Aug/102
Apple iPad & The Bath Water
I love Apple. There, I said it. I love their vibe, their vision and most of all, their products. In fact, I'm so enamored with the iPad that I'm staking my future on it by building a company around developing software for iPad. Or at least I'm trying to. What's my biggest barrier to success? Apple. That's right. Apple. Let me explain...
About 6 months ago I was laid off. It was a good thing as I really hated my job and I took the opportunity to start my own company. The iPad had just been announced and I saw it in a way that many people couldn't and still don't: I see the iPad as a transformation tool for vertical business applications. I mean real business applications - not just expense reports and calendars, but important business critical niche market stuff. Stuff that changes they way people do business forever. I wrote a lot about this a while back.
So anyway, my company is called Architactile and we develop iPad software for architects. I spent 4 months developing what was to be released as a beta product for free in the Apple App Store in early July. It was initially submitted on July 4, 2010. Today is August 26 and to date my app has been rejected six consecutive times and is still not available in the App Store. It's now awaiting it's seventh review. To be fair, some of the blame is on me but most of this delay has been Apple's famous and seemingly arbitrary application of it's ill-defined rules for the approval of an app.
So what's happened? Here's an a brief history...
July 3rd. The day before I first submitted my app I got an email from Apple. This email was in response to some questions I had asked over a month prior. Ironically, almost none of my questions were answered but I was told that "Beta" applications were not allowed in the App Store. This was news to me. I hadn't asked about this, but I had stated in my email that I was planning a Beta release. Oh well. What now? I reviewed Apple's policies (not trivial) and had some discussions with folks like Dan Lovejoy. Dan works for a la mode, a software firm based in Oklahoma City that specializes in Real Estate software. They have a killer iPad app for appraisers called DiVinci that is released as a "prototype" (essentially a codeword for "Beta"). Based on feedback from Dan and taking a cue from DaVinci I renamed my app from "Inception Beta" to "Inception Prerelease Preview" and submitted to the app store.
A week went by (the average time Apple takes before they start to look at apps once submitted) and to my surprise, I received a reject email from Apple. Specifically I was rejected because of a bug I didn't catch. My fault. Completely. But also in the rejection email was the somewhat cryptic (but Apple standard) text:
Inception Prerelease Preview cannot be posted because it is a feature-limited version application. Free or "Lite" versions are acceptable, however the application must be a fully functional app and cannot reference features that are not implemented or up-sell to the full version.
"Huh?" I thought. "but I see 'feature limited' versions all over they place in the app store. And yes, they are called Lite but almost without exception they advertise the functions only implemented in the full version and they ALWAYS up-sell to the full version. ALWAYS." So I was confused. I fixed my bug and resubmitted figuring that Apple would give me more detail if there was still a problem.
A week later, rejection #2. This time the stated reason was a minor violation of the iPad's Human Interface Guidelines. I'll own this one too. It wasn't on purpose and it was minor, but it was a mistake. This, I thought, is what the app review process is for. I corrected the issue and resubmitted.
A week later, rejection #3. This time almost no detail but a repeat of a familiar phrase:
Inception Prerelease Preview cannot be posted because it is a beta or feature-limited version. Free or "Lite" versions are acceptable, however the application must be a fully functional app and cannot reference features that are not implemented or up-sell to the full version.
At this point, I'm 3 weeks behind where I wanted to be, I'm frustrated and I'm completely unclear about what Apple wants me to do. It's moments like this that non-iOS developers don't really appreciate how frustrating the process is. There is only one way to (legally) distribute iOS software to the masses - through iTunes. Unless Apple anoints you, you're screwed. Wasted effort. I've read this type of post from other developers but I've always thought - well, that's what you get for playing too close to the line - developers producing silly apps of no real value (like the Fart Machine) or apps that infringe on AT&T services or existing Apple applications, or apps containing content considered too risque. But for me, for my app, a business tool for architects? I thought I was WAY inside the line. I wasn't trying to dupe anyone here. I was trying to GIVE away a FREE app for Pete's sake. I'm trying to give architects a legitimate reason to buy an iPad. And the worst part is that there is no way to reliably contact Apple and have a discussion. You can't call them. You can email them but they tell you upfront that they may never respond and they don't tell you how long it might be. My previous email had taken over a month for them to respond to. I couldn't wait that long. So I removed the most egregious marketing components of my FREE app. I removed everything that talked about upcoming features. I wasn't sure if I had to change the name and I didn't want to, so I held my breath and resubmitted. I also wrote several emails to Apple asking about details about exactly what I needed to change in case I was still misinterpreting their crypic seemingly hypocritical rejection rhetoric.
A week later, I got a phone call... from Apple! Whatever negative feelings I may have had festering immediately disseminated. It was awesome that they called, and I still really, really appreciate it. It turns out they do this from time to time when they think a call can short cut the process after several rejections. We talked for almost an hour. I learned a ton about the process and what I needed to do. I didn't like everything Apple asked, but as least the guidance was clear. I learned that because I had been rejected before, and especially since I had been rejected more that once that my app was being reviewed with ever heightening scrutiny. And that my app was dragging with it the running history of it's reviews. Because of this I was advised to modify my app to be beyond reproach, to remove absolutely everything that might suggest that this app wasn't the "real" app. I could use anything with a "Pre" prefix - no preview, no prerelease, no Pre-Inception (which is how it showed up on the iPad screen). I couldn't mention forthcoming features, or forthcoming applications or software. And I had to change the name to "Inception Lite."
Since I was really desperate to get my app approved, I pulled out all of the skeletons. I asked about things that Apple hadn't mentioned but I could imagine might be a problem. Specifically I asked about user registration. My app had a REQUIRED user registration page the called for first and last name and email address. This information is sent off to my server via the internet. "Was that okay?" I asked. The Apple rep told me that required registration was fine as long as the app is free (which he knew mine was) but for non-free apps registration needed to be optional. Fair enough. Since my app was free we mutually agreed I was in the clear.
Interestingly, the Apple rep told me that I was the most forthcoming developer he had ever talked to. He said most developers are trying to misdirect or disguise things to sneak them past Apple. That's just not the way I roll, especially at the front end of a relationship. To my surprise the Apple rep's advice to me was "to be less forthcoming with Apple" and to leave more things unsaid. That's a really sad way to do business with your trading partners, but I was ready to do whatever it took to get my app in the damn App Store.
The Apple Rep also told me how to get an expedited review for my app, which saves about 3 or 4 days. That was awesome. The next day I resubmitted and wrote my email asking for expedited review.
About 4 days later, I receive rejection email #5. What now? What else do they want? Blood? As it turns out, my app crashed during testing. Three times. The email described how to make the crash to happen...it essentially happened 7 taps after launch... every time for the Apple tester. I couldn't believe it. How did I miss this in my own testing? Well, after 3 days of my own very, very thorough testing I'm convinced that I didn't miss it. I have never been able to recreate what the Apple tester reported. I had been through those same steps hundreds of times before (they're normal steps in using the app) and had never seen it in the past either. I can only assume that there was some other environmental factor to cause the problem and I don't believe it came from my app. So for all the dumb luck, my one shot at expedited review and some fluke causes a crash in testing. Another week gone.
So now what? How do you change an application to fix a problem that doesn't seem to exist? Well, you don't. I changed a few other things though, minor tweaks that had no relation to what Apple had reported. You know, just so the binary file would be different. And for the 6th time, I submitted the app for approval.
A week later, yesterday in fact, I get rejection email #6. This time Apple says
Applications cannot require user registration prior to allowing access to app features and content; such user registration must be optional and tied to account-based functionality.
Huh? WTF!?!? This is EXACTLY what I had asked when Apple called me two weeks ago and EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what I had been told. What's more the registration page is the very first thing you see when you launch the application. You can't get into the application without registering. And it's been that way since I first submitted the app on July 4th. FIVE previous Apple reviewers have all clicked through the REQUIRED registration page and not until now, the SIXTH review, does anyone mention it.
In about 10 minutes I added a button to let users skip my registration even though I had been told two weeks ago by an Apple representative this was okay. Go ahead, use my free application. Don't worry about me contacting you, Apple won't let me know who you are, loser.
That should meet the requirement of an "optional" registration, but what about "account-based functionality?" The "and" between those two tells me they are BOTH required. This freaked me out. I don't have any account-based functionality. But the statement itself didn't even make sense to me. How can you have account-based functionality and have optional registration? Hoping that they really meant "or" and not "and" I held my breath, again, and submitted my app for review for the seventh time last night. I followed up with an email asking for a merciful expedited review, hoping for benevolence, half-expecrting to be put on an even darker shade of black list.
Early this morning I sent another email off to Apple asking for clarification on the "and/or" issue. They responded almost instantly (just when I start to get really pissed Apple always seem to do something exceptional). Turns out they really meant "or" so if the registration is optional then no account-based features are required. Of course, two weeks ago they told me required registration was okay on free apps, so who know. I guess I'll find out in a week.
As I said, I love Apple, but I love them a little less than I did 3 weeks ago. If Apple iPad is the proverbial baby, then the arbitrary and inaccessible application submission process is the bath water. In the past, when I thought I was standing inside it, I've been a vocal defender of Apple's walled garden. I'm slowly starting to feel like I'm standing outside though, looking in through razor wire laced trellis. I'm too invested in the baby to throw it out, but man, I sure could do without the bath water.
UPDATE: Remember how I said "just when I start to get really pissed Apple always seem to do something exceptional." Well Apple pulled it off twice in one day. After submitting my app for the seventh time late last night and sending an email of desperation to Apple, someone inside those hallowed white halls heard me. My app went into review literally WHILE I was writing this original post. Less that 24 hours after submission. It was approved and on the way to the App Store about 90 minutes later. RECORD TIME. My App, Inception Lite is now available in the App Store for download at no cost. I guess the seventh time really is the charm.
And now I'm ready to drink the bath water and pretend it's Kool Aid. I love you Apple, I never doubted you for a second.
Jul/100
Brimenzi Productions Makes Three
I have a good friend who is in public relations. She's also just announced that she's pregnant with her (and her husband's) first child. So how does she tell everyone? A press release, of course. Brilliant. We love you Nicole and wish you, Bryce and Baby the very best. Here's the release I received via email today:
For Immediate Release
July 14, 2010Brimenzi Productions Makes Three
Brimenzi Productions is pleased to announce a new addition to its team. Baby Brimenzi will be joining the duo on or around December 18.
The decision to add a member to the couple’s empire came after much thought, planning and negotiation.
“Well I just couldn’t be happier to be expanding our team. We conducted an exhaustive search and believe Baby Brimenzi is the perfect fit for us,” said co-founder Nicole Nascenzi.
Nascenzi admitted that it was difficult to keep the project a secret for the past 17 weeks, but she said the pair decided to wait until the deal was finalized before making the announcement.
“Granted we have a long way to go until this is a done deal, but we are confident in the process designed to deliver Baby to us,” she said.
In the spring of 1998, Nascenzi and Bryce Brimer began a relationship which evolved into an official partnership in 2002 creating Brimenzi Productions.
“For more than a decade we weathered the ups and downs of business together and now we feel the time is ripe to grow our company by one,” co-founder Brimer said.
For updates on Baby Brimenzi and preview photos of the member in training please visit www.nicolenascenzi.com/brimenzi-productions or watch Facebook and Twitter
###
Jun/105
What Foursquare Could Learn from Marco Polo
It's no great secret that I don't get Foursquare. At least not for me. While I readily admit that I find the societal phenomenon that is Foursquare to be interesting, (like my friend Holly Wall) I just don't care if people know where I am or not. The truth is I feel it probably gives me an advantage if people don't know where I am. I even think it's a little disturbing that some people do want to have their location known all the time. I mean the whole idea of Foursquare is, like most social media, more than a little narcissistic. Each Foursquare participant proudly posts their location because, at some level, they believe that the knowledge of their geospatial relationship to the world revolving around them is of invaluable interest to someone, likely everyone. In the words of Abby Wambaugh,
Foursquare is just another example of how social MEdia is all about ME. "I'M HERE! COME SEE ME HERE! I'M HERE AND YOU'RE NOT INVITED"
That said, Foursquare does have it's appeal. While I don't really care if people know where I am, I occasionally do want to know where other people are, but not those people - you know, the ones that update Foursquare all the time. (As an aside, I've developed a theory - the amount people care where you is is inversely proportional to the frequency at which you update Foursquare.) The problem with Foursquare is that the model focuses on the POSTING of location, not the utility of using that information. This begs the age old question, if a tree becomes the Mayor of the forest but no one's following it on Twitter to read about it, does it make a sound? The reality, most of the time , is no one cares that you are at Kip's Big Boy... again. Unless, of course, they do.
As a tool to fuel narcissism, Foursquare works great - it amplifies the dilution that the world is somehow interested in the insignificant minutia of one's otherwise pathetic life. But as tool to inform one about the location of people whom they want to locate? You know, something of actual utility? In my opinion, it falls short - explicitly because Foursquare focuses on the narcissism of the poster.
So this got me thinking today. Remember playing that game "Marco Polo" in the swimming pool as a kid? One person closes their eyes and yells "Marco?" and all the other kids yell "Polo" revealing their location. Then the Marco-yeller, with eyes still closed, then tries to tag the Polo-yellers. Now this model of geo location makes sense to me. The Marco-yeller needs to know everyone else's location so he or she sends out a general request.
Now, image the same game except the kid with his eye closed yells "Polo" over and over again. The other kids go about their day because they don't see the value of Foursquare, and frankly find the kid with his eye closed to be annoying. I don't know about you, but this seems like a significantly less fun game to me.
So what I think Foursquare needs - or a competitor - needs to develop is a Marco Polo feature. I run an app on my iPhone and press the "Marco" button. Everyone on my friends list gets a text asking them to yell "Polo" by running an app on their phone that posts their location. I then wait a few minutes and see a current list of all my friends who want to be found at that moment. The system could be smart enough to realize when someone has checked-in (either as a "Polo" or just because) within some time frame - say 30 minutes - and not send the text (limiting the maximum number of text received to one per 30 minutes or whatever). If I have a lot of friend and they all yell "Marco" a lot it would get annoying - but that's a good thing because it forces people to keep their networks small and meaningful. Another good thing about this model is that the system prompts you at the precise moment when someone cares where you are - so you only check in when that information is actually valuable to a real person - not just the anonymous Foursquare-o-verse of whatever it's called.
I think there's some interesting potential here and Will Buthod agrees (from Twitter):
@wbuthod: @mattgalloway Ooh, cool! you could play all sorts of cool games, like "Stalker Pong", or "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend Roulette"!
@wbuthod: @mattgalloway Actually, it's not a bad idea. As a SM tool *and* as a minimalist lifeline for "helicopter parents".
Crazy Ex-Girlfriend Roulette!?!? Finally we're talking social media with real purpose. I'm guessing someone's already doing this but I haven't yet seen it. If it did come about, I might just give it a try.
Jun/100
Architactile Named TESA Top 25 Finalist!
(cross posted from Architactile.com)
We're so proud to be named as one of top 25 finalist in the Tulsa Entrepreneurial Spirit Award for 2010. We've been working (mostly in stealth mode) for the last few months developing our first product, Architactile Inception for the iPad, which will hopefully be submitted (as a beta) to the Apple App store by the end of June. Here's an early look at Inception in action:
If you're interested in architecture applications for the iPad, please sign up on our mailing list and we'll keep you posted on our progress.
Congrats to the other 24 TESA finalists - especially my friends the Simpsons (@geoffreysimpson & @ShawnaSimpson) over at Moxie Software and John Fanning of Language Speak Easy. I wish you the best of luck... or at least the second best. 
Apr/102
Stop Whining About Openness, Loser.
My good friend Abby Waumbaugh (@abbyannette) pointed out an interesting post by Andrew Swenson (@wordpost) about the iPad and "openness" and future of broadcasting. Andrew was riffing on themes presented by the great Doc Searls on same. Andrews focus was really more on the openness as it applied to content creators but it prompted me to write on something I've been thinking about for a while now and since Abby bugs me about not posting to my blog more frequently than anyone else, I figured now was as good of time as any.
With all due respect to Doc Searls and Andrew Swenson, whining about the lack "openness" of Apple is frivolous, counterproductive, and ultimately ineffective. And while I won't use the overused phase "misses the point" I will say that that whining about the "closedness" of a single vertically oriented vendor ignores the larger reality of the internet. Furthermore, I think that if we're looking for a bugaboo, our attention would better be spent on the ongoing fight over Net Neutrality than on Apple - especially if "openness" is the priority...but I digress. (Abby has since weighed in on Net Neutrality!)
At the core of this albeit well intentioned but misdirected argument is an underlying confusion that, in my opinion, plagues the modern American collective conscious: namely the confusion of rights and entitlements. The right to free speech, for example, ensures that we as individuals may spread our ideas with whatever means we have at our disposal without being impeded by the government, or other individuals. However, this right doesn't entitle us access to the means - that is our own responsibility. Nor does our own right of free speak entitle us to violate the rights of others. If the locally owned newspaper doesn't want to run my story or editorial, that's not a violation of my right - I can start my own paper, or blog, or whatever - but I'm not entitled to space in their media.
As Andrews points out in his post, there are Apple lovers and haters - both groups we all try to distance ourselves from as we attempt to present our seemingly objective viewpoints. The reality is that (just as in politics) we all have our leanings. I, for one, am definitely an Apple fan - but not a fanboy. There are days when I can see that Mr. Jobs isn't wearing any clothes and I have no issue with saying as much. However, I'm also a big fan of openness. I've been a passionate Linux user and advocate both personally and professionally since 1995. And while I'm a fan of openness, just like with Apple, I'm not a fanboy. As an advocate of openness, it's important to realize that sometimes openness is not the best answer. As with anything in life, you need to understand the questions before you start providing answers. Rarely are there any absolutes.
So here it is...
We have the right to provide and support openness,
but we are not entitled to receive it. This is the essence of freedom.
Now to be clear, I don't think either Doc Searls or Andrew Swenson are advocating that we require Apple to be open. To do so would strip Apple of its freedom to choice its own business model. Instead, I think their arguments (at least Doc Searls') are intended to persuade their readers to reject the Apple iPad/iPhone/iPod ecosystem in the name of openness. However, there are lots of more extreme folks out there that demand Apple act differently. Of course this is to no avail but I find the notion troubling - the idea that we, as individuals, should be able to dictate shoulds and shouldn'ts to another individual or business entity based on personal ideology. If you want a company like Apple except more open, then shut up and build it. (Of course, I support your right to whine incessantly, but understand that this doesn't entitle you to listeners.)
I think this right vs. entitlement issue is an important, if somewhat esoteric, one but my bigger, more pragmatic issue with the openness whiners is their utter lack of recognition that in the case of Apple and it's products, closed kicks open's ass. Furthermore, Apple's closed approach has been a significant factor in decreasing the influence and power of (arguably more closed-mided) companies like Microsoft and Adobe, as well as supporting and accelerating many, many open sourced initiatives and movements.
Today, Apple computer products (desktop and laptops) are the preferred development machine of many open source developers. This is because without the closed nature of the hardware platform, and the focused marketing and product design that is provided by a large vertically oriented vendor like Apple, no one can seem to reliably run non-Microsoft operating systems on the latest and greatest laptop hardware in a scalable and affordable way. For mainstream users (and developers that want to focus on development instead of patching their Linux installation) Linux has failed on the desktop. Hardware vendors understandably cater to Microsoft making it difficult for Linux to gain a foot hold. And with the infighting between Linux distributions and the forking of projects that inevitably happen in open source ecosystems, combined with the lack of a single consumer facing marketing effort Linux will never gain significant mainstream adoption. I love Linux, but this is the reality kids.
So the next best alternative, IMO, is an explicitly non-Microsoft hardware vendor to create and market a viable alternative. For many developers a "viable" alternative means a "real" operating system and by moving to BSD Unix based OS X, Apple did just that. While their desktop and laptop hardware is closed, OS X itself is Unix and affords all of the same (functional) benefits of other Unix variants and Linux. Many open source projects and tools (Apache, Perl, etc.) are included in the OS X distribution. OS X is standards based and interoperate seamlessly with Linux servers.
The big complaint with OS X is that people think they should be entitled to run OS X on other hardware. Apple disagrees and so do I. First off, it's Apple's business and they should have the freedom to close their ecosystem if they want. Secondly, the legendary stability of Apple products is largely due to their closed architecture. By limiting the hardware on which their software will run, Apple can better ensure reliability and consistency of the user experience. Part of Apple's brand strategy is creating products that are more reliable than the competition and controlling hardware is one way they accomplish this. Microsoft, in contract, has tremendous problems with stability and reliability largely because they allow their software to be run on arbitrary hardware. Linux has less of a stability problem but is limited by driver support or only partial access to hardware features dramatically decreasing usability and the quality of user experience. It is precisely because of Apples closed philosophy that we've seen a decrease in both Microsoft's market share on the desktop and influence in the market. By embracing Unix and open standards on a closed hardware system, Apple is empowering open efforts not diminishing them.
Think back to the state of mp3's before the iPod. Mp3 and file based digital music in general were little more than an obscure geek obsession. There were a handful of hardware mp3 manufacturers (remember Diamond Rio?) but no significant presence in the market and absolutely no legitimate interest from the recording industry. It was Apple with it's closed ecosystem of players, music management software and online store (complete with recording industry support) that legitimized and launched the digital music revolution in the mainstream. Apple could have used their power to try to stifle the mp3 standard but they did not. In fact they embraced mp3 and build a CD ripper into iTunes that, as an option, encoded in mp3 for interoperability. As we all know now, the iPod was and is enormously successful and today defined the mp3 player market. We should be thankful for Apple because it took a single vertically oriented company with a focused marketing effort for mainstream adoption of the mp3 player.
A recent non-Apple example of this phenomenon is Amazon's Kindle. Ebooks have struggled for years only to have Amazon define, legitimize and own the market almost overnight by creating a complete , closed ecosystem.
Folks that lean towards being an Apple hater and/or are openness zealots will counter these example by saying that all of these things were (and still are) possible with the use of open source products and projects. There are more features available, the cost is often free (at least for software), and you have access to source, etc. And they're right - but few if any of those products ever experience mainstream adoption. And most of these product require a lot of "tinkering" which precludes them as a viable option for most mainstream users. (A notable exception is FireFox.) The moral here is that mainstream adoption almost always requires a champion with a profit motive, a good business model and great strategic communications.
So fast forward to today and the iPad. I've summed up my thoughts on why I've chosen to bet my future on the iPad in a previous post so I won't rehash that diatribe. What I will do though is ask this question:
What threat does iPad really pose to the notion of openness?
In my opinion, none. No one is mandating iPad. Steve Jobs will be the first to tell you that Apple product are not for everyone and if you don't like them you should use something else...something more open if you like. Unlike Microsoft who has a well deserved reputation of trying to break compatibility with non-Microsoft products as a means to artificially dominate the marketplace, Apple has a strong and visible commitment to standards and interoperability. Apple is a proponent of HTML5 as an example. Apple also uses open standards for calendaring and email. Apple has been able to attract tens of thousands of new software developers to their ecosystem creating a disruptive force in the traditional balance of power in the software industry. Lots of open source components are being leveraged in iPhone/iPad development and lots of folks are using Linux, PHP, Ruby, etc. to back these applications up from across the internet.
By driving touch computing with a strong vision, good development tools, and stable, well-configured, consistent (and yes closed) hardware, Apple is moving the bar further and faster that any crowd source open effort could ever hope to. As a developer, sure you have to accept some constraints in order to play, and you don't have a say in those constraints but once you decide to take the red pill you get to jump on the truck and travel at Apple-speed. What you get in return is the confidence that your users will have a very consistent and reliable user experience - a pretty easy trade off for me. And as far as constraints go, there's aren't many, really. Sure we can rattle off the big ones quickly - multitasking (coming this summer), tethering, direct to user distribution, usb support, etc - but somehow folks have written over 185,000 apps in less than 2 years generating hundreds of millions in revenue despite these crippling unreasonable limitations. The reality is that all developers are limited to constraint with any platform with which they work - some hard, some soft - with Apple folks just seem to like to bitch about constraints that they think could be technically eliminated, are opposed to philosophically or just plain don't like. Apple believe that just because you can do something it doesn't mean that you should. Ironically, their strong commitment to simplicity by design is a key to their ongoing success despite much public criticism that they're product should include this feature or that. The iPod, for example, was harshly criticized for lacking features that competitive products had (such as voice recorders and FM receivers) as it simultaneously dominated the mp3 player market.
Perhaps it's this dominance that the open ness whiners fear. As Andrew highlighted Doc Searls poses the question:
"Do we want the Internet to be broadcasting 2.0 — run by a few content companies and their allied distributors?"
Of course we don't. Do I think think that Apple and iPad have the potential to achieve this? Absolutely not. I do think iPad will be successful. Wildly even. In fact, more so now that I own one. But to think that the success of iPad will eclipse the entirety of the internet is simply naive. What Apple has done with their iPod/iPhone ecosystem is to force content providers (traditional & large as well as young & small) to consider online delivery in way that Napster and Bit Torrent never could. Hulu.com, for example, is largely the broadcast industries response to iTunes. Hulu, of course, is providing content through a custom desktop app, the browser and (reportedly soon) an iPad app. Hulu, by design, intentionally circumvents the need for iTunes in distribution of content - a need that would not have existed without Apple's closed ecosystem. One driving argument for openness is choice. In my view, a near functional equivalent for true openness with regards to choice is a plethora of closed alternatives from which to choose. The reality is we have dozens of internet based content on demand solutions - Tivo, Roku, local cable providers, Boxee, NetFlix, YouTube, etc - many of these available in some form on iPhone/iPod/iPad. The secret to success of Broadcast 2.0 is to recognize the multimodal nature of the viewer and to capitalize on as many channels as possible (or rather as many as are effective). For a content creator, to ignore a consumer device that will likely sell 8 to 10 million units in 2010 would be stupid. It would be equally stupid to stop publishing in every other non-iPad channel - and surprise, surprise - none of them are that stupid.
It's the numbers that Doc Searls seems to overlook.. He tells us "...with the iPad they feel they have a technology that best marries the splashy look and size of a full-page print ad with the cool interactive features of a digital ad… " And they are right but there's more to their reasoning. It's not just because the tech is hip (indeed there are open projects that can technically do much of what the iPad can on lower cost hardware), but it's also about adoption and market size. There is no other single device that provides the same level of control of content and presentation that will be in the hands of so many users. Sure content creators can develop for the web - and they are - to reach everyone else's hodge-podge device (JooJoo, Android, etc.) but because there is no consistency in hardware and user experience across this eclectic collection of devices, there's not enough profit potential in developing specifically for any one. Without any champions, open products like Android and even closed source products like Windows Mobile are too inconsistent and under-adopted to support the readership volumes necessary for profitability by mainstream content providers. Conversely, if Apple allowed their iPhone OS to be run on the cheapest hunk of silicon and glass China can produce then Apple's profit motive would disappear along with their high standard for user experience. The argument for openness is always that it will improve quality but in this case it's simply not true - not in a market driven society. Fortunately or unfortunately, openness looses.
To be fair, closeness looses sometimes too. The trick is to find the right balance and I think Apple is doing just that.
Since I first started writing this post, Andrew and I have had a great discussion about related stuff back on his blog, so be sure to check that out too.
Mar/102
Why iPad?
For those just tuning it, I'm starting a business developing software for the iPad. When I tell people that I'm targeting iPad I get mixed responses. Fanboys want to gush about how the iPad will forever change the destiny of man. Critics want to talk about netbooks, iPad's missing features or the forthcoming Microsoft Courier. Other folks want to describe an application that they've dreamed up that they think I should write (like I don't have anything else to work on) or people tell me that I should write software that can run on all the mobile devices iPhone, Android, Blackberry, Windows Mobile, Palm, etc. - you know, because cross platform development is easy.
What almost everyone has in common though is that most folks don't understand why I'm targeting iPad.
In fact, lots of folks make assumptions that are completely wrong. I'm not targeting iPad because it's cool (at least not entirely). It's not a get-rich-quick scheme (although getting rich quick wouldn't suck). It's not riding the wave of hype surrounding the iPad (but I'm not ignoring this either). It's not (just) because I'm not a fan of Microsoft.
What you might find surprising is that I'm actually quite skeptical about iPad's success as Steve Jobs laid it out in his keynote. I don't think the iPad will be the ultimate internet browsing experience - I think that title will stay with our desktop and laptop computers. I think the absence of Flash and an (albeit large and responsive) touchscreen keyboard will substantially hinder the web browsing experience. When we fantasize about being seen hanging out in the coffee shop with our shiny new iPad I think most people underestimate the predominance of text entry in the web browsing experience. The web browser, after all, was born on the desktop and is a desktop centric paradigm - it hasn't translated well to mobile devices, or television, or refrigerators. Sure, some bookmarked content will be great on the iPad, but as an all purpose "ultimate internet browsing device" I think it will fall short.
And since the iPad won't fit in your pocket, you have to make a special effort you to take it with you. Once you've made the decision to lug along a device, the question is - What device will it be? The somewhat limited but super sleek iPad or the truly versatile if not entirely aesthetically pleasing netbook or laptop? The bottom line is that the iPad is not a netbook/laptop replacement (by Steve's own admission) and when given the choice between the two, most folks will pick the lappy. And if you already have a lappy, will you shell out another $500+ for an additional device? I think most won't.
At this point folks ask me "Matt, if you think the iPad sucks, then why are you building a business around it?" The answer is that I don't think the iPad sucks - rather I think it will be really, really good at something other than the perceived primary use case - namely point solution business applications. As I see the world I think there are hundreds of applications where laptops or other traditional computer forms are simply too cumbersome for business applications but where a well designed touch computing platform can excel. Anywhere where someone is carrying around a clipboard with forms or check lists, anywhere people are dealing with non-text data in a mobile environment, anywhere where a conversation is happening where a traditional computer would be distracting is an opportunity for touch computing.
Sure, there have been mobile computing platforms out there for decades from people like Microsoft, Symbol, Intermec, and Psion - but these platforms have been too expensive for smaller point solutions, too cumbersome in terms of UI/UX and too difficult to develop for. Historically there's also been a lack of easy to understand, reasonably priced and ubiquitous wireless connectivity for these devices.
The focus has been on "mobile computing" and not on "touch computing". What's the difference? Mobile computing is about trading usability and performance for mobility. Touch computing is about a fundamentally different user experience - a user experience that's better that the previous paradigms. Sure touch computing platforms like the iPad will also be mobile, but if designed well users will prefer using their touch computing device for some activities even when sitting at their desktop computer.
The opportunity is to recognize the applications that have been underserved by traditional computing, or mobile computing and exploit then with well designed touch computing interfaces. The secret to success for these touch computing applications is great design from which follows great usability and user experience. Applications designs must minimize required text entry, and rely more heavily on information visualization, and visual metaphors for data manipulation.
To do this effectively designers and developers need a great development platform, a stable and consistent hardware platform, and consistent user interface metaphors. For wide spread market adoption we need a hardware vendor that is familiar and credible for end users, that has a good track record of being able to keep up with supply and support. The user experience is critical - so we need the most responsive touch interfaces with support for multitouch and advanced gestures. And we need well established distribution channels for easy deployment.
Over the next year or so we'll see dozens of touch computing platforms enter the market. Some with price points way below the Apple iPad. When I survey the landscape I see only one platform, vendor and ecosystem that already exhibits all of the characteristics necessary to succeed with business focussed touch computing applications: the Apple iPad.
With our new business venture, Architactile, we hope to change the way the business of architecture is practiced through the application of touch computing. At least for now, the iPad provides us our best shot at doing it.
Mar/104
Architactile Cometh
My life has changed a lot in the last few months. Most folks that know me through the internet have no idea what I do professionally. Lots of folks think I'm somehow involved in marketing, public relations, social media consulting, etc. (I'm not.) This is partly by my own design. Both when I started blogging in 2005, and when I started playing on Twitter in 2008 I was at least partially motivated by professional dissatisfaction or boredom. Social Media was an outlet for me to explore and exercise the critical thinking skills that were atrophying at work. I've been careful to not intertwine my professional and online life too much - it just seemed simpler.
So what do I do professionally? Well, I have a BS degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Oklahoma State University although my career is more accurately described as information technology. Thirteen years ago I became the Director of Technology for a small company called ODEN Insurance Services in Tulsa, Oklahoma. I had done some contract programming for ODEN a few years before that. ODEN had about 10 employees when I joined as a full-timer. In retrospect, what we did was pretty remarkable - we changed the way the property & casualty insurance industry works in the United States - at least in some small way. Our organization researched insurance compliance law, summarized it into a standardized taxonomy and made it readily accessible to insurance professionals. This content was deliver 100% electronically - never on paper (which was revolutionary 13 years ago in the insurance industry.) We then took this information and built a rules based document composition system that automated the process of creating termination notices to the insured. If you've ever had you car or home owners insurance policy cancelled, there's a better chance that it came from software that I managed than not. While this may not seem like much, ODEN changed the way the insurance industry thought about cancellation and non-renewal of policies - and trust me, that's huge.
Over the years I was promoted to Vice President of Technology and eventually was given the opportunity to become an equity partner. The job was great for a good many years and the owners of the company, the Oden family, were tremendously generous to me and our entire staff. But the company reached a point where it was unlikely to ever grow significantly larger, unlikely to reach the proverbial "next level". This is a limitation of many family owner businesses. I found myself with "golden handcuffs" - with an equity position in company and an easy job that had likely reached its pinnacle. This was great for my family but for a guy who likes challenge and change and was less than halfway through his working years this began to wear on me.
Then 3 years ago, our small company of 30 employees was bought by what is now the global behemoth Thomson Reuters. This was a terrific way for the Oden family to exit after nearly 20 years of building the company. I stayed on after the acquisition. It was an exciting time and I imagined that great things that were possible. Although, at the time I realized that the likely eventual outcome would be the elimination of the positions of me and my technology staff, I was hopeful that things might be different. I knew that if our products were to get to the "next level" it would be through a company like Thomson Reuters. I also knew that if things didn't work out that I'd finally be done, free to do... something else... anything else.
For the first year and a half or so after the acquisition I worked hard to try to find a niche for our products within our new parent company. Unfortunately after going through 3 Vice Presidents (one holding the position twice) in less than 2.5 years it was made pretty clear to me that there was to be no real future for me or my staff at Thomson Reuters. The week before Thanksgiving 2009, my boss called to inform me that my staff and I were being let go in a "reduction of force" and that our job functions would be transferred to the home office in Eagan, Minnesota. My last day with Thomson Reuters was last Friday, February 26, 2010. This ended my 13 year association with Oden products.
Thirteen, it turns out, is my lucky number. A 13th of the month marks the births of three of my four children, as well as the anniversary of my marriage to my amazing wife of 6 years. It's only fitting that my run at Oden ends after 13 years so that I may start the next stage of my career.
Oden taught me that I love the excitement of growing a company and that a company needs strategic focus and growth to be vibrant. Thomson Reuters taught me that big companies can be insanely profitable even if they are slow and stupid... and that I really, really don't like slow and stupid. When thinking about what's next for me, I came to the realization that I don't really like working for people, but I love to work with people. I love building new products and processes and I love solving problems - I love creating efficiency. I really despise sameness on a daily basis, and I really like change and challenge.
So after some serious soul searching I've decided (with the support of my wife and family, and perhaps more importantly Bill & Shelli Handy) that the time has come for me to create my own company. I've partnered with an old friend named Taylor King who is an architect and partner at TriArch, an architecture firm in Tulsa. Taylor and I collaborated on some iPhone apps in late 2008 (published in the iTunes Store under the name Armchair Design) and we're ready to take it to the next level. We're currently working on a product concept for the iPad that we hope will change the way the business of architecture is practiced... at least in some small way. We think that touch computing has huge potential in point solution business applications and we want to explore that idea for architects.
There's lots and lots to do before I can share too many details but stay tuned...things are about to get interesting.
So what's the name of our new venture? Architactile. What else.
Feb/100
Starbucks Buys 122M Pounds of Unethically Traded Beans
Full disclosure: I think most marketing is really, really bad. Why? It's because I think most marketing people are more focused on manipulating the consumer into believing a half-truth than they are on anything even remotely related to their product. In doing so, two things happen:
1.) Focus is shifted off of the product. (Or more importantly what the consumer can DO with the product.)
2.) A half-lie is told.
Today's case study in really bad marketing - Starbuck's Coffee.
This morning, my amazing bride brought me a hot cup o'joe from Starbucks. As I was drinking it, I noticed that on the side of the cup it said...
YOU.
BOUGHT 228 MILLION POUNDS OF RESPONSIBLY GROWN, ETHICALLY TRADED COFFEE LAST YEAR.
"Cool." I thought. Some more text continues underneath that cardboard sleeve they put on the cup to keep you from burning yourself. At the point I noticed on the cardboard sleeve it says:
This sleeve is made from 60% post-consumer fiber.
It's part of Starbucks™ Shard Planet™
our commitment to doing business in ways that are
good to each other, coffee farmers and the planet.
"What?!?!?!" I thought. Why ONLY 60%?!?!? Why not 100%?!?!? What is so special about a cardboard ring that you can't use 100% recycled materials? Isn't recycled cardboard readily available? Is it because using 100% recycled materials would be harder to print your trademarked green-washed program name on? And seriously Starbucks, you actually trademarked the program name "Shared Planet"? I hope you sue everyone that tries to use the phrase "Shared Planet", perhaps with the settlement Starbucks can afford to spring for 100% recycled cardboard rings in the future.
Now don't get me wrong. I get it. 60% recycled is better than 0% but I call fowl when Starbucks tries to manipulated how I feel about them for what I consider to be a half effort. If you are going to rant about saving the planet as a marketing ploy, I expect you to step up. And with the 3-color artwork design on that cardboard ring, I have a hard time believing that Starbucks is more interested in saving the planet than they are in getting me to buy more coffee with their 60% recycled commitment. What's more, the copyright on the ring is 2008 - so no progress in 2 years.
So off with the ring. And what do I discover underneath?
Everything we do, you do. You stop by for a coffee,
And just by doing that, you let Starbucks buy more coffee
from farmers who are good to their workers, community
and planet. Starbucks bought 65% of our coffee this way
last year - 228 million pounds - and we're working with
farmers to make it 100%. It's using our size for good,
and you make it all possible. Way to go, you.
So let me get this straight. I'm responsible for buying 122 pounds of coffee beans last year from farmers who either exploit their workers, have a negative impact on their communities or using environmentally harmful practices? And I'm supposed to feel good about this? I need a shower.
When I saw the first statement about 228 million pounds of beans I falsely assumed it was ALL of Starbucks coffee. I'm sure that this is their intent. Only if I REMOVE the 40% non-recycled cardboard ring do I see that this is only 65% of Starbucks coffee beans. If you do the math, that means over 122 million pounds of beans come from "somewhere else". So how committed is Starbuck to this idea of fair trade?
Like most folks, I'm not an environmental zealot or a fair trade freak - but when I have choices I like to do the thing that feels right. I also get that Starbucks is a business and they need to make profit. I don't disagree with their business practices and applaud their efforts to increase the portion of their beans purchased from ethically traded growers - but don't sell me a fairy tale.
How could this be done better? Starbucks could start with the premise that the job is not yet done. Tell me that 35% of their beans are still being bought from people that they'd rather not do business with. And give me a timeline for how quickly they want to change this. Or better yet they should "use their size for good" and simply stop doing business with that 35% if buying form unethical growers bugs them so much - and then use their cups to explain to the consumer why their coffee is a little more expensive this year. That's a marketing message that woudl actually make me feel better about Starbacks.
So to the exploited workers that I apparently forced into producing beans for 35% of my double mocha latte this morning. I'm really, really sorry.
Jan/103
Oklahoma City Doesn’t Suck
Last week I spoke at IgniteOKC. It was the second Ignite event at which I’ve spoken. I love Ignite. Simply put: Ignite rocks. As a speaker, the format is challenging and invigorating, but the best thing about Ignite is the people. Hands down. And not just the speakers, but everyone - the audience, the organizers, the stage crew - everyone. So what makes “Ignite People” so awesome? Simple - they’re smart, curious, and passionate, but not the garden variety “smart, curious, and passionate” - they’re the “it goes to eleven” kinda smart, curious and passionate.
Another characteristic of this crowd is diversity. These folks are from all walks, from technology, to medicine, to law, to chefs, to library science, to fine jewelry, to energy, to non-profits. Everyone is welcome given that (yes, I’m gonna say it again) you’re smart, curious and passionate.
As amazing as Ignite is, what I think is REALLY exciting is the undercurrent. Ignite is what we see on the surface but it’s just a mere byproduct of what’s happening below. And what’s that? The early stages of smart, curious, and passionate people in Tulsa and Oklahoma City thinking differently about each other and about what lies ahead for all of us.
I’m not a native Tulsan, or even a native Oklahoman, but Tulsa is my adopted home. I’ve lived here longer than I’ve lived anywhere else, but I’ve always been baffled by the ridiculous competition between Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Who’s got the best arena? Who has the best roads? Which city is prettier? Which has a cooler “scene”? I say, who cares? I have a firm belief that, in the long run, neither city benefits. And in reality, both cities are great, and - perhaps more importantly - both cities have the potential and the opportunity to be much, much greater. Personally, I think the secret to unleashing this potential is collaboration and cooperation. In an increasingly flat world, we should be thinking about Oklahoma competing on a national and global stage instead of who’s got the best [insert insignificant geographical curio of your choice here].
So what’s that got to do with Ignite? Well, behind the scenes there is tremendous support and collaboration between the IgniteTulsa and IgniteOKC organizational teams. These groups were formed independently but once they discovered each other, they started coordinating efforts. The principal organizer of IgniteOKC, Emily Campbell, was a speaker at the IgniteTulsa event. (One of my very favorite speakers at that event.) In real life, Emily is a crazy smart intellectual property attorney with Dunlap Codding in OKC. Emily contacted me when submissions for IgniteOKC were open because she wanted someone from the Tulsa event to also speak at the OKC event.
The Ignite events are promoted heavily through social media channels with Twitter being the darling. One of the truly amazing miracles of social media in Oklahoma is that it’s starting to flatten Tulsa and Oklahoma City. Through community events like Ignite catalyzed by social media, young Oklahoman thought leaders are starting to broaden their networks to include folks from “the other city”. These smart, curios and passionate, people (like Emily) are starting to grow beyond the unfounded geographical prejudice of past generations.
Another event that’s bridging the turnpike is Startup Weekend. Like Ignite, Startup Weekend is a global organization that provides a format and guidance to local volunteers that produce the local events. Startup Weekend is kinda like mock-trial for entreprenuers. Scott Phillips organized Oklahoma’s first Startup Weekend in November last year in Tulsa. Scott is co-owner of Isocentric, a Tulsa based data center, and he’s also part of the IgniteTulsa crew. Tulsa is one of the smallest cities to have ever hosted Startup Weekend but even this fledgling event drew the attention and sponsorship of the Oklahoma Department of Commerce. Currently Adam Dani, a financial securities expert in OKC, is organizing Startup Weekend OKC for the weekend of March 5-7, 2010. Are Scott and Adam talking? You bet! In fact, Startup Weekend OKC will be promoted at the next IgniteTulsa on March 4th.
Now I understand that one could look at these events and write them off as a bunch of internet geeks doing geeky stuff - but I choose to see something different. There’s a young movement afoot here in Tulsa, and in Oklahoma City, and elsewhere in Oklahoma. A movement that’s interested in something better for our cities, something better for our state. A movement that’s working to foster innovation and inspire greatness. Oklahoma has the capacity to be the next Seattle, the next Silicon Valley - but it will take all of us. This new Oklahoma won’t come from our city or state governments, it will come from those of us that are willing to think bigger, to act, and to leverage the resources on both ends of the turnpike. If you attend these events, and events like them you start to recognize the key drivers in this movement - folks like Emily, Scott and Adam. If you want to make something great happen in Oklahoma, these are the folks you need to be LinkedIn with.
I had a great time at IgniteOKC and I’d like to say again - a very sincere thank you to Emily (and Blake, Michelle, Seth, Sandip, Robert, Dirk, Justin, Jory, Michael, Tyler, and Melanie - and the rest of the IgniteOKC crew) for an absolutely awesome, awesome event.
It occurred to me at IgniteOKC that the reason Oklahoma City people think that they are as cool, if not cooler than Tulsa people is that maybe - just maybe - they are. To do my part toward a better future for all of us, I’d like to go on record as a citizen of Tulsa as saying, Oklahoma City doesn’t suck. Here’s to our future.
IgniteOKC Summer 2010 (location & date TBD)
IgniteTulsa March 4th @ Blue Dome Diner (free registration)
Nov/093
Everyone Loves a Good Smackdown
This past weekend I participated in the most amazing event ever – Startup Weekend Tulsa. I plan to write more about the experience soon, but here's the gist – about 45 strangers got together, formed 5 teams and created 5 startup companies over the course of about 54 hours. It's the kind of thing that is really hard to explain without experiencing it, so for now I hope you can just take my word for it – it was a mind blowing experience. I was absolutely amazed at the quality and volume of ideas, product and collaboration from Oklahoma's aspiring entrepreneurs!
So here's the deal – as part of Global Entrepreneur Week, nine other cities (Atlanta, Bay Area, Boise, Cleveland, Dallas, Lexington, London, Los Angeles and New York) either have had this past weekend or will have next weekend their own Startup Weekend event.
A company called Twilio has decided that it'd be fun to see which of these 10 cities has the maddest entrepreneurial kung fu. So they're sponsoring a contest to see who can produce the coolest startup that integrated with their telephony services.
My team created a project called Menu-O-Matic. Menu-O-Matic is a tool to enable small to medium sized restaurants to improve their online presence by putting their menus online in both a web optimized and mobile device optimized format. Through the magic of Twilio, Menu-O-Matic can also read you the menu over the phone – you know, so you don't have a wreck trying to read the menu on your iPhone while driving.
You can see a typical Menu-O-Matic menu here:
Silly Deli Menu (Sample Menu-O-Matic menu)
And you can have the menu read to you with Twilio by dialing:
1-877-490-4909 and dial restaurant code 36#
Pretty cool, huh?
So why am I telling you this? Bottom line – I think it would be so cool to have Tulsa, Oklahoma crush the likes of the Bay Area, LA, Dallas and New York and I need your help to do it.
Specifically there're three things you can do to make the big city folks look silly:
1.) Tweet about @menuomatic's awesome use of @twilio technology.
2.) Post comments about how cool you think Menu-O-Matic is on Twilio's contest page
3.) If you have a blog or are a media type, write about us.
Thanks everybody!
This past weekend I participated in the most amazing event ever – Startup Weekend Tulsa. I plan to write more about the experience soon, but here's the gist – about 45 strangers got together, formed 5 teams and created 5 startup companies over the course of about 54 hours. It's the kind of thing that is really hard to explain without experience it, so for now I hope you can just take my word for it – it was a mind blowing experience.
So here's the deal – as part of Global Entrepreneur Week, nine other cities (Atlanta, Bay Area, Boise, Cleveland, Dallas, Lexington, London, Los Angeles and New York) either have had this past weekend or will have next weekend their own Startup Weekend event.
A company called Twilio has decided that it'd be fun to see which of these 10 cities has the maddest entrepreneurial kung fu. So they're sponsoring a contest to see who can produce the coolest startup that integrated with their telephony services.
My team created a project called Menu-O-Matic. Menu-O-Matic is a tool to enable small to medium sized restaurants to improve their online presence by putting their menus online in both a web optimized and mobile device optimized format. Through the magic of Twilio, Menu-O-Matic can also read you the menu over the phone – you know, so you don't have a wreck trying to read the menu on your iPhone while driving.
You can see a typical Menu-O-Matic menu here:
http://menuomatic.com/menu/Silly+Deli
And you can have the menu read to you with Twilio by dialing 1-877-490-4909 and dial restaurant code 36#
Pretty cool, huh?
So why am I telling you this? Bottom line – I think it would be so cool to have Tulsa, Oklahoma crush the likes of the Bay Area, LA, Dallas and New York and I need your help to do it.
Specifically there're three things you can do to make the big city folks look silly:
1.) Tweet about @menuomatics awesome use of @twilio technology.
2.) Post comments about how cool you think Menu-O-Matic is on Twilio's contest page
3.) If you have a blog or are a media type, write about us.
Thanks everybody!
@mattgalloway on Twitter
- @jeffatmaxofacto Thanks! Great minds and all that.
- @wbuthod Immortal dog. Are you, um, kidding me? :) Love it.
- @KateSpencer1 Thank you. She's amazing. We've very happy.
- My criteria for selecting a dog:1)Limited shedding 2)Unyielding loyalty in post-acoptalytic future. Check & Check. http://twitpic.com/2ked43
- Our new dog Lela just hanging out during dinner. Awesome dog. Thx again @shellihh!! http://yfrog.com/28gttaj
- @patrickallmond wow. Apparently it takes startlingly little to make you think. ;)
- @billhandy in case you hadn't noticed your wife is awesome.
- So cool that Chris Martin (of Cold Play) is wearing a Flaming Lips t-shirt during his performance on Apple live stream. #OklahomaPride
- Hmmmm. No rentals on Apple TV? What about the movies I've started buying on my OLD AppleTV?
- "The HD revolution happened. It's over. HD won. Everyone wants HD." - S. Jobs :)
Twitter on TU’s COMM 4843
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Social Links
