My alma mater (which is also the university where I work) just released an iPad application for its student newspaper, the Optimist.
Of course, the folks at my university (myself included) are excited about this product, and about the chance to explore what publications can do on a tablet device like the iPad. But a few voices (including those of my friend and critic @chrylis, and MediaPost writer Steve Smith), pulled me from my personal revelry long enough to ask an important question: Why choose to make a native iPad app when one could make a mobile-optimized website instead?
In his critique of the iPad and its apps, Steve notes several apps (particularly, apps of publications) that provide more limited content compared to their online counterparts and fail to make up for that limitation through seamless navigation or personalization. @chrylis questions the utility of an app that runs only on one device, as opposed to a mobile website that would run on many.
They're right.
No new product (including mobile applications) is worth buying (or selling) if it doesn't add some value above the products that are already available.
If a new product does the same thing as something else on the market without doing it better, or more easily, or more conveniently, or less expensively, or with greater access, or with more satisfaction, then it has missed its mark as a new product that meets consumers' needs.
If an iPad app looks like its online counterpart, but with less content, more restricted navigation, less ubiquity, and no additional not-available-via-web features, then the web version will prove more useful to both iPad-users and non-iPad-users.
Steve Smith recommends two ways of differentiating iPad apps from their web versions: personalization and navigation. I would add a third: communication.
Personalization would enable an iPad user to configure an app based on their personal preferences. Maybe this means pulling in information specifically relevant to the user's interests. Maybe it means adjusting viewer settings to fit the user's lifestyle. Maybe it means reconfiguring navigation so that the viewer's favorite features are the easiest ones to access.
Navigation on the iPad should work intuitively, should flow gracefully, and should access data simply. Maybe this means simplifying the menu to just a few categories. Maybe it means reducing visual clutter. Maybe it means letting users customize the menu to their own preferences. Maybe it means expanding or hiding extra content with just a touch. Maybe it means taking advantage of two axes for scrolling "deep" into a topic versus "wide" across topics. Maybe it means a visually-logical arrangement of information, instead of only lists.
Communication should enable iPad users to easily share comments, connect apps with social media, and integrate information from various sources. Maybe this means allowing activity on an app to update a user's status on their social networks (as desired). Maybe it means that comments made in an iPad app would show up on web versions as well. Maybe it means that users can collect articles from various apps into a centralized database, so that users can bookmark pieces of information, cross-link them, and add their own notes.
As Steve Smith pointed out with current examples of successful iPad apps, the personalization and navigation pieces are already being achieved by several app makers. I suspect that the communication piece will require additional development and exploration, perhaps even in the capabilities of the iPad SDK. Regardless, these value-adds must be part of an iPad app if the app is to be more useful than a mobile-optimized website.
With your own products, whether mobile or not, are you adding value for your customers? Or can their needs be met just as well (or better) with another item on the market?
Showing posts with label Apple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Apple. Show all posts
Friday, April 9, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Revolution-starters: iPad vs. iBooks store
May you hereby know, in case you missed it, that today Apple announced its much-anticipated new device - the iPad.
The iPad is a half-inch-thick, 1.5-pound tablet device, with a 9.7-inch, LED-backlit, multi-touch screen; 1 GHz Apple A4 processor; 16, 32, or 64 GB flash drive; 802.11n WiFi and optional 3G; 30-pin dock connector; Bluetooth; microphone; speaker; accelerometer; compass; and expected 10 hours of battery life. (If you haven't yet seen the video of Steve Jobs' announcement and the iPad promo video, watch them at www.apple.com/ipad.)
The iPad will enable users to surf the web, access email, manage calendars, search maps, listen to music, and access iPhone, iPod, and iPad apps. All on a device that is a bit smaller - and a little thicker - than a clipboard.
So what makes the iPad anything more than a giant iPod touch?
At this point, it seems to be one particular native app that Apple has created specially for this device: iBooks.
iBooks is an e-book reading app. Users can download books to their iBookshelf from the iBooks store; open a book by tapping on it; view one page or two pages at once by orienting the iPad vertically or horizontally; flip through the pages by tapping either side of the screen or by swiping a finger across the screen; adjust the typeface and font size; jump to a page from the book's table of contents; and view any photos or videos that the author has embedded in the book.
Before the announcement, this new device was rumored to be a tablet that would be "the most important thing that Steve Jobs has done" and that would "revolutionize the publishing industry."
After the announcement, some commentators seemed underwhelmed. A nifty device? "Maybe." Revolutionary? "We're not sure how."
One could make the case that the iPod and iPhone were revolutionary devices. The iPod, while not the first MP3 player, transformed the digital music industry. The iPhone, while not the first smartphone, transformed the communication industry.
How did the iPod and iPhone achieve these momentous milestones?
The physical devices themselves were good, perhaps. There is something to be said for Apple's talent for simple, elegant, intuitive design.
But the best-designed device in the world would be useless, were it not for content to fill the device. "Form follows function," after all.
The revolutions sparked by the iPod and iPhone lay, not so much in the devices themselves, but in the information systems behind the devices. The revolution lay in the iTunes Store and the App Store.
The iTunes Store provided iPod users with access to [now] millions of songs - the content which made the iPod worth having. The App Store provided iPhone and iPod touch users with access to [now] tens of thousands of applications - the content which made the iPhone and iPod touch worth having.
If the iPad is to revolutionize publishing as the iPod revolutionized music and the iPhone revolutionized communication, it will be because of the iBooks store.
Of course, for the iBooks store to start this revolution, it will need content: books, magazines, newspapers. Apple cannot provide that content; it must come from third-parties - the authors and journalists and publishers.
And, of course, the iBooks store faces some stiff competition from other eBook providers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble and Google Books.
And, of course, the funneling of e-books through Apple's closed system will exclude those e-books that are available only from sources other than the iBooks store.
But, if Apple is indeed launching a revolution, it will be due to the iBooks store - the distribution system behind the iPad - and not to the iPad itself.
The iPad is a half-inch-thick, 1.5-pound tablet device, with a 9.7-inch, LED-backlit, multi-touch screen; 1 GHz Apple A4 processor; 16, 32, or 64 GB flash drive; 802.11n WiFi and optional 3G; 30-pin dock connector; Bluetooth; microphone; speaker; accelerometer; compass; and expected 10 hours of battery life. (If you haven't yet seen the video of Steve Jobs' announcement and the iPad promo video, watch them at www.apple.com/ipad.)
The iPad will enable users to surf the web, access email, manage calendars, search maps, listen to music, and access iPhone, iPod, and iPad apps. All on a device that is a bit smaller - and a little thicker - than a clipboard.
So what makes the iPad anything more than a giant iPod touch?
At this point, it seems to be one particular native app that Apple has created specially for this device: iBooks.
iBooks is an e-book reading app. Users can download books to their iBookshelf from the iBooks store; open a book by tapping on it; view one page or two pages at once by orienting the iPad vertically or horizontally; flip through the pages by tapping either side of the screen or by swiping a finger across the screen; adjust the typeface and font size; jump to a page from the book's table of contents; and view any photos or videos that the author has embedded in the book.
Before the announcement, this new device was rumored to be a tablet that would be "the most important thing that Steve Jobs has done" and that would "revolutionize the publishing industry."
After the announcement, some commentators seemed underwhelmed. A nifty device? "Maybe." Revolutionary? "We're not sure how."
One could make the case that the iPod and iPhone were revolutionary devices. The iPod, while not the first MP3 player, transformed the digital music industry. The iPhone, while not the first smartphone, transformed the communication industry.
How did the iPod and iPhone achieve these momentous milestones?
The physical devices themselves were good, perhaps. There is something to be said for Apple's talent for simple, elegant, intuitive design.
But the best-designed device in the world would be useless, were it not for content to fill the device. "Form follows function," after all.
The revolutions sparked by the iPod and iPhone lay, not so much in the devices themselves, but in the information systems behind the devices. The revolution lay in the iTunes Store and the App Store.
The iTunes Store provided iPod users with access to [now] millions of songs - the content which made the iPod worth having. The App Store provided iPhone and iPod touch users with access to [now] tens of thousands of applications - the content which made the iPhone and iPod touch worth having.
If the iPad is to revolutionize publishing as the iPod revolutionized music and the iPhone revolutionized communication, it will be because of the iBooks store.
Of course, for the iBooks store to start this revolution, it will need content: books, magazines, newspapers. Apple cannot provide that content; it must come from third-parties - the authors and journalists and publishers.
And, of course, the iBooks store faces some stiff competition from other eBook providers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble and Google Books.
And, of course, the funneling of e-books through Apple's closed system will exclude those e-books that are available only from sources other than the iBooks store.
But, if Apple is indeed launching a revolution, it will be due to the iBooks store - the distribution system behind the iPad - and not to the iPad itself.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Flash for All Smartphones...Except the iPhone
Users of Blackberry, Google Android, Symbian OS, Palm webOS, and Windows Mobile can expect to have full Flash player capabilities for their phones within the next few months, according to multiple sources, including Adobe.
Today at the Adobe MAX developer's conference in Los Angeles, Adobe introduced Flash Player 10.1, part of Adobe's Open Screen Project, an initiative to "provide a consistent runtime environment across mobile phones, desktops and other consumer electronic devices." Flash Player 10.1 is GPU-accelerated*, so users can view videos in HD, while [hopefully] conserving battery life and CPU** usage. Flash 10.1 will also support the capabilities of each mobile device, including multi-touch, accelerometer, gestures, and screen orientation.
Flash Player 10.1 will be available in beta for Windows Mobile and Palm webOS phones later this year; the beta version will hit Google Android and Symbian OS phones in early 2010.
One smartphone, however, is blatantly absent from this list: the Apple iPhone. Over a year ago, Apple declared that desktop Flash was too CPU-hungry, and Flash Lite too poor-quality, to be used on the iPhone. As early as June 2008, Adobe developers began work on a Flash version that would meet Apple's requirements. The latest news from Adobe was that the development of Flash for the iPhone is "in [Adobe's] court." There has been no word today on whether Flash capability for the iPhone is forthcoming.
Is this another case of Apple refusing to play nicely with other technology companies? Or is Apple waiting for a Flash Player version that will meet certain standards of quality for the iPhone? Or, as one blogger speculates, is Apple intentionally providing a respite for web users weary of tiresome Flash animations?
One report suggests that Apple might indeed be taking a step in the Flash-friendly direction. The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) reports that Adobe Professional CS5 will enable Flash animations to be exported to iPhone/iPod Touch applications. So even though iPhone users will be unable to view Hulu and Facebook videos on the device, they will be able to use iPhone applications that feature animation.
I look forward to seeing what Apple communicates with its continuing lack of Flash capabilities for the iPhone. Will Apple announce that a version of Flash Player will soon be made available for the iPhone after all? Will they report that the decision for the iPhone to go without Flash was made with the consumer in mind? Or does Apple have something else up its sleeve?
Stay tuned.
Brief glossary:
*GPU = Graphics Processing Unit
**CPU = Central Processing Unit
Today at the Adobe MAX developer's conference in Los Angeles, Adobe introduced Flash Player 10.1, part of Adobe's Open Screen Project, an initiative to "provide a consistent runtime environment across mobile phones, desktops and other consumer electronic devices." Flash Player 10.1 is GPU-accelerated*, so users can view videos in HD, while [hopefully] conserving battery life and CPU** usage. Flash 10.1 will also support the capabilities of each mobile device, including multi-touch, accelerometer, gestures, and screen orientation.
Flash Player 10.1 will be available in beta for Windows Mobile and Palm webOS phones later this year; the beta version will hit Google Android and Symbian OS phones in early 2010.
One smartphone, however, is blatantly absent from this list: the Apple iPhone. Over a year ago, Apple declared that desktop Flash was too CPU-hungry, and Flash Lite too poor-quality, to be used on the iPhone. As early as June 2008, Adobe developers began work on a Flash version that would meet Apple's requirements. The latest news from Adobe was that the development of Flash for the iPhone is "in [Adobe's] court." There has been no word today on whether Flash capability for the iPhone is forthcoming.
Is this another case of Apple refusing to play nicely with other technology companies? Or is Apple waiting for a Flash Player version that will meet certain standards of quality for the iPhone? Or, as one blogger speculates, is Apple intentionally providing a respite for web users weary of tiresome Flash animations?
One report suggests that Apple might indeed be taking a step in the Flash-friendly direction. The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) reports that Adobe Professional CS5 will enable Flash animations to be exported to iPhone/iPod Touch applications. So even though iPhone users will be unable to view Hulu and Facebook videos on the device, they will be able to use iPhone applications that feature animation.
I look forward to seeing what Apple communicates with its continuing lack of Flash capabilities for the iPhone. Will Apple announce that a version of Flash Player will soon be made available for the iPhone after all? Will they report that the decision for the iPhone to go without Flash was made with the consumer in mind? Or does Apple have something else up its sleeve?
Stay tuned.
Brief glossary:
*GPU = Graphics Processing Unit
**CPU = Central Processing Unit
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Pre vs. iPhone - part 2
The saga of the Apple iPhone vs. the Palm Pre continues. (To read my first blog post on the matter, click here.) One week after Apple issued the iTunes 8.2.1 update, which blocked non-Apple smartphones (i.e. the Pre) from syncing with iTunes, Palm issued an update of its own. Among other features, the Palm webOS 1.1 re-enables iTunes synchronization. Of course.
I like Apple. It's a good company; it makes good products. Apple rose to fame for good reason - it consistently offered excellent functionality and beautiful, simple design, all for the purpose of providing the best possible user experience.
In personal computing, Apple's graphics remain unparalleled. In digital music, Apple's iPod is to MP3 players as Kleenex is to facial tissues. But in mobile communications, as Anders Bylund of The Motley Fool points out, Apple's iPhone is not the only viable smartphone anymore. The iPhone may or may not remain the best option, but it is certainly no longer the only one.
Mr. Bylund's article of yesterday reminds readers of Apple's famous "1984" Super Bowl commercial, which introduced the Macintosh computer to the world. In the ad, Apple was presented as the young, independent hero who would free the world from the reign of an Orwellian "Big Brother" IBM.
But 25 years later, as Mr. Bylund notes, Apple's recent actions seem more characteristic of "Big Brother" than of the young hero. Bylund has some intriguing speculation into why Apple might be acting this way, but I'll let you read his thoughts on your own.
My only comment is that Apple just needs to stop being so unfriendly. Stop doing things like preventing non-Apple smartphones from syncing with iTunes, and shutting down iPhone apps that use Google Voice. These actions may be within Apple's rights, but they are unbecoming to a company that once prided itself on fighting Big Brother.
So other smartphones are now competitive with the iPhone. So what? Apple knew it would happen. The proper response is not to try to stop the progress of competitors' models - progress which, by the way, attests to the excellence of Apple's products by piggybacking on iTunes and the iPhone. Rather, Apple should stop worrying about competitors and return its focus to pursuing excellence and innovation in function, design, and user experience.
That focus is what made Apple great, and that focus will enable Apple to keep pushing greatness forward. To borrow words from Satchel Paige, don't look back to see what might be gaining on you. Keep pushing forward.
I like Apple. It's a good company; it makes good products. Apple rose to fame for good reason - it consistently offered excellent functionality and beautiful, simple design, all for the purpose of providing the best possible user experience.
In personal computing, Apple's graphics remain unparalleled. In digital music, Apple's iPod is to MP3 players as Kleenex is to facial tissues. But in mobile communications, as Anders Bylund of The Motley Fool points out, Apple's iPhone is not the only viable smartphone anymore. The iPhone may or may not remain the best option, but it is certainly no longer the only one.
Mr. Bylund's article of yesterday reminds readers of Apple's famous "1984" Super Bowl commercial, which introduced the Macintosh computer to the world. In the ad, Apple was presented as the young, independent hero who would free the world from the reign of an Orwellian "Big Brother" IBM.
But 25 years later, as Mr. Bylund notes, Apple's recent actions seem more characteristic of "Big Brother" than of the young hero. Bylund has some intriguing speculation into why Apple might be acting this way, but I'll let you read his thoughts on your own.
My only comment is that Apple just needs to stop being so unfriendly. Stop doing things like preventing non-Apple smartphones from syncing with iTunes, and shutting down iPhone apps that use Google Voice. These actions may be within Apple's rights, but they are unbecoming to a company that once prided itself on fighting Big Brother.
So other smartphones are now competitive with the iPhone. So what? Apple knew it would happen. The proper response is not to try to stop the progress of competitors' models - progress which, by the way, attests to the excellence of Apple's products by piggybacking on iTunes and the iPhone. Rather, Apple should stop worrying about competitors and return its focus to pursuing excellence and innovation in function, design, and user experience.
That focus is what made Apple great, and that focus will enable Apple to keep pushing greatness forward. To borrow words from Satchel Paige, don't look back to see what might be gaining on you. Keep pushing forward.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Free Movie Tickets? Where?!?
Sprint sure is doing some interesting things to promote the new Palm Pre. First there were the series of commercials for Sprint's Now Network ("the first wireless 4G network"); I first saw these spots in May at my local movie theater.
The Now Network commercials were paired with home page takeovers on sites like Yahoo, YouTube, and AOL.
Next came the "Flow" commercials for the Palm Pre itself; these commercials have been deemed "creepy" by my new favorite mobile marketing blogger, Steve Smith.
Then there is the Palm Pre website which reflects the setting of the "Flow" commercial, and which invites visitors to, among other things, "Experience the Pre ad campaign" (italics mine).
Additionally, when a person turns on the Palm Pre for the first time, they see another beautifully done video in the same earthy, "flowy" feel as the television ads.
And now Sprint has launched the "r8 it" campaign, which gives participating movie-goers in a chance to win a year's supply of free movie tickets when they rate the movies they see. Viewers can rate the movies and view poll results on the National CineMedia website NCM.com, or, better yet, via the mobile "r8 it" app.
Sprint is also partnering with ScreenVision to install interactive kiosks in 500 movie theaters across the nation. Sprint subscribers can use the kiosks to download mobile coupons for the concession stand.
So, is this intense marketing effort working?
Well, for one thing, Media Intelligencer reports that the award-winning integrated campaign was successful in sparking early interest in the Pre. According to comScore, search terms related to the Pre doubled to 216,000 during the week of the YouTube takeover campaign. That number dropped after the release of the iPhone 3G S, but rebounded in the two weeks after the Pre was released.
Another clue is the Apple iTunes 8.2.1 update, which prevents non-Apple smartphones from synchronizing with iTunes. The Palm Pre's much-anticipated ability to sync with iTunes lasted for little more than one month before Apple blocked it. Is Apple nervous about the new iPhone competitor? Or just annoyed?
It will be interesting to see how the Palm Pre fares in the smartphone market. If it succeeds as a viable iPhone rival, perhaps Sprint's extensive campaign(s) will have had something to do with it.
The Now Network commercials were paired with home page takeovers on sites like Yahoo, YouTube, and AOL.
Next came the "Flow" commercials for the Palm Pre itself; these commercials have been deemed "creepy" by my new favorite mobile marketing blogger, Steve Smith.
Then there is the Palm Pre website which reflects the setting of the "Flow" commercial, and which invites visitors to, among other things, "Experience the Pre ad campaign" (italics mine).
Additionally, when a person turns on the Palm Pre for the first time, they see another beautifully done video in the same earthy, "flowy" feel as the television ads.
And now Sprint has launched the "r8 it" campaign, which gives participating movie-goers in a chance to win a year's supply of free movie tickets when they rate the movies they see. Viewers can rate the movies and view poll results on the National CineMedia website NCM.com, or, better yet, via the mobile "r8 it" app.
Sprint is also partnering with ScreenVision to install interactive kiosks in 500 movie theaters across the nation. Sprint subscribers can use the kiosks to download mobile coupons for the concession stand.
So, is this intense marketing effort working?
Well, for one thing, Media Intelligencer reports that the award-winning integrated campaign was successful in sparking early interest in the Pre. According to comScore, search terms related to the Pre doubled to 216,000 during the week of the YouTube takeover campaign. That number dropped after the release of the iPhone 3G S, but rebounded in the two weeks after the Pre was released.
Another clue is the Apple iTunes 8.2.1 update, which prevents non-Apple smartphones from synchronizing with iTunes. The Palm Pre's much-anticipated ability to sync with iTunes lasted for little more than one month before Apple blocked it. Is Apple nervous about the new iPhone competitor? Or just annoyed?
It will be interesting to see how the Palm Pre fares in the smartphone market. If it succeeds as a viable iPhone rival, perhaps Sprint's extensive campaign(s) will have had something to do with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
