492.2M — for an operating loss of… $15 million

Groupon Discloses ‘Material Weakness’; Stock Falls Aftermarket


Easy come, easy go. Only, of course, in this case, it’s mostly going.

 

Share

Apple slowly making headway in enterprise IT, with iPhone and iPad leading the way

A new survey of corporate IT managers from Information Week shows that Apple is slowly gaining a place in the corporate information technology scene — led in large part by widespread acceptance of the iPhone (50% of respondents said their enterprise supports it) and the iPad (47% officially support it) — but that Apple’s desktop presence continues to lag. Still, there is considerable resistance, as well, with many managers citing Apple’s business practices and heavy handed policies and lack of adequate security.

The obstacles to greater Apple presence in enterprises are varied, but five stand out: 51% of respondents cited the absence of OS X and iOS versions of critical applications (there are 500,000+ apps, just not the right ones); 36% cited lack of internal Apple expertise and disinterest in cultivating that knowledge; 34% cited difficulty integrating Apple users with Active Directory or other authentication systems; 27% said Macs and iOS devices are too expensive; and 27% said Apple’s devices are too difficult to centrally manage.


Information Week: New iPad And Enterprise IT: Exclusive Research

Share

Audio and video on the web: where we stand now

A working musician and recording studio owner wondered elsewhere how he could get the highest quality audio samples of his work onto his website. He wanted, if possible, to use a minimum of 24 bit/44.1 kHz audio files…
44.1 24 bit uncompressed audio has a bandwidth of ~2117 kbps (~2.1 Mbps). With a rockin’ server and a very good downstream, that might work much of the time with optimal ‘net circumstances depending on server traffic. But it’s probably not a practical solution.

That means using a perceptual encoding algorithm like mp3, AAC, WMA, or Vorbis. With greatly reduced bandwidth comes potential loss of perceived quality, but, happily, the upper levels of those formats are indistinguishable from the ‘real thing’ by most people, even among trained listeners.

The latter three formats are generally accepted as offering marginally higher quality at a given bitrate — but the problem is that near-universal support only exists for mp3. AAC probably comes closest, but many Windows users would have to install the AAC codec in order to not have the browser throw a WTF? error.

So far, then, the most practical advice is to use a high resolution mp3.

Now we come to the player.

We are, interestingly (as in the ancient Chinese curse form of interesting), in an era of transition.

For most of the www’s history, streaming media has been accomplished via browser plugins like Macromedia’s (now Adobe’s) Flash, MS’s Silverlight (which is the system under Netflix Streaming) — or, far less successfully and gracefully, the Quicktime plugin. Such plugins provided both a software mechanism for receiving the streamed media but, in the case of Flash, allowed developers to create sophisticated user interfaces with a number of advanced features. Unfortunately, those third party developed plugins did not always run with great efficiency (many Flash developers came from the visual design world and did not necessarily have an understanding of programming efficiency). And, of course, you don’t get all that potential sophistication for nothing… the sophisticated Flash system inevitably had some overhead built in.

But with the advent of increased demand for mobile web appliances wiht long battery life, as well as increased strategic rivalries between Apple and Adobe, Apple elected to ‘banish’ Flash from the iOS operating system that runs their Touch, iPhone, and iPad, saying that developers should use native HTML5 support for streaming audio and video.

Great.

Except for one thing. HTML5 was not then and is not now a standard. It will not be a finalized standard for the better part of a decade, as plans now exist.

Support for HTML5′s vague ‘standards’ is spotty and inconsistently implemented across browsers. Web developers are now faced with a situation that — sadly — parallels the troubled times of the late 90s when every browser implemented the (often vaguely stated) CSS standard in frequently fundamentally inconsistent ways.

The number of people who do have browsers that properly support HTML5 is around half to 2/3 (depending on whose statistics you buy). That leaves, what, around a billion people who don’t?

And that means that a prudent web developer will likely need to make sure his streaming audio and video media has both Flash and HTML5 support. Some systems use HTML5 if it’s available, but ‘fall back’ to Flash if it’s not. Others, weighing the sophistication and maturity of Flash players, go the other way around, using a full featured Flash player where that’s supported, but falling ‘forward’ to the much cruder, limited HTML5 native players in HTML5-ready browsers.

Here’s a report on the state of HTML5 video from Long Tail Video, the people who make the popular (but no longer strictly free) JW Player.

The State Of HTML5 Video

Share

Apple sabotages EPUB open standard for E-books

ZDNet’s Ed Bott has some very pointed words about what he says is Apple’s manipulation of the efforts to establish an open standard for electronic book media by first seemingly unconditionally supporting the EPUB format — and then, with their introduction of iBook 2.0, locking EPUB out of their platforms.

Bott writes:

Apple has built its iBooks platform on the back of an open standard. With last week’s introduction of iBooks 2.0 and the free iBooks Author software for Mac OS X, Apple is deliberately locking out that popular open standard.

Apple’s behavior is a modern, sophisticated version of the “embrace, extend, and extinguish”behavior that got Microsoft in so much trouble in the 1990s: Enter a product category supporting a widely used standard, extend that standard with proprietary capabilities, and then use those differences to disadvantage competitors. (The strategy is even more effective if you have a dominant market position in another, related category that you can use for leverage. Think Windows in the 1990s, iPad in 2012.)

If you read, write, or publish digital books, you should be concerned.

Bott is not alone in his dark view. Well-known career Apple-watcher John Gruber has called the iBooks 2.0 EULA “Apple at its worst,” although he moderated his comments later. (We can only speculate on the motivation for his retrenchment. But it certainly wouldn’t do for a professional Apple-watcher to  be shut out from that world.)

Bott points out that Apple’s support for EPUB — or ePub as they dubbed it — was, according to Apple’s own pronuncements, solid and unwavering.

In the original version of the FAQ published in April 2010, when iBooks was launched, Apple was even more definitive about the format: “iBooks only uses books published in the ePub format.” An Inside iTunes page written by Apple at the same time is still available online. It states in no undertain terms that ”the iBooks app uses ePub, the most popular open book format in the world.”

Apple is quite proud of this fact, even bragging in the current version of the iBooks FAQ about its support for “the industry-leading ePub digital book file type.”

Yet, now, Apple has changed the rules…

[F]or nearly two years, Apple has wooed digital book publishers and authors with its unconditional support of an open, industry-leading standard. (The EPUB standard is managed by the International Digital Publishing Forum [IDPF], of which Apple Inc. is a member.)

With last week’s changes, Apple is deliberately sabotaging this format. The new iBooks 2.0 format adds CSS extensions that are not documented as part of the W3C standard. It uses a closed, proprietary Apple XML namespace. The experts I’ve consulted think it deliberately breaks the open standard.

Read the whole article: How Apple is sabotaging an open standard for digital books

Related stories:

Amazon: “Primed” to disrupt Apple’s textbook plans?
The poor get poorer and the rich get richer with Apple’s iPad-based textbooks
Share

Indie Android dev team creates Siri work-alike in just 8 hours

Hitting the market as a free alpha version after just 8 hours of development time, Iris, created by a small team of independent Android developers, is a less-than-entirely slick but more or less working “voice assistant” created mostly out of pre-existing voice features in the Android toolset.

Before Apple bought the company to get their only product, the Siri vocal assistant was originally headed for the Android and Blackberry platforms as well, but when Apple bought Siri, they removed a number of features that didn’t fit Apple’s strategic plans and stopped development on versions for other platforms.

Apple is estimated to have spent as much as $200 million or more to acquire Siri  (after it raised interest as a third party product in the iOS App Store)  – but a small team of Android developers were able to cobble together Iris from existing Android voice features in only 8 hours.

That has got to hurt.

Read more at Digital Trends.

 

Share