Steve’s untimely death reminds us we can never give up. He could have given up at any point in the seven years since his first cancer diagnosis, but he did not. The vast majority of Apple’s unprecedented resurgence took place while Steve Jobs stared death in the face. How many of us could have lasted this long at all, let alone accomplish all that he did along the way?
Posts
What was wrong with Samsung’s Galaxy S4 keynote? Everything.
March 15th, 2013Samsung really screwed up with its Galaxy S4 presentation. It was absolutely horrible and full of bad taste to the point it was sad. If they’d learn one thing from Apple, that should be product keynotes. Clearly, they didn’t.

There was a lack of focus on product. Key features (eg: CPU) weren’t announced at all while the ones which actually did, were presented in a truly ambiguous fashion. It was all a big performance (tap dancing kid, really?)—only without substance. In certain parts it looked like the whole show was taken directly from the Jersey Shore series. Ouch.
Compared to the PS4 keynote, Samsung failed even by Sony’s standards. The phone got barely introduced and demoed in a meaningful way. (Forget Broadway for a moment, folks.)
Samsung showed its true (horrendous) culture today—that it has no culture, no passion for building great products and, of course, no taste. Brute force advertising won’t get you far in the long run, though.
Regarding the actual phone: I wasn’t amused. Nothing significant or exciting. (Hey, the early ‘00s called and want their infrared back.) After Samsung copied Apple’s industrial design, Samsung now copies Cupertino’s marketing, too. Yearly incremental updates. “Tick: Galaxy SIII, tock: Galaxy S4″—The Verge communicates it better.
Keeping this in mind, the last six months were indeed hard and raised reasonable concerns for Apple. I had my doubts (which spanned across more than 1,400 words.) But today, thanks to this keynote, I’m more sure than ever about Apple’s (and by extent, the iPhone’s) future. Thanks, Samsung, for showing your true self.
One more thing…
It’s important to point out that neither Google nor Android got mentioned even once during the keynote. It’s the start of The Great Android Cold War—manufacturers like Samsung and HTC want to differentiate from Google’s content and apps monopoly by creating their own stores and OS features and to ditch native Android ones. It wasn’t the first time ‘Android’ didn’t come up in a keynote; HTC called it first at their HTC One introduction. Don’t be surprised if Samsung and HTC build, eventually, their own OSs.
Steve looks down from his buddhist iCloud and laughs, laughs, laughs.
Google kills Google Reader
March 14th, 2013The news broke on Twitter: Google is closing Google Reader. People overreacted since t=0; some did voice opinions of reason while some got taken away by their wrath against Google. Frankly, I’m not that broken up. I’ll explain myself.
The context behind RSS
In April 17, 2012 I was writing the following:
[Twitter is instant] RSS is not instant, yet it is contemporary. Twitter is like Reuters and Associated Press; RSS is like Time and The Economist (or any other similar media outlet based on your interests.) A good curated news platform.
It is a bitter truth but Twitter clearly killed RSS. Mainly because of time relevancy (“insant vs contemporary”), social and sharing context. We must accept this—it happened. The average Internet user didn’t know what RSS or Atom is and couldn’t bother learn it. That’s why RSS couldn’t get mass adoption. It felt weird despite syndication as a notion and practice being extremely well-known and used by many in great scale.
Reader’s shutdown is both ex– and unexpected. Expected because, let’s face it: it never took off with mass adoption as a product in Google’s online suite. Unexpected because we, geeks, knew that Google knew how beloved this product was in our niche. But this is business, not a charity.
All in all, though, RSS is not dead. There are many people who still use it as their medium of choice for receiving news and keeping track with selected blogs and websites—there’s evidence for that thanks to @asteris‘ Storify. And they’re vocal about it. But not being dead doesn’t necessarily mean one is alive and healthy. I think RSS is in some kind of zombie status. Semi-dead, semi-alive. We all loved it (and still do—RSS is the reason the blogosphere took off and why many blogs got substantial readership, this one included. I still remember the 2008 days.) but the majority of us moved on to other media which were not RSS competitors but did the same thing better.
Why I’m not mad at Google and some youthful optimism
Reason #1
As said: this is business, not a charity. Google is a for profit company with discrete and specific goals and a certain path to meet them. We can’t be emotional or hold Google morally responsible because it kills a product. It’s so kindergarten.
Reason #2
Your data is still free and Google’s a safe place for it. They still offer export features of your .xml RSS data. If they didn’t offer an export feature, only then it’d be vendor lock-in. And it’s hard to suppose that even if they were to close Google Drive they wouldn’t also offer an export feature. This isn’t a small startup, it’s a public company.
Reason #3
When Google Reader came into existence it nearly killed all desktop RSS clients. “Client innovation completely stopped for a few years until iOS made it a market again — but every major iOS RSS client is still dependent on Google Reader for feed crawling and sync.” says Marco Arment, Instapaper founder. And he continues, “It may suck in the interim before great alternatives mature and become widely supported, but in the long run, trust me: this is excellent news.” I have to agree. There’s a great market out there—remember RSS is not dead, Google Reader is.
Marco’s long run is what I call youthful optimism. Now is the time to innovate, build and challenge the publishing status quo. If you’re into RSS, that is.
The current state of mobile; the war and future of Apple, Google
January 29th, 2013Google is exciting now. iOS is losing ground to Android while the latter has seen many innovations and progress over the past few years enabling it to directly compete with the former. In the meantime, Apple hasn’t shown us any substantial upgrades on its software and hardware products while Google is at the forefront of. The race is tight.
It’s time to finally acknowledge this publicly. “This” — an unspoken concern rooted approximately since October 2012 in almost every conversation about the state of mobile OSes I’ve had the pleasure to have with friends. “This” — that Apple has lost “something” and just can’t perform anymore.
In other words: “Apple’s biggest problem: Google is getting better at design faster than Apple is getting better at web services.”
Truth be told, Apple performs. In fact, it performs better than any other enterprise in the recorded history of the Free Market system—ever. It seems this isn’t enough though, as it is widely considered that Apple reached its peak of huge growth, profits and products which start new industries and disrupt already existing ones. Products which are considered not only innovative but exceptional.
Android has seen many substantial upgrades the past few years while iOS hasremained stagnant apart for the incremental updates over time. By no means, though, is Android mature enough to be considered a true alternative to iOS; a product which can compete with iOS outside the realm of market share and other trivial statistics. iOS is (still) better. And probably will be. Even by a small margin, unless either a) you consider features such as sharing a photo to multiple apps from a single menu really important or b) Apple gets (for an unknown reason) to drop its immense focus on iOS while unicorns are spotted in the Cupertino campus. It’s safe to make an educated guess: b) will not happen.
While Android will face challenges, it has two distinct advantages courtesy of Google: data and Google Now (essentially, data in a more beautiful and useful way.) It’s amazing what you can do with Google Now. It is clear that Google Now outperforms Siri easily. Adding Fandango integration (Apple launched iOS 6.1 as I was writing this) looks great and thank you but it’s not something truly innovative. It’s not something I genuinely care about. It’s not a game changer.
Generally, data is Google’s biggest and most dangerous weapon against Apple. In fact, Apple doesn’t even have substantial data—it merely owns the “pipes” data gets transmitted. iTunes & credit cards are valuable but a credit card represents a small fraction of the “set of all my data,” eg. location (mobile phone), social graph (Gmail/Google+), knowledge graph (Search), routes & traffic (extension of location), and the list goes on.
Apple could capitalize its vast credit cards/payments data by buying Square (such rumours surface from time to time) and offer the best experience for offline shopping from both the consumer and retailers’ point of view. One could consider such a move a Google Now competitor in terms of data competenency among the two companies.
While Google knows you, Apple knows your wallet.
Speaking of possibilites, Google Glass is the next big step for Google. I cannot predict if it can generate revenues for Google but from a product and tech perspective it is one of the most truly exciting things out there. And it can easily integrate with Google’s data pool, hence capitalize both and push “personalization” to a whole new level. It can be what Siri was supposed to be and something more than that. For every possible situation, you will not have to find your phone, reach for it, open and speak at it—you will wear Google Glass. Google Glass will be everywhere with you.
But most importantly, Google Glass will be a landmark event in Google’s history. It will depict the transition between a web/software company, from producing stuff that “doesn’t exist,” to stuff that does actually exist, and not only exists, but helps our lives, too; a company that can have a long and prosperous future. This event enables Google to capitalize a lot more on its data: use it as a generator of products both of software and hardware nature. And hardware might be a hard problem to tackle, but even at the early stages of Google Glass, we see that Google can indeed tackle it. To add to the aforementioned transition point, there is also the Google Driverless car coming. But since Google’s car is something completely different allow me not to elaborate on it.
What lies ahead
The following are by no means predictions, nor should they be taken as such.
For starters, it is exciting to see Jony Ive having more control on Apple’s design. Both on software (iOS 7, possibly?) and hardware (new desktops/laptops/Apple TV?). He’s a symbol of hope that Apple can produce something radically better than any other company out there, something that will not only ‘wow’ customers but change the status quo.
Regarding mobile, iOS can definitely see more upgrades. I don’t think a complete UI revamp can pull it off, although it has remained the same since the iPhone’s launch. We all know Ive doesn’t like the recent skeuomorphism but I don’t think a) he will drastically change it and, b) even if he does, this alone doesn’t implies a great new upgrade. On a related note, the recent iTunes redesign was sucessful. This shows Apple is still on top of its game.
One of the most famous stories by Steve Jobs was how he reduced the product line Apple offered and grouped them in discrete categories. That’s not the case any more since there are too many iPads, MacBook Pro’s and Apple stuff in general out there. But such a wide product range is well-received by the Street mainly because Apple has more margins to receive a profit from, even when some devices (eg. iPad Mini) offer smaller ones.
Apple has to figure out a better iCloud infrastructure and also reduce its downtime. Users don’t trust it yet for data storage unless it’s about the Photo Stream (which also has some usability problems,) contacts sync and device backups. Much alike Square, Dropbox could also be (actually, already was) in Apple’s shopping list but such a scenario—a Dropbox exit to Apple—is a scenario I wouldn’t like to see played out.
Most importantly, though, Apple has to offer something that can compete with Google Now. It (Google Now) might not yet be big, but as said, it is one of Google’s biggest assets, as is the data behind it. Clearly, Siri hasn’t lived up to the expectations yet. Speaking of shopping lists: Apple could acquire PlaceMe, a startup about background location and personal data associated with it, like traffic routes, where you live, where you work, what kinds of things you are likely to buy inside stores, etc. It has been dubbed by Scoble as one of the startups that cross the “freaky line.” An exit of PlaceMe to Apple would make sense.
On the other hand, Google gets to be exciting again. Mainly because its vast pool of data about every single one of us allows it to easily enter the “contextual” age. It still needs to be proven though with great products. But the company from Mountain View is definitely at the right direction with Now, Glass and Driverless car.
Specifically for Android, while it has the best integration with Google’s suits of tools (Cpt. Obvious reference here) and data associated with it, I do think it still needs work on its UI and UX front. It would be nice to see bit more tighter enforced Play store rules, mainly to protect users from malicious software (which appears often in the news) while maintaining the essence of an open platform.
Android lacks quality (and perhaps will continue doing so) compared to iOS. That’s what Google has to improve and fight for.
Google is exciting now. It is exciting because of the promise it carries, a promise of the open web and data that can help our daily lives in a much broader scope. And, personally, that gets me excited as well. Although I haven’t lost hope for Apple. And — I guess, I won’t. Its deep in Apple’s DNA to offer distinctly better products than the competition.
(Thanks to @zacoppotamus, @kpvl and @dkalo for proofreading this post.)