Mint Comes to Android

Mint, the popular personal finance service that aggregates data from all your online banking and investment accounts, just announced the launch of its Android app. The application offers roughly the same features as the company's popular iPhone app, but it also features a number of Android-specific features, including integrated search, a Mint.com widget and support for Android notifications. The new app is compatible with phones running versions 1.5, 1.6 and 2.0 of the Android OS.

Just like Mint's iPhone app, the Android app allows users to check their current account balances in real-time, check up on recent transactions and manage their monthly budgets.

All of this highly personal data is password-protected and if the phone is lost or stolen, users can easily disable access remotely from the service's website.

Given the Android platform's recent surge in popularity, adding an Android app to Mint's lineup of mobile apps was probably a no-brainer for Intuit, which acquired Mint in September 2009. According to Intuit, Mint currently has about 3 million users and given the service's demographics, many of these are likely smartphone users.

 

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/mint_comes_to_android.php

Who's Your Favorite Game Developer? IBM?

At the Impact Conference in Las Vegas, IBM unveiled CityOne, a "serious game" devoted to civic problem solving.

The game "can help customers, business partners and students discover how to make cities and their industries smarter by solving real-world business, environmental and logistical problems," according to IBM. Quite a claim.

The game objective is to pass through a series of SimCity style challenges in your city, addressing energy, water, financing and so on. IBM gives one example of the sort of issue a player might face.

"(O)ne mission involves a city where water usage has increased at twice the rate of population growth, supplies are becoming strained (and possibly polluted); the municipality is losing as much as 40 percent of its water supply through leaky infrastructure; and energy costs are steadily increasing. To complete this mission, the player would be challenged to institute a Water Management System that would include accurate real time data to make decisions on delivering the highest water quality in the most economical way."

The company has used gaming before in an attempt to give its customers a leg-up, especially in mastering business processes. It points out the utility in game-style training in the military and athletics. The dynamic and immersive nature of gaming has long been appealing to educators. The association of through-play satisfaction with IBM could not hurt either, presumably.

Bottom photo from Fotosaula

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/whos_your_favorite_game_developer_ibm.php

iPad Wi-Fi + 3G Available Today in the U.S.

If you were patient enough to hold out on the wave of iPad releases, and if you specifically wanted to grab a 3G-capable model, then today is probably already clearly marked on your calendar. That’s because it’s April 30th, the official release date of the iPad Wi-Fi + 3G in the U.S.

Customers who originally pre-ordered before Apple’s recent cut-off date should expect their iPads to arrive in the mail today, or you can try your luck with retail stores, which are going to be selling the new iPads beginning at 5 p.m.. today. Pre-orders for the Wi-Fi + 3G models were originally lower in volume than those for the WiFi-only version, so it’ll be interesting to see what the response is like at brick-and-mortar retail.

I personally am also very interested in seeing how soon unofficial sales start across the border here in Canada. Following the launch of the original Wi-Fi model, you could buy one the same day at a not completely ridiculous markup, so I predict the same thing this time around. Of course, international iPad users won’t yet be able to get 3G service, since no deals or pricing have been announced with carriers yet, but presumably the devices will work fine with those networks late in May when the Wi-Fi + 3G iPad ships worldwide.

Don’t just show up at the Apple store this morning expecting to pick up a new iPad, though. The launch is scheduled for 5 p.m., and Apple stores across the country are closing down between 4 and 5 specifically to set up for the launch. It’s odd timing, and will no doubt cause some confusion at retail sites in terms of people coming by too early, but Apple must have a reason for not just starting the shopping day with the iPads on the shelves. Whatever the case, expect a lot of confused customers being ushered out the doors at 4 p.m. who are oblivious to the product launch.

The 3G capability is a killer feature for the iPad, in my opinion. Undoubtedly the iPad’s UI is a hit with consumers, as is the user experience in general, but the ability to remain connected while traveling, be it just around town or internationally (as international providers become available) elevates the device from being an amazing entertainment and media player to a lifestyle changer, in terms of both work and play.

Are you getting one? Does your local Apple Store have stock? Is there a lineup? Are you upgrading from a Wi-Fi only model? Let us know your thoughts on all things 3G iPad in the comments.

 

http://theappleblog.com/2010/04/30/ipad-wi-fi-3g-available-today-in-the-u-s/

iPad Disassembly by TechRestore

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs79QEbWrLc

iPad 3G gets torn down

Desperate to see what’s under the smooth exterior of your new iPad 3G but don’t want to crack it open and void the warranty? Fear not, friend. iFixit has done the dirty work (very cleanly, I might add) and taken the iPod touch jumbo edition to pieces. There aren’t a lot of surprises, but hey, it’s Saturday afternoon and you want to see the guts of an expensive gadget. Get another cup of coffee.

The internals really are very similar to the vanilla iPad’s — the main difference is the communications board, sporting all the fun 3G elements and the A-GPS module. The chips and parts are listed in the teardown if you’re thinking of tinkering. Personally, I wonder whether a modified Wi-Fi antenna might be a worthwhile modification.

And don’t forget that iFixit now has a whole other reason for being. Contribute if you can.

 

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/05/01/ipad-3g-gets-torn-down/

Steve Jobs Speaks: Why We Don't Allow Flash on iPhones and iPads

We were surprised to find a long missive penned by Apple's CEO Steve Jobs posted to the Web this morning. The subject? Why Apple hates Adobe Flash. Ever since the Cupertino-based company opted to reject the plugin-based technology on the iPhone and its Wi-Fi-only companion, the iPod Touch, people have questioned and debated not just the decision itself, but the reasoning behind it. Was Flash buggy? Was is a matter of it being a proprietary product? Did it use too much CPU? The answer, as explained by Jobs in rich detail, is all of the above.

Why No Flash? The Bullet Points

In a lengthy piece posted here: http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash, Steve Jobs explains all the reasons why Flash is not allowed on its mobile lineup, which now includes the slate computer called the iPad as well.

Much of what he says has already been suspected to be the case. Technology pundits have (correctly) reasoned that there isn't just one reason why Flash is not permitted in the Apple mobile ecosystem - there are several.

To sum up quickly (the full release is below), Jobs says this of Flash:

1. It's proprietary.
2. Most Web video plays on the iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad
3. Who needs Flash games? We have apps for that.
4. Flash has poor security.
5. Flash doesn't perform well on mobile devices.
6. Flash negatively affects battery life.
7. Flash was designed for PCs, not touchscreens.

Jobs also addresses the recent decision to ban apps built with Adobe's iPhone-app-creation tool, a tool that allowed Adobe Flash developers to write iPhone apps using the skills they already had and then export those apps to an iPhone/iPad-compatible format. Says Jobs:

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. [...] This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor's platforms.

Does Google Scare Apple?

The deeper question that remains unanswered in this missive is: Why now? That is, why share all these thoughts now after remaining silent for so long?

Like the reasons for banning Flash, the reasons for Jobs revealing these sentiments are also multi-layered. For starters, there's the iPad. Positioned as a netbook replacement, the device functions in an unchartered, in-between zone where website owners aren't sure whether to display a mobile site or a regular site to iPad Web surfers... or maybe just build an app. That decision is made even more difficult as developers must debate whether to build an iPad-friendly website where the Flash content is rendered in another iPad-compatible format or removed entirely. Or again, should they build an app? Or both?

Despite "leading the way" to the new tablet era, the iPad will soon go up against a number of other tablet PCs running everything from Windows 7 to Google's mobile operating system, Android, and even an OS called Google Chrome OS, built on top of Linux but with the Chrome web browser as the only interface. An important side note here: Google has now partnered with Adobe to bundle Flash Player into its Web browser. Buggy or not, Google's position appears to be that "the most widely used web browser plug-in" (a quote from Google's VP of engineering, Linus Upson) should be made available to users, not kept from them.

Another issue that may have influenced the timing of this post: After the news about the Chrome/Flash partnership efforts, Google's Andy Rubin told the New York Times just this week that Google's Android mobile OS, currently the fastest-growing OS on the market thanks to numerous OEM partnerships, will receive full support for Adobe Flash in the next release, code-named Froyo (yes, for frozen yogurt - Google likes its desserts) and rumored to be released at the upcoming Google I/O Conference.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this: Apple is eschewing Flash in favor of open Web standards - most notably, HTML5, the upcoming version of the Web markup language that allows plugin-free video viewing. Google, however, is in favor of giving people what they want, says Rubin. "When they can't have something, people do care," he told the Times.

Now it's up to the consumers to vote with their wallets to declare a winner. An open OS with a closed, proprietary standard? Or a closed OS with support for open standards? What will you choose?

Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe's founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20% of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times. Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers - Mac users buy around half of Adobe's Creative Suite products - but beyond that there are few joint interests.

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe's Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven - they say we want to protect our App Store - but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there's "Open".

Adobe's Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript - all open standards. Apple's mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android's browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft's uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there's the "full web".

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access "the full web" because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don't say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web's video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren't missing much video.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

Third, there's reliability, security and performance.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don't want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we're glad we didn't hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

Fourth, there's battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 - an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Fifth, there's Touch.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on "rollovers", which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple's revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn't use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn't support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor's platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe's goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple's platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

Our motivation is simple - we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins - we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era - for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards - all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple's mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple's App Store proves that Flash isn't necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs

April, 2010

 

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/steve_jobs_speaks_why_we_dont_allow_flash_on_iphone_and_ipadp2.php

Underwritten Surveys About Cloud Computing Add To Hype

You need to be really careful from what you gleam out of a survey about cloud computing. Especially when it is underwritten by a company that is a SaaS provider.

It's not to say that results are irrelevant but often these surveys are meant as public relations efforts more than anything else. We would not ordinarily call something out like this but it's evident of a trend that we know is an issue. Cloud hype is still alive and well. Underwritten surveys only add to the chorus.

In this case, the Sandhill Group released a survey of more than 100 software CEO and CFO's who say they see a return to pre-recession levels this year thanks in good part to cloud computing. Intacct underwrote the survey. Intacct is a SaaS company providing on-demand financial applications for businesses and CPA firms.

The results show particular strength in the small business sector. According to Sandhill, small businesses are adopting cloud computing at twice the rate of large companies.

We'd like to note that the Sandhill Group looks like a respected organization. It publishes reports and conducts conferences. They feature vendors in Op-Ed columns. These perspectives have their own importance and need to be taken into consideration when viewed in context of a survey such as the one here in question.

According to Information Week SMB, the findings from the Sandhill survey also showed:

• 44% see on-demand cloud and SaS models as the method most customers prefer to software purchasing
• Only 43% indicated plans to add SaaS and cloud offerings, though that's tempered by the 53% who already have offer a cloud or SaaS model
• 63% use an on-demand or SaaS pricing model
• 10% use a cloud-computing or pay-per use pricing model
• 60% or more of vertical software providers use on-demand SaaS pricing
• 60% of more of the infrastructure and security firms use traditional software licenses

It looks like some of the respondents were also SaaS providers, which again points to the issues with these kinds of underwritten surveys.

You just can't view underwritten surveys as gospel, especially when they add to the hype that sometimes seems like a deafening roar in the cloud world.

 

http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/2010/04/underwritten-surveys-about-clo.php?utm_source=ReadWriteCloud&utm_medium=rwchomepage&utm_campaign=ReadWriteCloud_posts&utm_content=Underwritten%20Surveys%20About%20Cloud%20Computing%20Add%20To%20Hype