iPad: First Week Update

Posted on by
Reply

With products, it’s always interesting to compare initial impressions with longer-term impressions.  Sometimes they match, sometimes not.  The story about New Coke and sip testing is a good reminder that initial and long-term impressions can diverge.

After a week of living with the iPad, here’s my usage:

  • Book reading (using Amazon’s Kindle app)
  • Videos (The Blind Side via iTunes, kids videos from Netflix)
  • Light email (reading only, or one sentence replies)
  • Reference lookup (general Web surfing, Wikipanion)
  • Games (Flight Control HD)

So far, it’s pretty consistent with my initial impressions.

iPad: Initial Impressions

Posted on by
Reply

Joining the iPad review chorus…..

The iPad will be hugely disruptive, but it will take time to figure out exactly how.  Unlike the iPhone and iPod Touch, the iPad is not entering a mature product category.  If you got an iPhone, you don’t need a feature phone.  If you have an iPod, you don’t need a Zune.

With an iPad, it’s less clear:  what will we use this for?  I’m not sure (yet) it will replace my laptop, though I’ll use my laptop less, for sure.

After 48 hours of fairly intense use, I think it’s a Kindle-replacer.  Specifically, it’s a great “reference” or content-consuming device.  It’s a Kindle, but with color, video, a touch screen, and Web access.  It’s got a bigger screen than my iPod Touch, and “boots” instantly compared to my laptop.  And, with open Web access and the app store, the market will iterate quickly on new ways to present content.  (For example, the NY Times iPad app is simple and gorgeous).

It’s not a great content-producing device.  The keyboard is usable, but is nothing like the real thing (I’m using my laptop to write this).  The single-app model makes simple multi-tasking hard (e.g. have a Web page open for reference while writing an article about it, and replying to your email after checking your calendar).  The iPad versions of Apple’s productivity apps (Pages, Keynote, Numbers) are interesting, but I’m not sure I’d use them for anything more than jotting rough notes or ideas.  The iPad is fine for light email, apps with lots of gesture input (e.g. list selections), but it’s unlikely you’ll write your next novel on it.

Like many new devices, it will take a few weeks to settle into some usage routine.

Why Facebook Works

Posted on by
Reply

I seem to have two types of friends:  those that like Facebook and those that hate it.  The haters have a range of explanations, but the common theme seems to be:  “I don’t need a tool to manage my friendships!”

I like Facebook quite a bit, and I think I’ve finally figured out the core of why it works so well.  (Maybe I’m just slow).

It’s about “soft sharing”:   I can share things about myself, my life, my work, and my family without being intrusive to my friends.  For example, I’ve recently been hacking around on a small CNC machine in my shop.  I’d never email out project updates and pictures to ~300 friends, but I did post things about it on Facebook.   Facebook provides tools for my friends to sort through what they do and don’t want to see.

The result has been really interesting:  I’ve met a few new people (friends of friends), and ended up with some meetings that never would have happened otherwise.

So, to my Facebook hater friends:  relax, and sign up.

Your on-line presence is more than your Web site

Posted on by
Reply

Five or ten years ago, your Web site was your entire on-line presence, simply because there wasn’t any other place to deploy content and functionality.

Today, that’s not the case at all: with the proliferation of platforms (Google, Yahoo, Amazon, Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc.), embeddable content, widgets (video, Flash, etc.) and access methods (desktop, mobile, game system, large screens) your on-line presence is much more than just what’s on the Web site. In extreme cases, there’s no site at all: a company’s presence may be entirely embodied in a Facebook app, for example.

Moral: don’t think of the Web site as the only place to focus development efforts. Treat the off-site stuff as first-class features and prioritize them against the Web site investments. Specifically consider:

  • Widgets
  • iPhone app (or an iPhone version of your site)
  • Google widget
  • Facebook & MySpace app
  • Twitter integration

Dropping Friends

Posted on by
3

I’m taking a lead from Bijan and Fred and am starting to trim my Facebook friend list to “real friends”:  people I know pretty well, old friends from school, etc.  I’m starting with the folks I’ve never met, or only met once.

(If you’re on the “cut list”, sorry!)

Email, Evolved

Posted on by
Reply

I have a long-running discussion with a number of friends:  what’s next for email?

After all, email hasn’t changed much in the past few decades.  Email readers have gotten slightly better over the years, with improved multimedia handling, searching, threading, calendar integration, etc.  In a lot of ways, email clients have been just good enough (e.g. Outlook) there haven’t been huge incentive for breakthroughs.

Also, instant messaging has overlapped with email.  How many times have you had a quick email exchange, then opened IM/chat to finish the discussion?  Some exchanges are interactive, and don’t lend themselves to an email message format.

I’m not sure if Google Wave will “catch”, but it’s the first thing I’ve seen in a long time that could be the evolution of email.

Hulu Desktop & Boxee: Temporary Solutions

Posted on by
Reply

Hulu Desktop just came out:  it’s a client-app (Mac and Windows) that provides a “lean back” UI for Hulu video content.  It integrates remote control inputs, so it works well for folks plugging computers into the living room TV.

I’ve written before about the evolution of Internet TV:  Hulu Desktop and Boxee, as client apps, are just temporary, intermediate points.  There are few reasons (soon, no reasons) why these UIs can’t be provided through existing browser technologies, with no client install.

We saw this movie with Web browsers in the mid-90s.  As the Web took off, many groups talked themselves into a need to “control the client” by having their own Web browser.  In some cases, there were good technical reasons:  browsers were pretty limited, and adding small capabilities could enable big things.  In many cases, it was just flawed strategic thinking.

The Web became part of the operating system (or even has become the OS iteslf) and with increased capabilities, subsumed a lot of apps that would otherwise be client-deployed.  These client-side TV apps feel like the last vestige of stuff to get absorbed into the browser.

Managing the Household

Posted on by
1

Like many modern households, we’re managing a lot of moving pieces.  Three kids w/ activities, brother & family living nearby, grandparent visits, travel — it adds up to some “complexity”.

We depend on a number of technologies to make it all work.  I’m pretty technical and have been labeled a geek.  Kellie’s very comfortable with technology, but would never get that accusation!

Here’s what we use:

  • Email. For virtually everything, no paper notes.  Reminders, phone messages, questions, family business (‘Please pay so-and-so‘).  We’ll exchange several emails on some days.  And, a review of the email trail has settled more than one “you never told me!” argument. 🙂
  • IM.  When we’re each at the computer, we almost always have IM running.  (We’ve been known to IM within the house)  It’s great for short exchanges, and it’s a great way to stay in “light” touch when one of us is traveling.  (And we use video chat as well).
  • Text messaging. We text quite a bit, but mostly computer-to-phone since message composition is tedious (no smart phones, yet).  It’s great for short messages (“pick up so-and-so on the way home“)  If Kellie knows I’m in a meeting, she will text instead of calling.  Plus, it’s a great way to stay in touch with your kids, since it’s a mode they prefer.
  • Google calendar. We each have shared calendars, one calendar for each of the kids, and a “guest/vacation/family activity calendar”.
  • Private wiki (access controlled). The family note card file I’ve written about before — not well formatted or organized, but all the info is in there and searchable:  “What’s our FastLane account number?“, “what’s the teacher’s email?“, “who’s the tree-trimming guy we used 2 years ago?“, etc.  Kellie was skeptical at first, but it caught on pretty quickly.  (Note: we do not store financial account numbers or passwords).
  • Google Documents. For example, we keep our Christmas card list in a spreadsheet.  It’s easy to update & refer to, from anywhere.  Since it’s hosted, there’s always one master copy.
  • Scan and shred. The paper problem is killing us.  We’re trying to do more scanning of important documents and getting rid of the paper.  The key here is a good scanner and simple software to scan and file.  We’re not quite there yet.

The only thing missing is the iPhone — when (if?) Apple figures it out with Verizon, we’re there.

Inflexible Process meets Immovable Software

Posted on by
1

Devdutt Yellurkar (at CRV) and I were comparing enterprise software war stories and notes on SaaS opportunities (he did CRV’s recent investment in ZenDesk).

The enterprise software business model is a tough one.  Large organizations frequently need custom features, and with project investments of millions or tens of millions of dollars, companies expect the solution to fit their operations and processes.  As a result, many enterprise software companies were more like professional services businesses that happened to have some software, than the other way around.

But there’s an interesting angle for SaaS:  the lower price points make organizations more willing to accept the feature set “as-is”, and adapt their business to the software.   If the hosted software costs (say) $10k/year, it’s hard to justify $500k of customization work.

This drives another effect:  SaaS offerings can focus on the core features that actually get used.  Many enterprise software solutions turn into bloatware:  the feature set evolves to an aggregated super-set of all possible customer features.   Worse, after the purchase decision, many customers end up using a sub-set of what they originally thought they needed.   This is why the product manager’s job is hell:   the product has 100 features, only 40 matter to any given customer in the sales process, and only 10 get actually used.