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

As iPad Popularity Grows, So Does Its Hacker Appeal

Apple’s impressive growth as a company is a good thing for end users in a number of ways. Apple has more money to spend on innovative new product designs, for example, and its easier to get service and support for your products, not to mention software and accessories.

The iPad has been a pretty big success so far, especially for a category-busting product. But investors and Apple users aren’t the only ones to have taken note of the product’s success. The iPad is now being used as scam bait to sucker in people who might not be that familiar with the warning signs of internet scams, which, not coincidentally, is just who the iPad seems directed at as a device.

So far, the scam only works on Windows PCs, but even if you’re a Mac-using iPad owner, make sure any friends and relatives using the other platform are aware of the ruse. Basically, you get an email telling you that iTunes needs to be updated in order to update your iPad device, and provides a link to the software in question.

Of course, instead of taking you to some kind of iTunes download, the link instead opens up a direct line to their sensitive information, if accessed via a PC. Specifically, the malware in question is Backdoor.Bifrose.AADY, which uses Internet Explorer to open a back door on your system and look around for software serial numbers and login data, including usernames and passwords for various sites.

People on Macs or other Apple platforms, like the iPad and iPhone, won’t be affected at all by following the link, but obviously it’s never a good idea to open suspicious links in emails in case that changes in future versions of the scam.

At least for now, the iPad itself hasn’t been a target for hackers and/or malicious code. Apple’s securely locked down content distribution system in the form of the App Store really helps things there, but it’s only a matter of time before it becomes a target in a big way, and this attack is the first sign of why that’s a dangerous prospect. You’ve no doubt seen the articles about people picking up the iPad as their first ever computer. That category of user is the ideal candidate for malicious software, since they’ve yet to experience the nasty side of the Internet and don’t have any built-in defenses against these types of scams.

The iPad is raising Apple’s profile, and that means trouble for those uneducated about Internet security risks. It could also mean problems for all Mac users in the long run, as the iPad draws more people to OS X in the same way the iPod and iPhone did before it. But for now, it’s still the most secure platform around, so enjoy it while it lasts.

 

http://theappleblog.com/2010/04/27/as-ipad-popularity-grows-so-does-its-hacker-appeal/

Mozilla Officially Unveils A Pre-Alpha Test Version Of Firefox For Android

Late last month, a number of sites noted that a very early build of Fennec, the mobile version of Firefox, was available to download for Android phones. However, that build wasn’t official as it was put together by an individual and optimized for the Droid device. Today, Mozilla has itself put out a pre-Alpha build of Fennec that should work at the very least on Droid and the Nexus One.

Mozilla is quick to note that this is a pre-Alpha build of the browser, and is only for testing purposes. But that isn’t stopping Mozilla’s Vladimir Vukićević from announcing it on his blog. “There also aren’t yet any automated nightly developer builds or automated updates to this build; it’s even more of a pre-nightly build (even earlier than pre-alpha).  But, it’s usable enough that we wanted to get some feedback on it as we continue to develop,” he notes.

To get this build, you can visit this link on your Android device. Or you can point your phone’s browser to: bit.ly/fennec-android. And yes, there’s a QR code on Vukićević’s blog post if you want to scan it, and download it that way. Whichever way you do it, you’ll need to make sure your settings allow you to install non-Market apps (go to Settings, Applications, and check “Unknown Sources”).

Some other warnings and notes to consider about the build from Vukićević:

• We’ve only really tested this on the Motorola Droid and the Nexus One.
• It will likely not eat your phone, but bugs might cause your phone to stop responding, requiring a reboot.
• Memory usage of this build isn’t great — in many ways it’s a debug build, and we haven’t really done a lot of optimization yet.  This could cause some problems with large pages, especially on low memory devices like the Droid.
• You’ll see the app exit and relaunch on first start, as well as on add-on installs; this is a quirk of our install process, and we’re working to get rid of it.
• You can’t open links from other apps using Fennec; we should have this for the next build.

He also notes that there’s an experimental version of Weave, Mozilla’s syncing tool that will work with this pre-Alpha build of Fennec. Visit this page and click on the “Experimental version” to find it.

Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/27/fennec-firefox-android/#ixzz0mMrcQ7nl

AdMob Report: One Third Of Android Phones Account For 96 Percent Of Traffic, Motorola Droid Takes The Lead

Mobile Ad Network AdMob has released its monthly mobile metrics report for March, which takes a close look at Android OS traffic. In March 2010, there were 34 Android devices from 12 manufacturers available to consumers. In AdMob’s network in March 2010, 11 devices accounted for 96 percent of Android traffic, up from two devices in September 2009. The three primary versions of the Android OS all drove significant traffic in March 2010 – Android 1.5 (38 percent), Android 2.0/2.1 (35 percent) and Android 1.6 (26 percent). Motorola and HTC were the leading Android device manufacturers with 44 percent and 43 percent of respective traffic.

According to AdMob, Motorola Droid was the leading Android handset in March 2010 generating 32 percent of Android traffic, while the Google Nexus One drove only two percent of Android traffic. It’s surprising that Google’s Nexus one generates so little traffic, considering Google’s claims of profitability and success from the device.

At least 54 percent of Android traffic came from devices with a QWERTY keyboard, says the report. Of course, only three devices – the iPhone 3GS (39 percent), second generation iPod touch (25 percent) and iPhone 3G (20 percent) – generated 84 percent of total iPhone OS traffic. iPhone 3GS traffic share has increased from 30 percent in September 2009 to 39 percent in March 2010. The 1st Generation iPhone only generated 2 percent of iPhone OS requests in March 2010. Total worldwide traffic in AdMob’s network increased 18 percent month-over-month.

The report of course highlights that diversity of devices in the Android ecosystem, with manufactures each creating and launching devices with diffferent form factors, capabilities, and OS versions over the past seven months. In contrast, the iPhone OS runs on devices from a single manufacturer, a single form factor (until the launch of the iPad in April), and all devices have the ability to upgrade OS versions.

The Android ecosystem is steadily growing, with the App market now counting 38,000 plus apps, up 8000 apps from a month ago. Of course this pales in comparison to Apple’s booming App Store.

The small share of traffic from Google Nexus One phones isn’t surprising, when you take into account this report from Flurry, which reported low Nexus One sales. In fact, there’s been a lot of talk about how the Nexus One’s initial roll-out has been a flop. But only weeks ago, Google claimed profitability for the device and painted a rosy picture for the Nexus One’s growth and future.

AdMob and Google may be in a bit of a pickle. The FTC is reportedly gearing up to challenge the Google-AdMob deal, due to anti-trust regulations The search giant acquired the popular mobile advertising network for $750 million last Fall. Reports emerged a few weeks ago that the FTC’s lawyers will recommend that the Commission block the deal. We’re not surprised, considering that we heard that Google was taking the unprecedented step of reaching out to AdMob competitors to rally their support around their acquisition of the company, in response to rumors that the FTC could block the deal. Consumer groups have also lobbied to block the deal.

Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/27/admob-report-11-devices-account-for-96-percent-of-android-traffic-motorola-droid-takes-the-lead/#ixzz0mMr0I8ke

AdMob: Android Passes iPhone Web Traffic In U.S.

As we noted earlier, mobile ad network AdMob has released its monthly mobile metrics report for March, which takes a close look at Android OS traffic. One interesting stat that was hidden in the report was that Android ad traffic overtook iPhone traffic in the U.S. for the month of March.

According to the report, Android traffic in the U.S. increased to 46 percent of operating system share compared to 39 percent for the iPhone operating system. Worldwide, the iPhone OS still took the top spot, taking 46 percent of the OS share, with Android phones seeing 25 percent of impressions. AdMob measures mobile ad impressions, which is a proxy for overall traffic.

The Android ecosystem is steadily growing, with the App market counting 38,000 plus apps as of a few weeks ago, up 8000 apps from a month ago. This still pales in comparison to Apple’s booming App Store, but it seems pretty significant that one of the most popular mobile ad networks is reporting that Android ad traffic has surpassed that of the iPhone. Of course, Admob is still waiting for regulatory approval of its $750 million deal to be acquired by Google, so maybe it doesn’t want to call too much attention to how well Android is doing.

Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/27/admob-android-passes-iphone-web-traffic-in-u-s/#ixzz0mMpQyTsk

GM Reimagines Head-up Display Technology Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e1bceFDtQ0&feature=player_embedded

5 Ways That Cars Are Getting Smarter

In the emerging Internet of Things, everyday objects are becoming networked. Recently we looked at smart clothing, today we explore the world of smart cars. From Formula One to cheap family cars, all kinds of vehicles are utilizing sensors and advanced technology nowadays. While some of the features we discuss below aren't connected to the Internet, yet, all of them are using sensors. And so we can easily imagine the day when most cars are connected to the network.

We begin our post looking at the state of the art in car sensor technology: Formula One manufacturer McLaren's 300 live, simultaneous data streams. We end with a look at family car Alhambra's more humble sensor technology. In between we have the latest from Chrysler, General Motors and Ford.

300 Sensors on a Formula One Car

The latest McLaren Formula One car, as driven by current world champion Jenson Button, relies on feedback during the race from 300 data streams - via miniaturized sensors on the car and the driver. This data tells Button's team how well he and his car are performing. This system is called "live telemetry" and it sends data such as the heart rate of the driver and the fuel level in the car.

This same technology is now being implemented in healthcare. Explained the Times Online:

"If we can track the heart rate of an elite athlete, why not also track the heart rate of a patient recovering from a heart attack? If, for instance, a patient is released from hospital having suffered a heart problem, the McLaren technology can employ wireless sensors the size of sticking plasters that will send, via the internet to the doctor or clinician responsible, a continuous record of the patient's heart rate and electrocardiogram, the graph that monitors the heartbeat."

NASA Technology in Chrysler Cars

Perhaps in a bid to out-do Formula One, Chrysler is tapping into space travel technology!

According to a recent press release from NASA, it is partnering with Chrysler to "use technologies originally developed for human spaceflight to enhance future vehicles and adapt advanced automotive technology for use in space." The two organizations will share information about mobility systems, wireless technologies, robotics, energy storage, radar, materials engineering, and battery systems.

Chrysler said that it plans to use NASA's research in surface navigation sensors for backup warning systems, lane departure warning systems and adaptive cruise control.

GM's Augmented Reality Car

In an article entitled What You'll See In The Future, AOL Auto looks at the latest advances in car cameras and sensors. Side-view cameras, currently available on some up-market vehicles, can be used to assist parking and as "advanced systems that help spot vehicles in your blindspots." Sensors on the side of the car are also used for lane departure warning systems, which "monitor lane lines and alert a driver when he or she inadvertently crosses those lines."

Another use for external cameras and sensors, writes AOL Auto's Frank Filipponio, is forward vision enhancement. Last month ReadWriteWeb wrote about a new General Motors technology that will bring AR to car windshields and provide a heads-up-display (HUD) experience. Here's a video showcasing this "enhanced vision system" of General Motors:

Ford's Voice Controlled Car

Last week we reported on the latest update to Ford's Sync system, a voice-controlled connectivity system. Sync allows drivers to use voice commands to do things like place a call or control their music playlists.

With Sync AppLink, Ford introduced a new platform that allows developers to offer voice controls for their mobile apps on Sync-enabled cars. The first Sync-enabled applications, which will be available later this year, are Pandora, Stitcher, and Orangatame's OpenBreak Twitter app. The first car to feature this new service will be the 2011 Ford Fiesta.

Opposite End of Car Spectrum: The Alhambra

To show that even cheaper models of cars are getting sensor technology, let's look at the latest model of the Alhambra - a Spanish MPV car (Multi-Purpose Vehicle). The Alhambra was described by British car guide Whatcar? as "cheap to buy, comfy for seven and good to drive."

The latest model comes with "bi-xenon headlamps with adaptive control and full beam assistant." This works via a sensor, which "detects oncoming vehicles and automatically dips the beam."

Another new feature is "the park/steer assistant, which autonomously manoeuvres the Alhambra into tight parking spaces - even perpendicular to the direction of travel."

While the Alhambra may sound humble compared to Formula One's sensor technology, or Chrysler's deal with NASA, it shows that even the most basic of cars is using sensors - which will inexorably lead to an Internet of Things.

 

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/5_ways_that_cars_are_getting_smarter.php

Wi-Fi Sync: Wirelessly sync your iPhone with iTunes

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ7xn86Zwyo&feature=player_embedded#!

Wireless iPod/iPhone/iPad Syncing Is Awesome — Too Bad It Will Likely Be Rejected [Video]

 

Basically, since its initial launch, one of the most annoying things about the iPod (and now iPhone, iPad, etc) is that you have to plug it into your computer via USB to sync it. Sure, this also allows you to recharge your device, but I’d love to say, charge it in a holder next to my bed (since I also use it as an alarm) and wirelessly sync it over WiFi. A new app allows you to do that. Too bad it’s likely to be rejected.

As you can see in the video below, WiFi Sync allows you to do exactly what the name promises. Once you complete a few steps to authenticate your iPod/iPhone and then your computer, you can begin syncing wirelessly. It just works. The problem, of course, that Apple is likely to have with it is unauthorized interaction with their software, iTunes.

Undoubtedly, if Apple wanted to include such a feature in iPod touches/iPhones/iPads they would have already. It would seem that technology isn’t an issue, but there may be other things at play, such as security, and speed. While security is debatable, speed is definitely a big plus for using USB (2.0) versus WiFi as one transfers data at nearly 500 Mbps, while the other would transfer data at just a fraction of that. (Obviously it would vary based on technology — 802.11n versus 802.11g, etc — and distance from the router.)

Something else to think about: when Apple inevitably does move iTunes to the cloud, syncing their devices wirelessly will be pretty much a necessity. Perhaps Apple is just waiting for that and enjoying the big USB bandwidth until then.

Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/26/wireless-sync-ipod/#ixzz0mH4cwoT0

Basic Cloud Computing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RMWO9JxZjA&feature=related

Salesforce.com: What is Cloud Computing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae_DKNwK_ms&NR=1

Cloud Computing Explained

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

‘클라우드 컴퓨팅’과 ‘스마트폰’ 이야기

이 기사를 읽어보면 마치 구글과 애플의 전쟁인 듯 느껴집니다만, 구글이 승리를 예감하는 이야기입니다. 안드로이드 OS를 개방한 구글은 Web 2.0, SaaS(software as a service)와 같이 최근 잘 알려진 기술 경향들과 연관성을 가지는 일반화된 개념으로서 사용자들의 컴퓨팅 요구를 만족시키기 위해 인터넷을 이용하며 결국 구글의 검색과 광고 수익을 보장할 수 있는 최고정점에 구글을 위치 시킬 수 있는 것입니다. 반면 앱스토어 등 다양한 어플리케이션과 놀라운 사용자 인터페이스를 자랑하는 애플은 제조업체 등과의 호환 문제점을 가지고 있습니다.

‘그리드 컴퓨팅(Grid Computing)’과  같은 개념에서 출발한 ‘클라우드 컴퓨팅(Clouding computing)’도 마찬가지 입니다. "클라우드 컴퓨팅이란, 인터넷 기술을 활용하여 가상화된 IT자원을 서비스로 제공하는 컴퓨팅으로, 사용자는 IT자원을 필요한 만큼 팔려서 사용하고, 사용한 만큼 비용을 지불하는 컴퓨팅을 지칭한다." 

<클라우딩 컴퓨팅 분석 : 박근채, 백승욱>

 

클라우드 컴퓨팅은 IaaS(Infrastructure as a Service), PaaS(Platform as a Service),  SaaS(Software as A Service) 등의 중요한 개념이 있어 사용자는 인터넷 이용에 대단한 효율성을 가지게 만들어 줍니다. 당연히 SaaS 개념과 같이 소프트웨어는 최소화된 서비스의 개념으로 이해가 돼야 합니다.

 

 

이들의 장점과 단점, 그리고 보안

스마트폰, 클라우드 컴퓨팅 등은 모두 효율성(Efficiency)을 극대화하는데 초점이 있습니다. 경제는 정치와 연관하여 효율성과 공평성의 조화이라고 합니다. 효율성이 모든 인간사회에서 중요합니다.

에릭 슈미츠 구글 CEO는 지난해 말 한 포럼에서 "5년 후 10억 명이 주머니에 슈퍼컴퓨터를 넣고 다닐 것"이라고 말했습니다.

‘안드로이드 스마트폰 OS’, ‘크롬 OS’ 등은 공개되고 복잡한 OS의 기능을 최소화하고 브라우저 하나만으로 워드, 엑셀 등 문서작업까지 모두 웹에서 빌려 쓰는 클라우드 컴퓨팅 개념을 적용합니다.

OS 기능을 축소, 바이러스나 악성코드가 침투할 여지도 줄일 수 있다는 것이 구글의 설명입니다.

클라우드 컴퓨팅에서도 사용자를 위한 저비용 컴퓨터가 가능하고, 다양한 서비스의 가능, 다양한 접근 기기 활용이 가능하며, 소프트웨어 비용 절감과 편리한 업데이트 등이 장점입니다.

하지만 정보를 저장하는데 있어 인터넷 등에서의 서버에 의존한다든가(Confidentiality, Integrity) 인터넷 및 서버 장애의 경우 사용에 문제를 일으킨다든가(Availability) 하는 등의 문제점이 있습니다.

아래 그림을 보면 저는 기존 인터넷과 이동무선망은 어차피 복합화 된 ‘유무선 통합망’을 지향하기에 기존의 인터넷 환경과 스마트폰 환경이 다르지 않다고 생각합니다. 무선통신사업자(Mobile Carrier)는 무선망을 기본으로 하지만 기존 유선망에도 같은 스니퍼(Sniffer)가 있지 않습니까? 유통되는 정보를 가로채 유출하고, 변조하고, 서비스를 위장(Fake)하며 서비스를 방해하는 것은 같은 논리입니다.

 

모바일OS가 지금까지 낮이 익지 않았다는 것뿐입니다. 아마 스마트폰 제작 업체가 감시, 탐지, 치료하는 방안을 잘 해나갈 것입니다. 모바일 악성코드도 일반 악성코드와 마찬가지로 진행되지 않겠습니까? 공인인증서 등의 문제점도 모바일 환경에 의한 것이 아닐 수 있습니다.

 

 

SaaS(Software as a Service), SaaS(Security as a Service)/Security Service on Demand

사용자가 보았을 때 SaaS는 엄청난 이점이 있습니다. 엄청남 금액과 인력, 절차에 드는 비용보다 SaaS업체가 제공하는 서버에 인터넷을 통하여 접속한 후 요구하는 소프트웨어를 필요한 기능, 필요한 기간만큼 이용하여 사용한 만큼만 비용을 지불하면 되는 것입니다.

예를 들어 구글, 네이버 등 포털 업체가 제공하는 문서작성, 엑셀 등을 이용하며, 네이버 백신  등을 무료로 이용하면서 자신의 PC를 악성코드로부터 보호하는 것입니다. 다만 SaaS를 이용할 때 결과물인 출력 데이터 등이 제공서버에 남을 수 있고 제공하는 인터넷 서버의 안정성이 중요하지요.

 

저는 소프트웨어가 아닌 보안(Security)으로서 SaaS를 혹은 요청에 따르는 보안 서비스를 생각하고 있습니다. 'Traditional Software'를 'Traditional Security Solution'으로 본다면 엄청난 액수의 비용적 부담을 안고 가야 하는 문제에 봉착하게 됩니다. 또한 비즈니스 경향도 다음을 따르고 있습니다.

  - 컴포넌트의 유연한 통합을 통한 작은 규모의 패키지화

  - 비용효과적 접근

  - 손쉬운 적용과 재구성, 업데이트의 용이성

  - 산업어플리케이션 표준 적용

하지만 고전적 접근은 매우 큰 규모의 패키지에 따르는 고액의 도입 및 유지 보수비용이 요구됩니다.

특히 비용 문제는 다음 그림과 같은 예상하지 못하는 비용(Hidden Cost) 문제를 고려했을 때 SaaS가 더욱 저렴합니다. 전통적인C/S 환경에서는 구현, 하드웨어, 인력, 유지보수, 훈련 등에 90%가 소요된다고 합니다.

 

위키피디아에서는 SaaS에 대한 정의를 다음과 같이 내리고 있습니다.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_as_a_service)

 

SaaS는 사용자의 요구에 따르는 인터넷 기반 보안서비스를 의미하고 이는 ‘Everything as a Service’라는 비즈니스 경향에 근거합니다. 특히 ‘Anti’가 붙는 각종 응용인 ‘안티바이러스(Anti-Virus)’, ‘안티스팸(Anti-Spam)’, ‘안티스파이웨어(Anti-Spyware)’ 등이 대표적입니다. 물론 무료 제공이지만 ‘네이버백신’이 대표적입니다. 기업차원에서는 ‘로그관리’, ‘자산관리’ 등이 포함됩니다. 2001년부터 시큐어 웹 게이트웨이(SWG, Secure Web Gateway) 활동이 시작되면서 데이터센터의 어플리케이션 접속 정책에 따르는 웹 트래픽(Traffic)을 통한 서비스를 제공하는 것입니다. 관련 기업은 Symantec, Brightmail (acquired by Symantec in 2007), Watchfire, Syntensia, Jamcracker and VeriSign. Webroot, Comendo, Comsenso, MessageLabs (acquired by Symantec in October 2008), Internet Security Systems, McAfee, Grove Group, HP Software, Optenet, Perimeter eSecurity, Panda Software, Purewire, Qualys, ScanSafe, Trend Micro, Tricipher, Trustwave, VeriSign, Vigilar and Zscaler 등이 있습니다.

이러한 SaaS 기업들의 특징은 다음과 같습니다.

  - 외부 위협에 대응하는 정기적인 업데이트가 요구되는 시장, anti-virus, anti-spyware 등

  - 스스로는 관리하기 어려운 고수준의 서비스이며 원격관리가 요구되는 유자보수, 보안스캐닝, 패치관리 등

  - 외부 아웃소싱 관리비용이 더 저렴하고 효과적인 로그관리, 자산관리, 인증관리 등

SaaS는 다음과 같은 특징이 있습니다.  

  - 솔루션에 비하여 비용효과적인 보안서비스 제공 

  - 매우 빠른 속도로 문제점을 파악하고 결과를 통보하여 보안 QA 체계 정착 지원

  - 개발코드 수정을 잘 할 수 있도록 도와주는 Practice 기반의 컨텐츠 제공

http://www.boannews.com/media/view.asp?idx=19519&kind=1

Why Cloud Computing is the Future of Mobile

The term "cloud computing" is being bandied about a lot these days, mainly in the context of the "future of the web." But cloud computing's potential doesn't begin and end with the personal computer's transformation into a thin client - the mobile platform is going to be heavily impacted by this technology as well. At least that's the analysis being put forth by ABI Research. Their recent report, Mobile Cloud Computing, theorizes that the cloud will soon become a disruptive force in the mobile world, eventually becoming the dominant way in which mobile applications operate.

You may be wondering: what does the term "mobile cloud computing" really mean? Basically, it refers to an infrastructure where both the data storage and the data processing happen outside of the mobile device. Today, there are already some good examples of mobile cloud computing applications including mobile Gmail, Google Maps, and some navigation apps. However, the majority of applications today still do most of the data storage and processing on the mobile devices themselves and not in the cloud. In a few years, that could change.

Why Mobile Cloud Computing?

With a Western-centric view of the world, it can sometimes be hard to remember that not everyone owns a smartphone. There are still a large number of markets worldwide where the dominant phone is a feature phone. While it's true that smartphones will grow in percentage and feature phones will become more sophisticated in time, these lower-end phones are not going away anytime soon. And it's their very existence which will help drive the mobile cloud computing trend.

Not only is there a broader audience using feature phones in the world, there are also more web developers capable of building mobile web applications than there are developers for any other type of mobile device. Those factors, combined with the fact that feature phones themselves are becoming more capable with smarter built-in web browsers (and more alternative browsers available for download), will have an impact on mobile cloud computing's growth.

How Will Mobile Cloud Computing Become a Disruptive Force?

There are two primary reasons why ABI believes cloud computing will become a disruptive force in the mobile world. The first is simply the number of users the technology has the power to reach: far more than the number of smartphone users alone. The second reason has to do with how applications are distributed today. Currently, mobile applications are tied to a carrier. If you want an iPhone app, for example, you have to first have a relationship with the mobile operator who carries the iPhone. If you want a Blackberry app, the same rule applies. But with mobile clouding computing applications, as long as you have access to the web, you have access to the mobile application.

Moves by PaaS Players Could Change Everything

When you think of Plaform-as-a-Service (PaaS), one of the first companies that springs to mind is probably Salesforce. With their Force.com platform, business applications can be built and run "in the cloud." But Salesforce is not the only major PaaS player out there today - Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Google's App Engine are also two platforms that could have a major impact on this trend.

Currently, AWS is used by over half a million developers and Google's App Engine hosts 45,000 applications. Now imagine if those two companies along with Force.com all of a sudden started aggressively marketing their mobile capabilities. Today, neither AWS nor Google offers this, and Salesforce's mobile offering is limited to smartphones (Windows Mobile, Blackberry, and iPhone). But if the companies decided to make building for the mobile web as easy as building for the web, you could have a mobile revolution on your hands.

But People Like Apps!

Saying that "mobile cloud computing" is the future doesn't mean phones will be filled with links to websites that work in any browser instead of special, downloadable applications, some of which you can even purchase. Instead, mobile applications will exist in both formats. As for the downloadable applications themselves, they will still appear to be your typical mobile app - end users won't even notice a difference. However, there will be a difference - it will just be on the back-end. Mobile applications will begin to store your data in the cloud as opposed to on the mobile device, and the applications will become more powerful as processing power is also offloaded to the cloud.

The first mobile apps powered by the cloud will likely be business-focused mobile productivity applications where collaboration, data sharing, multitasking, and scheduling are key factors. For consumers, though, navigation and mapping applications will be the most obvious examples of the trend. Plus, there are some specialty applications today which already function as mobile cloud apps - for example, Schlage offers a remote keyless entry system which lets you mobilely control your home from a distance. You can let someone into your house, manage your lights, your thermostat, your camera system, etc. There are also a few applications in the iPhone app store that let you remotely manage your PC and your DVR, too.

Potential Problems

Of course, there are some potential issues that could be barriers to this shift in mobile computing. The most notable problem is the lack of speedy mobile Internet access everywhere. Here in the US, for example, 3G coverage is spotty outside urban areas, leading to intermittent connection issues and slow speeds. Other markets may have it even worse.

However, new technologies like HTML5, which does local caching, could help mobile cloud apps get past those sorts of issues. And there's even a chance that the browser could one day be replaced - at least in some markets - with another technology altogether which provides a better way to access the mobile web. ABI Research mentions initiatives like OMA's Smartcard Web Server, essentially a souped-up SIM card that connects directly with the carrier to push applications to mobile phones. There's also TokTok, a technology that allows access to web services like Gmail and Google Calendar by voice. With voice-enabled search like this, mobile apps could talk directly to the service itself which sits on the edge of the network, as opposed to needing the user to launch a web browser and navigate through the mobile web.

When Will Mobile Cloud Computing Really Take Off?

According to ABI, this change is only a few years away. By 2010, we'll see one or all of the major PaaS players marketing their mobile capabilities, they say. But first, API standards from open-source mobile collaboration group BONDI will go into effect. Later, in 2011, we'll see more of HTML5, and the OneAPI standard will come into play. (OneAPI involves standardized apps for networks allowing developers to consistently access parts of network providers' capabilities, such as location services). All these factors combined will help drive the move to the cloud.

The changes will occur with differing speeds depending on the market. Markets with higher Internet participation will obviously lead the way, as will markets with higher subscriber penetration. That includes Western Europe, North America, and parts of Asia. Other markets will then follow. By 2014, mobile cloud computing will become the predominant application development strategy. By that time, our PCs will be more like thin client devices than they are today, and now it seems our phones will too.

 

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

Dell leak outs Smoke, Thunder, Flash, and Lightning smartphones

by Devin Coldewey on April 21, 2010

It looks like some internal Dell material has spilled out onto the internet, but am I the only one who finds this stuff suspect? I see lots of spelling errors and some questionable features. The vagueness of some of the specs and the very un-Dell phrasing of a lot of this stuff makes me think this is an outside contractor pitching Dell with some design ideas. If they are real, I’m guessing this is a mockup team inside Dell that’s pitching mobile division higher-ups with their idea of where Dell should be heading in the smartphone world. At any rate, there are pretty pictures, so let’s take a look.

---

Here we go:

Lightning

If this thing is real, it falls under the mystery third chassis category. Portrait slider? Sure, why not? To add to the skepticism, though, the listed specs do not have the mandated minimum of 8GB of onboard storage. Could just be a mistake (or a misunderstanding of the specs on my part), but in a presentation like this, to ignore one of the basic specs? Shameful.

Flash, Thunder, and Smoke

Here we have three Android-based smartphones. The Flash (left) looks pretty freaky, with “curved glass” sides and Photoshop errors on the top in that last slide – or reflections, its so hard to tell. Its main thing is going to be a huge screen and media editing on-phone. Good luck doing that with any precision using your big ol’ fingers.

The Thunder (middle) is just a gigantic lozenge with an even bigger screen (4.1″) that will also be used for on-device editing and, perhaps, if you’re good, even a Hulu app. Also has that curved glass somewhere about it, though drat me if I can find it.

Do you like tall phones? Like freaky tall? Then the Smoke (right) is for you. I guess they call it that because it has the same form factor as a cigarette. Seems like the weight of the screen would make it uncomfortable to thumb-type on. And if the screen is 2.8″, that means the whole thing is about 3.5″ diagonal total. Kind of small, I’d say.

My fingers are getting cold, so I can’t get into any more detail.

 

http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/04/21/huge-dell-leak-outs-smoke-thunder-flash-and-lightning-smartphones/

New market study shows iPhone continues to be big in Japan

A lot has been written on how the iPhone performs in Japan, the world’s most advanced mobile nation, but the general consensus in this country now is that it sells very well (even though both Apple and provider SoftBank Mobile refuse to break down Japan-specific sales numbers). It’s rumored that the number of iPhones sold in Japan has passed 3 million.

There are reasons for this success (super-low pricing, aggressive marketing, Apple’s pre-iPhone brand popularity in Japan, clever product positioning by SoftBank, etc. etc.), but we’re talking about a country in which basically every cell phone is a smartphone, a country where you’d be hard-pressed to find a handset without a digital TV tuner or e-wallet function, for example.

And that means that the 4.9% share the iPhone now commands in the entire Japanese cell phone market, as reported [JP] by a Japanese research insitute today, is more than impressive (Sharp, with 26.2% market share, is the number one).

The MM Research Institute also says that among those phones that have a non-Japanese OS (i.e. Android, Palm OS or Blackberry), the iPhone even boasts 72.2% market share (see graphic above). In this (relatively small) segment, HTC is ranked second (11.1%), Toshiba is third (6.8%) and Blackberry / Sony Ericsson are both ranked fourth (4.3%).

We reported about another smartphone market study from a Japanese source back in December. All statistical and other issues aside, both reports indicate that the iPhone seems to do much better than many people believed when it launched in the world’s No. 7 mobile market in 2008.

Via Asiajin

 

http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2010/04/23/new-market-study-shows-iphone-continues-to-be-big-in-japan/

How The iPad Will Change The iPhone Game Industry

Apple is hailing the iPad as a “magical” and “revolutionary” device. Perhaps, but the feature set accompanying the first version leaves many of us skeptical of that claim. We’ve all seen tablets before and we’re already seeing similar ones coming out soon with better specs. What we need to consider more than the device itself are the effects its release will have on the market.

The iPad could potentially usher in a new set of casual users who may not already be iPhone or iPod Touch owners. This is good for business across the board, but the area that may be impacted the greatest is the iPhone gaming industry.

The current iPhone and iPod touch gaming landscape consists of pick-up-and-play micro games, watered down console ports, and some in-between titles. It’s hard to consider the iPhone a true gaming platform. The lack of physical buttons, coupled with the scarcity of deep, quality titles, may prevent the iPhone from ever becoming a true competitor to the Nintendo DS or Sony PSP. Unfortunately, there are even more issues that further intensify this problem.

The first is price point. Given the average game is sold for $.99 and the most expensive are $9.99, App Store prices differ wildly from other game markets. Even the downloadable casual games industry spans $10 – $20 on average. Think about this. Many of these are the same games that get ported to the iPhone. Not only are the games the same, but the target demographics as well. So how did this happen? The fault lies with developers and consumers alike.

Price is extremely psychological and both sides equally contribute to setting that standard. Prior to being involved in the iPhone industry, I worked for years in the casual games space. I saw the evolution of downloadable gaming go from the traditional core download.com-style shareware model to a full-blown casual gaming industry that catered primarily to 40-something women. To say the least, it was a stark contrast. Now, the most interesting component was seeing how price was affected when it moved from the underground to the mainstream. In the old shareware days, pricing was not uniform. It was the Wild West. But when the big guys (AOL, Yahoo, EA, PopCap, Big Fish, etc.) started to catapult the casual space, pricing had to be regulated for the psychological comfort of mainstream audiences. At the time, the sweet spot was $19.99. Some of those portals would sometimes try to undercut one another, but in the consumer’s mind, it felt suspect to pay significantly less. Alternatively, these portals went another route – subscription services, which offered deeply discounted pricing models.

I bring this up to provide a better understanding of pricing psychology. It first starts with what the industry as a whole unofficially agrees the average price of a similar product should be. This is determined with some guesswork and tweaking, while waiting to see what the market will bear. As time goes by, competitors start to undercut each other and the industry either follows suit or holds steady to that original average. Unfortunately, the iPhone game industry chose the former. I say ‘unfortunately’ because it is severely crippling the gaming space.

When the 3G was first launched, $9.99 was the average price of a decent, quality game. At the time, it was a fantastic price when we considered what DS games, downloadable titles and even those budget CDs at Walmart cost. This was not a lasting trend, though. As more developers flooded the market, prices continued to be pushed lower and lower. What drove this price drop was mainly gimmick apps and cheap games. The problem was that even though these products were clearly of lesser value and depth, the damage had already been done. In the minds of the consumers, paying $10 for an iPhone app, let alone more, had become a huge stretch. Instead of buying a new title at $9.99, most consumers simply waited for “the drop” – the inevitable price slash that developers enacted shortly after a game’s release. It was no longer a value proposition; it was a somewhat illogical psychological standard that had been created.

Most developers had to learn to flow with this changing market, embracing the fact that shear volume could often make up for their development costs. Typically though, these development efforts were focused on low-priced impulse apps. This is where the damage to the industry comes in. Since expected pricing is so low, it discourages quality game contenders from entering the space. The cost investment is still high to produce a quality product, especially considering the average sale prices are so low. To address this problem, one rumor we heard a number of months ago was the possibility of Apple opening a premium game space on the App Store. The intention would be to feature higher priced, higher quality games. So far, nothing has come of this.

In effect, this is keeping the iPhone gaming industry as still just typical mobile fare, with the occasional big game. As much as Apple wants this to be a serious competitor to the DS/PSP, it will never make it unless there is a shift. Indirectly, this is where the iPad comes in.

The iPad is not a pocket product

One of the biggest reasons that gimmicky apps and quick pick-up-and-play games have done so well is because the iPhone and iPod Touch are products that fit in your pocket. Typically, you take them everywhere and they are always within reach. This allows for the majority of use to occur within short periods of time (i.e. waiting in line, on the bus, during a boring meeting, etc.). To fill the needs of those sorts of time constraints, short-use applications fit the bill. This limits the desire for a deep experience or time consuming game.

The iPad changes this. As a device that works as an in-between for your mobile device and your desktop, the time use allowance goes up dramatically. In most situations, you won’t pull out your iPad while waiting in line at the post office. It won’t be carried everywhere you go. While some will treat it as a netbook substitute, I anticipate a lot of its use will occur casually at home.

Since the iPad is not a pocket-sized device like the iPhone and iPod Touch, time constraints become less of an issue. This means that bite-sized games or gimmicks will feel less at home here. Something like Doodle Jump will most likely not do so well on this platform. This is likely to cause the market to desire more fulfilling experiences, especially in the games space. In effect, developers will respond accordingly to meet this new market need. This acts as one phase of the changing landscape.

Price sensitivity will go down

There is an additional psychological component that hasn’t yet been addressed in regards to pricing: size does matter. Whether it makes sense or not in terms of value proposition, the actual size of a product can have some bearing on how we perceive its value. The small screen size of the iPhone and iPod touch causes us to perceive, whether consciously or unconsciously, that the applications are worth less than something you can interact with on a big monitor. Diner Dash on the iPhone is identical to Diner Dash on the PC. Yet, the price points are dramatically different. One aspect is market-determined pricing averages and the other is perceived value. Many consumers perceive a higher value from their larger screened PC experiences.

The additional screen real estate of the iPad makes apps feel more like “real” applications. Visual interaction with the iPad screen feels closer to that of a monitor or TV. It removes the notion of the “pocket-sized time waster” and seems to provide a more substantial experience. Take a game like Civilization Revolution. Which experience feels more enriching: playing it on the small screened iPhone or playing it on a full sized device with many times the screen real estate? Despite being the same game, more breathing room provides for a deeper and more enjoyable experience.

This will start a new cycle for the App Store. Reduced price sensitivity will create opportunities for deeper games and apps, which will then help set a new pricing standard. $.99 gimmicks will always exist, but now alongside a new wave of higher quality products.

Shallow apps will decrease across the board

The goal of developers is to increase revenue at every possible avenue. This means creating a product that can span multiple platforms. Unless highly specialized, apps work just as well on the iPod Touch as they do on the iPhone. The same should hold true for the iPad. By reducing focus on one of the platforms, you start losing a whole market segment – and additional revenue source.

However, simply upscaling current applications is a very short-sighted solution. It is a way for Apple to capitalize on the 150k+ apps out there for their new device, but this isn’t going to work for the longterm. Using an application unoptimized for a larger device, and not tailored for the iPad’s greater screen real estate, will feel like a tacked on experience. Because of this, more users will want to download iPad-specific applications to take advantage of their shiny new device. For some products, such as 3D games like N.O.V.A, upscaling may not be an issue. These games can scale with ease, with only slight modification to interface images. But for the rest of the app work, doubling the pixels is going to be a complete mess.

Now what effect does this have on gimmicky apps and games? It forces these developers to rethink their model. As we discussed, when you develop an app, you want to capitalize on all revenue streams possible. If you produce a product that only makes sense on the iPhone, you will miss out on new opportunities provided by the iPad. Short lived gimmicks and micro-gaming experiences are unlikely to fare well on the iPad. The effect of this realization may likely cause a decline in small sized, $.99 apps as a whole. There will always be a place for these, but to really maximize profit potential, focusing on them solely is a short-sighted plan.

The iPad is a device that may be misunderstood for a while. It’s certainly not revolutionary in the typical sense, but its subtle influences may eventually justify that characterization. We can surely expect to see even more casual users jumping on the band wagon and certainly a spike in casual game development for the device. As the product evolves, becoming more powerful feature-rich, it may become even more ubiquitous than we expect. This will be an extremely interesting space to watch within the coming months and years.

Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/24/how-the-ipad-will-change-the-iphone-game-industry/#ixzz0mALRcEpN