Apple Map

It started with a map application, CEO's apology for the bad user experience, and now the departure of a senior executive.

http://www.apple.com/letter-from-tim-cook-on-maps/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/30/us-apple-changes-idUSBRE89S18H20121030

It is obvious that Apple would want to have a map application of its own. What a smart phone or tablet can provide that a laptop cannot easily match is its mobility and portability. Many applications on iOS give users the ability to make decisions or acquire needed information on the spot in real time. Map data, or say information for location and surroundings, need to be integrated into the platform, iOS, for more interesting applications to happen.

Up to now, Siri cannot have a real conversion with its user. The usage is still limited to question-and-answer in a request-response fashion. When Siri is able to have a conversion, the conversation will have a context. The context may be defined by the state of the conversation on top of other inputs, say, an email, a previous phone call or voice message, or recent locations. Google search and map application may not be able to provide all that Apple needs, not to mention the competition between the two companies. 

Recent news reported Apple's executive, the head of iOS, Scott Forstall was let go for the blame of Apple map. I think office dynamics goes beyond one product flop. Apple has produced 'sub-standard' hardware and software before. It is not the first time and it will not be the last time Apple makes a mistake. Google has been working on map applications for years. Even if there is no bug in Apple's map application, it would not be as feature rich as Google's map in this first release. Judging from Mr. Cook's letter, Apple is working on some advanced applications that require integration beyond today's interface. For an iOS developer like myself, it is good to see someone firmly at the helm of the company. It is even more important to see the company make steady progress and eventually grow beyond its legendary founder. 

春聯與對聯

我的第四個 iPhone 軟體, 春聯與對聯 (Chinese Couplets), 今天進了App Store.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/chinese-couplets/id438346456?mt=8

就像前三個產品一樣, 書的內容都需要經過一番校對和整理。我常用網際網路上的內容來和我的資料比較。但是這次的經驗, 倒是非常獨特。或許春聯和對聯不是太冷門的題目, 許多網站都有相關的內容。但是這些內容的抄襲率太高, 而且錯誤百出。我有時只是為了搜尋一個特定的詞句, 可以找到十多個有相同內容的網頁。而當中的錯誤也都十分相似, 甚至雷同。古人印書, 因為交通及通訊的不便, 校對是件難事。所以一篇文章或是詩詞常有兩三種版本。今天的電子刊物也能有類似的現象, 也讓人開了眼界。

Developers, Phones, and Applications

I recently read two articles that underlined my long-time viewpoint on applications, devices and developers.

http://www.cellular-news.com/story/48888.php
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9215832/Developers_not_phones_driving_mobile_banking_apps_

A lot of factors come in to the decision of whether to develop for a platform. It can be the accessibility to programming interface and talent poll, platform capability, application characteristics, cost and overhead, etc. Nevertheless, the dominant criterion is the volume of shipment. If a platform is sold like hot cakes, it is definitely worth taking a look. But the usefulness of this rule of thumb decreases dramatically from this point. The mystery lies within the percentage of addressable and target demographics among the user base of a particular platform.

As volume shows itself as an absolute number, yet it is a relative term. Look at this article from more than three years ago.
http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/11/whats-an-iphone-14-3m-windows-mobile-phones-sold-in-the-past-s/
I knew it had a wrong argument when I saw it three years ago. But I did not realize how wrong it was. In 2008, Windows Mobile shipped more than 16 million units of smartphones, roughly a quarter of what Nokia had shipped for the same category. Windows Mobile had more developers than iPhone OS or any other smartphone OS at that time. Microsoft was the number two smartphone OS provider and Windows Mobile was the number three smartphone platform. The number however did not carry it further. BlackBerry caught up from behind in 2008 and stood firm as number two smartphone platform (23M units in 2008 and 34M in 2009). It, too, lost momentum.

Many users of BlackBerry and Window Mobile phones are in for the access of corporate email. When the user population is so fixated on getting one thing, how can any application developer add any value to the platform? I had a colleague who said he could not get used to the touch screen of iPhone. He missed the qwerty keyboard of his old phone. When I asked what kind of applications he used on his phone most of the time. Unsurprisingly, it was the email. Being an application developer myself, I would not poll his opinion on user experience of a small device. Such a consumer is not among my target audience. This fact pretty much cut the majority of Microsoft's 16 million or BlackBerry's 23 million of 2008 out of the equation. After that, it hardly represented a volume of interest.

HP/Palm's WebOS would serve as a contrast. It has, in my opinion, an equally capable platform as any other OS, and a set of elegantly designed programming interface. But, alas, it has no volume.

Angry Birds and product packaging

I played "Angry Birds" on my iPod Touch. It is so far the most popular mobile game on iOS and Android platforms. And it is not limited to male players.

It is a touch-based game, using different birds as projectiles to crash pigs hiding in a structure or out in the open. It is rated for 4 years old and older (4+). After playing it for a while, it seems to me Angry Birds is an artillery and dive-bomber game packaged with cute cartoon-like graphics. The red bird is a typical projectile shot in a parabolic trajectory. The little blue bird resembles clustered warheads. The fat black bird penetrates building structures with delayed detonation. The bloated white bird is similar to a dive bomber or ground attack aircraft.

My point is not to call out those similarities or to upset anyone. It is a successful software product executed by a 12-member team from a company with 50 or so employees. If the product were delivered as an artillery and dive bomber game, it would have lost most of its female players, which is half of its current player base. More importantly, the viral marketing effect would dissipate with halved customer demographics. (The interview with the creator, Peter Vesterbacka. http://technmarketing.com/iphone/peter-vesterbacka-maker-of-angry-birds-talks-about-the-birds-apple-android-nokia-and-palmhp/)

I played another iPhone game, Metal Core. It is almost the same type of game as Angry Birds. I believe its sales number is far less than what Angry Birds has achieved. The bird-against-pig game is not about any brand new idea that no one has done before. It is all about packaging. It will not be surprising if copycats of Angry Birds show up on iPhone App Store, since the birds are not original either.

Second and third iPhone applications

My second and third iPhone/iPad applications are now on the App Store. They are Chinese calligraphy copybooks (字帖) using Chinese Surnames (百家姓) for model characters.
百家姓字帖-仿歐陽詢體
(http://itunes.apple.com/ph/app/chinese-surname-calligraphy/id427523658?mt=8) and
百家姓字帖-仿顏真卿體
(http://itunes.apple.com/ph/app/chinese-surname-calligraphy/id431207772?mt=8)

It was a fun project to work on. I reused the code from my first product and spent a little more time on the contents. It was a quick and easy job for this new product release. The aspect of "universal application", Apple's lingo for applications designed for both Apple iPhone and iPad, was what I was experimenting with. For an image-centric calligraphy model book, it seems to be a fit for a universal application. However, it is not that straightforward for other types of applications. For other product ideas that I have, it may make sense to put more user interface elements into the iPad branch. If I choose to go down that path, The "universal" application may become two applications that present different user experiences. I am not sure user experience bifurcation is a good idea. Maybe my thinking of putting more ingredients to a bigger screen is on a wrong track.

That aside, it was fun to design and create an application for two different types of devices. The visual impact from a bigger screen compared with that on a smaller screen is obvious. Supporting universal application may put more design constraints on a product. But I think it will be a basic requirement for many future applications from me.

Amazon Kindle experience

I bought a 6" Amazon Kindle device recently to save bookshelf space. But the user experience really fell short.

I have used the very first generation Kindle. At that time, I was evaluating the Kindle device for a work related project. I understood it was the first generation, and Amazon was not an OEM vendor. Even that its industrial design and build quality left much to be desired, I was willing to give the first generation Kindle full credit. It did what it was set out to do: to put an e-reader in front of the publishers and to persuade them to go digital. In the long run, Amazon can make a fat margin on digital contents by saving a lot on inventory, facility and distribution.

More than two years later after my first encounter with Kindle, Kindle made quite some changes to its appearance. With more and more books piling up on my bookshelves, I thought it is time for me to mingle with Kindle. I bought a couple of Kindle books and started reading. The experience was not satisfactory. It is maybe that the e-ink display took too long to refresh. It took too long to flip a page. It is fine to read a book sequentially for the first time. But after a while, I need to use those books as reference books and go back and forth among pages regularly. It is really annoying and counter productive to wait for page refresh in order to flip 3 to 5 pages.

My experience with Kindle may not be applicable to all Kindle users. Different types of books warrant different usage patterns. But I think it is time for Kindle to revamp. It was a good work to pave the digital way all the way here. Nevertheless, the gap in user experience is increasing. One misstep, the path will turn to iPad and put Amazon to a peripheral position in providing digital contents. Without a leading position, it will undercut the margin Amazon could have hoped for in promoting all those digital books and magazines.

7-inch Tablets

A lot of new tablet products are coming to the market. And they have 7-inch screens.

I have a doubt toward those 7-inch tablets. In my previous experience with those 7-inch UMPC, the most troublesome experience is to browse Internet on such a screen. The constant zooming and page sliding are annoying, to say the least. The billion pages of HTML contents on the Internet were built for laptop and desktop screens. It has been this way for the most part of Internet and it will stay that way for quite a while. For Internet devices with smaller screen like iPhone, users understand its limitation and bear with the inconvenience in exchange for its portability. Constantly re-sizing and moving browser pages on a supposedly bigger screen is defeating the purpose. Now the manufacturers are hoping to improve the portability over 10-inch tablets, yet at the expense of user experience. Is this product differentiation worthwhile?

E-reader can get by with a 7-inch screen because its contents are tailor-made for it. For tablets with this form-factor and its use cases, I cannot clearly see a consumer segment for it. For business people who are always on the road, I think they will stick with their laptops. For consumers in the living room? I, for one, will stick with 10-inch iPad, especially when it has a forward-facing camera.