Thoughts on iPhone OS version 4

31 01 2010

Let me preface this post with a little note; I have only dabbled in Xcode – and all of the opinions herein are surmised from my user experience of iPhone, my observations and reading about the iPad and my own imagination (and 25 years of first hand experience).

I really enjoy the model of simplicity which the iPhone introduced to a computing experience. The things people bemoan about the operating system I completely understand and – well – I enjoy and appreciate.

I appreciate that concept of no filesysyem. I appreciate no multitasking to ensure a primo user experience. I appreciate an approval process before applications can be released on the platform. Of course there are down sides to all of these points – but they all represent compromises which had to be made. The focus has been always on the end user experience and I appreciate that.

Then came the iPad.

I can easily draw the dots between the experience a user will have working on an iPad given a while using the iPhone. I also see some of the deficiencies which be immediately obvious. So in this post I want to postulate solutions to problems facing the architecture and user experience on the iPad and how that might be solved.

First issue is that of the filesystem. The idea that apps have isolated storage is awesome – until you want to do some things which are a little more computer like in their nature. For example – look at the iWork demo from the iPad keynote – apps which use assets like images need to access the photo library. Fair enough – the photo library seems to have some API level access so other apps can load and save to it. What happens when I want to attach two presentations to an email? Would it not make sense that I can attach iWork documents from email the same way I can email documents from iWork? What about say zipping up a couple of documents? What we see today is certainly use of common storage like the photo library but also duplication of concerns in a lot of applications – or even worse, invocation of other ‘required’ apps.

GoodReader is a prime example. Why should it compress files? Why should it have to implement it’s own filesystem and ‘commander’ style interface? And worse, it’s a sucky metaphor which has stuck with us for 30+ years, directories and then folders. Heirarchy. Yuck! It sits at odds with the user experience of the iPhone. But we need it for lack of a better model. It also means if I want to open attachments I receive in email akin to those I send from custom apps like goodreader sending a zip file – I can’t. But with the iPad it becomes imperative.

I don’t know how Apple want to address this – perhaps in a similar way to file recognition on Mac osx – mime types and a publisher subscriber model? It would make sense and could be added to the user experience without breaking existing applications.

Second issue is that of devices. We see a keyboard being released for the iPad. Does this mean that the whole os now can recognize keyboards? What about mice? What about printers? Hmm does this mean we see a device driver model get introduced? It would make sense for it to be the case and furthermore for it to flow through the app store – wireless delivery of drivers which are tested and approved. It just works.

This would also answer some of the talk of multiple tasks on iPhone os. Device drivers are a key part of that space.

The other thing about multiple tasks is the hit on performance. Do we really need multiple apps open at once on an iPad? No. This leads to my final observation. Multitasking.

I think we may see the formal introduction of device drivers in to iPhone os4 – this allows apps to take advantage of certain devices without containing a copy of device drivers for every app – which would be the only way something like a custom heartrate monitor – any third party device could work on an iPhone today. The other aspect of multiple tasks which may change is that of saving application state. If apps can provide an experience more like Safari on the iPhone – where it is looking just as it was when you left it – even though it has been closed and reopened – then the goal of performance versus practicality may well have been achieved.

I hope you found this an interesting read. Like I said – just my observations based on a lot of reading and thinking.





Designing Applications for Social Traction

31 08 2009





iTOK Captures “Top 25 Under 5″ Award for Fastest Growing Companies

11 08 2009

Leading Remote Computer Service Company Recognized as one of the Fastest Growing Companies in Utah

Lindon, UT (PRWEB) July 22, 2009 — iTOK announced today that they have received the Utah Valley Entrepreneurial Forum’s “Top 25 Under Five” award. The “Top 25 Under Five” award recognizes the 25 fastest growing companies in the region that have been in business less than 5 years.

“iTOK is the leader in remote technical support because we focused on our core business,” said Seth Bailey, iTOK’s co-founder & CEO. “Our first goal was to get our service model right so we could grow profitably. Now we can scale to meet the needs of our large, national customers.”

The founders started iTOK in late 2004 to provide remote computer help and maintenance to customers at their homes or home offices right through the Internet. Their flagship PC Care membership service provides quarterly maintenance to keep computers running smooth and clean, giving their members peace of mind. iTOK services their members directly or through partnerships with some of the largest Internet service providers in the nation.

“This is a tough economic climate for all businesses, right now, especially start-ups,” said UVEF 2009 chairman Roger Andrus. “These Top 25 winners overcame great odds by growing their revenues and creating jobs. They represent the spirit of entrepreneurship that will serve this state well.”

About iTOK:
iTOK is the leading provider of US-based remote technical support for home and home-based business computers. Since 2004, iTOK has been building a team of trained, fluent English-speaking support representatives based in Utah that eliminates the frustration of working with the cheaper foreign-based computer service companies. With the click of a mouse, a user can immediately connect with a service representative, get help on a technical problem and schedule routine maintenance, all while working with someone who knows their computer, their issue history and their language. iTOK provides service to thousands of customers directly and through major broadband service providers.

For more information about iTOK, please visit www.itokhelp.com.





Open letter to Senator Conroy

26 03 2009

This blog has never been political, however I am irate that one stubborn senator who clearly does not represent the will of the general public, or even any minority group – can continue to waste vast amounts of our money. Every day this ridiculous exploration continues costs Australians hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This is just another slap in the face after the last government launched their multi million ($185,000,000) dollar client side filtering software which was not only broken by a child the week it was released – today has shown that the take up rate for the software was abysmal and further – the whole thing was fundamentally flawed (read more).

When can the government FINALLY realize it is NOT in the IT business. Market forces exist for a reason – if you want to find a brilliant internet filter which parents can use – put it out to tender for existing vendors who have years of expertise in the space. Spend the money on public education and public awareness – which is what the government SHOULD be doing with our money. Heaven forbid you actually try to catch online criminals by funding the federal police appropriately.

Ultimately parents have the responsibility to protect their children and there are many free and paid products which do a spectacular job such as OpenDNS (www.opendns.com)…

As a citizen, taxpayer and parent I am FURIOUS!





Why we moved to Google Code

29 12 2008

We have been using SourceForge for a long, long time hosting all our Open Source projects. It was a tough decision to move away from SourceForge, however as our teams and projects grew – and as time went on – we felt SourceForge had lost touch with some of the fundamentals of software development for the sake of monetization.

Over 2008 I saw SourceForge move towards a services based model to attempt to support the projects which reside on it. In and of itself this is a great idea, however the real problem was that the world of web based applications had rocketed ahead whilst the core platform of SourceForge felt like it lagged behind.

Google Code was launched way back in August 2006 and has adopted the typical Google approach to its developer platform. This approach means that adding content, code and downloads is super simple and whilst the Issue Tracker in SourceForge was turned off for all our projects since it was so cumbersome, the Google Code Issue Tracker is just a joy to work with.

Overall, we feel that the impact on development and team collaboration will be vastly improved by making the move.

The Pixolüt Industries projects on Google Code are:

BizBlox

PreNIS

xReplace





SaaS Mentor can help…

14 10 2008

Last week I started SaaS Mentor consulting – a business designed to help other business owners succeed.

How?

I have been fortunate enough to work with the owners of various sized businesses over the past decade – I found that nearly all of these businesses faced similar problems; problems around effective sales process, marketing, time keeping and project management. The other major issue for them was the cost of IT and the people required to maintain it all. This cost generally hit those businesses at the worst possible time and it was not usually a small cost either…

The thing I noticed was that over the past year or so there has been an influx of really powerful business tools available on the internet which are provided as subscription services. This Software As A Service model is specifically suited to small-to-medium sized businesses since it reduces the need for in house servers and IT staff costs to maintain them. No big investments and great support.

The idea for SaaS Mentor came about when I started working on a simple approach to consulting for small-to-medium sized business which used several Software As A Service packages as the tools to provide a unique solution for a business problem. This consulting gave big results quickly and made the process of transformation easy.

So, If you know a business owner who may need some help, I would ask that you forward the link to this page on to them and let them know what we’re doing. If you feel like your business could benefit from this kind of strategy or that something in your business is not quite right, I would love to have a chat with you and see if what we’re doing could work for your business. Just email me: joe@saasmentor.com.au





Multilingual Searching is not International Searching

19 10 2007

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/helpful-suggestions-around-globe.html

I was reading this status update post from the Google team and it made me think about multilingual searching. The deeper issue of globalization is not necessarily the language – its the character set. The character set is what makes searching for Russian content from a computer in the United States very difficult. You need to set up your keyboard language to Russian and then try to figure out how to make all the symbols. This probably doesn’t seem like a big deal to someone in the United States, however when you work for a multinational company in Europe it really is.

About four years ago I was working on a project which was using the early version of BizBlox and the client was NASDAQ listed with US offices but the primary user group was a European food conglomerate. The system I was developing managed advertising assets for over 2000 brands across about ten different languages. The core problem was that some of the most important people searching the system were based in the United States and they didn’t know anything about character sets or international search – but they knew what they wanted because they knew what the words ‘looked like’.

The solution was actually really simple. For every latin based character set (non Asian, Aramaic or Sanskrit) there are similarities in letterform which can be assigned to a standard ’sort-of’ equivalent US keyboard character or combination thereof. This solution was about leveraging the visual recognition of the end user against the foreign character set – so sometimes – especially with the Greek character set – there is more than one character which can match (not necessarily a one to one relationship between letterform similarity). The BizBlox codebase to this day has the simple version of the visual-multi-lingual character mapping table in its very simple search engine.

This concept is by no means original – it has existed for as long as multiple symbol sets and languages have… the real idea here is that there is more than one way to recognize symbols of other languages and all of them should be treated equally. To the untrained eye is the word ἄβουλος transcoded to the English character set as aboulos or abovaos? It should not matter.

By using this idea in a search query it means that – in its simplest form – a search for the letter e in a word could also find words containing è, é, ê, or ë – or using a much more complex example – a search for a word with the letters TH, T or O could find a word with the letter Ɵ in it (the Greek letter Theta).

So how does this have anything to do with Google? Well, the suggestion feature allows for powerful and truely global search -but by adding this multi-directional character search context to suggestions it would be powerful across borders as well as inside them.

[Updated a ping back to a new article which outlines some of the ideas made in this post over a year ago. http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/our-international-approach-to-search.html ]





The Great 3G/Next-G Data Scam

26 09 2007

Telstra to Double NextG Speed

Read the article and then realize that every standard Telstra plan would use up their allocated monthly data in about half a second. Thats right, customers still only have 1MB allocated in their plans and that also means that if you go and download something using standard data (as opposed to their bandwidth rich video on demand service) you could be paying about $30 PER SECOND!

That’s right, the Next G pay as you go data plans (which are bundled with everyone’s standard phone plan) are charging $15 per MEGABYTE meanwhile, you can watch streaming video which is a multi-megabyte exercise with a cap of 200 MINUTES for $12 a month! Does this seem a little strange to anyone else?

Don’t think that Three, Optus, Vodafone or Virgin do things any differently – its the same story of extortion for business users trying to actually do something with mobile devices other than watch TV or download music. If you ever wonder why it takes so long for innovation on mobile devices, I think I have the answer right here.





You Don’t Get Gears!

6 06 2007

Well, maybe you do, but there seems to be a heck of a lot of people out there who don’t. Feast your eyes on this article in the Sydney Morning Herald for example.

Developers are comparing this technology to ‘offline web pages’ provided by Internet Explorer but I’m afraid that just like Google Maps, its going to take a little time before people catch on.

So what is it?

Well, think about Gears as a proxy which sits between an AJAX web application and the web server which is providing the application. This proxy can serve up the application with its online functionality and transactional data through an intermediary web server to provide the XMLHttpRequest functionality from a local webserver. The intermediary technology is accessible to the web application througha browser plug-in which provides a rich persistance and sync library for the web application to use so it can intelligently work with Gears.

You can already see that this is not a technology for the feint hearted.

So whats the deal with Gears? Well, its more than just about going offline – its about reliability. Look at the background of Google – where have they invested millions and millions of dollars? Answer: In web applications. There are many issues with deploying web applications and if they are the bread and butter of a business as big as Google, it makes sense for them to create a platform which makes browser based applications act as first class citizens on desktop computers.

So what are the issues hindering web applications from becoming first class citizens on the desktop?

First of all, of course – offline capabilities. This is the selling point for Gears, but its deeper than just ‘road warriors’ needing this to sync when they get an internet connection. Its about application reliability. Internet connections by their nature are unreliable. There are too many points of weakness in the fabric of application delivery to guarantee performance to a desktop or a laptop. Providing a local proxy for the application the way Gears does may add a layer of complexity in development, but it also REMOVES a layer of complexity in crazy error handling for all the situations where the XMLHttpRequest can freak out and fail because the connection was just dropped or partially lost for no apparent reason. This reliability makes for a robust experience which business users demand.

Secondly its all about performance. Gears is not just a technology, platform or a plug-in. Its an entire shift in metaphor. It truly is moving to an Internet Operating System. Any complex application can be installed in to the Gears proxy server which allows the web application being installed to be non-trivial, with no installation process. The performance of the application becomes that of a local application.

When the performance of the application becomes comparable to traditional ‘desktop’ applicatons and the weak point of reliability of the persistance layer is also diminished it makes for any web application to be a first class citizen on the PC desktop. At the same time it is making the native computer’s operating system irrelevant by using the ubiquitous browser as the delivery platform.

If Gears catches on, it will fundamentally change the way we use the web for delivering application functionality and shape the next generation of browser platform.





Google Apps Redux: The Wishlist…

22 05 2007

After using Google Apps for the Enterprise for nearly two months I have rounded up everyones key likes and dislikes and combined them all in a single blog entry with the key desirables which should be in upcoming versions of Google Apps. 

  1. Notebook
    This tool kicks the ass of OneNote to the CURB! How is it not in the Google Apps package? Notebook is the essential meeting tool. As Google Notebook has native sharing built in which is the half baked ‘killer app’ of OneNote today, all you can do is email your meeting notes.

    Imagine then, using the real time collaboration that Google Notebook provides with the ability to share notes amongst team members or external users you invite in – and the ‘view only’ mode which does not require a login is just brilliant as it is.   Anyways, it should be in Google Apps.

  2. GMail: Checkboxes on Labels
    It sounds so simple. If the mail labels had checkboxes next them to control visibility the  you would be able to see your emails as if you had multiple folders.
  3. GMail: Keyboard Controls
    GMail is so intuitive until you try to use a keyboard and then you feel like you’re using VI or some other unix command line tool with insane keyboard shortcuts. This should be replaced with commonsense keyboard shortcuts as well as cursor key controls and delete key (delete selected message)
  4. Start: Moving ToDo Widget data (Tasks) from GPrefs to its own proper place
    GPrefs is a sort of data limbo where widgets from the start page store their data when you play with them on your Google Apps account Start page. Think of how the Start page remembers which feed widgets you have placed on the screen and your scrap book and other things. This data is unstructured and therefore can not really have anything useful done with it. ToDo (Tasks) should be a first class citizen just like on every other organizer platform around. It should also have its own API for third party integration.
  5. Providing a native Google SyncML platform for Contacts, Calendar and Tasks
    How could this not exist? I am shocked. Part of being in the enterprise of today is the ability to be mobile. SMEs need this like air.
  6. At least providing API support for Contacts
    Even if Google does not want to get in to this mobile sync (SyncML) development space, there are a lot of vendors out there trying to bridge the gap such as GooSync – which upon a second attempt is brilliant!One notable void is the reliable sync of contact data. It makes sense that we would want to centralize and sync this data along with calendar and tasks between our email applications, online and PDA/Phones – there is very strong strong demand for this feature. Why no API?
  7. Documents: PLEASE allow any files to be shared using Google Documents (not just Doc and XLS)If you have a list of downloadable files, why not make it more like a filesystem with more granular control over sharing. I know that this would not be a high priority as most companies would have a problem with keeping their corporate documents in an off site repository – but its an idea that has got legs for a lot of SMEs who would use the version management, audit trail and backup capability of Google to give them a huge leg up. The cost of implementing those tools in the enterprise reliably is very high – even with FUD tools like Sharepoint.This would also align with the web only approach of Google, allowing for more and more web 2.0 friendly viewers for different doc formats to come online as time progressed – and possibly editors. Imagine if you could use something like Gliffy to view and edit your Visio documents online, or a DXF editor to allow for model touch-ups when you are on location. 

    This is why my original critique of Google Docs still holds true – there needs to be a central place for file management, not just one kind of file – it is too disjointed to be a reliable solution for business insofar as being a document management system – and it is not reliable, compatable or complete enough to be a replacement for Microsoft Office. It is still looking for a home…

 Well there you go, our thoughts on getting Google Apps to the next level.