The Tablet Wars Have Begun

A few weeks ago I picked up a Samsung Galaxy Tab. Being an Android developer, I thought it was a good idea to see how my apps as well as other apps function on the Tab. After all, it’s hard not to remember what it was like for iPhone developers when the iPad came out. iPhone apps run on the iPad, but they are virtually unusable. They either look ridiculously small, or you can “2x” them and they look like crap. So there was (and is) a lot of pressure on iPhone developers to port their apps to the iPad. Would the same thing hold true for Android developers and the Tab?

I am pleased to say that this is not the case for the Galaxy Tab. Most Android applications look good on the Tab. In fact, I would say that most of them look great. The extra real estate only adds to things. Now there are cases where the apps could make better use of space, or maybe their buttons look a little too big on the Tab. However these are minor issues compared to what it is like to run an iPhone app on an iPad.

That being said, there are some apps that suffer on the Galaxy Tab. Notably some popular weather apps (The Weather Channel’s app, Weather Bug) looked bad on the Tab. However in subsequent weeks these apps have released updates that now look good on the Tab. During that time ESPN’s Scorecenter app also released an update. The previous version of the app looked fine on the Tab, since it relied heavily on ESPN’s mobile website. The update brought a more native UI with less reliance on mobile web. However, it has some serious layout issues and looks bad on the Tab.

So why is it that most apps look good on the Tab, but a few do not? Is it something inherent to Android vs. iOS? Well, yes and no. It is not really anything inherent to Android the OS or Android the SDK. However, Android is designed to work on different sized screens and always has been. As a developer, you are given many choices for creating the layout of your UI, but you are encouraged to use relative/flow-based layouts. These are fluid and resize beautifully on different sized screens. So you take those apps and drop them on to a tablet, and they look just as good.

Of course you don’t have to use these kinds of layouts. You can use layouts that are more fixed and absolute -- which is the norm for iOS developers. However, then you run into Weather Bug and ESPN style problems. Their developers can make adjustments to make their apps look good on tablets, but they may find themselves doing this again when ten-inch tablets start showing up.

I think the fact that most Android apps run seamlessly on the Tab is a significant selling point of the device. If you have 200 iPhone apps, chances are that either many of them will not have been ported to the iPad, or if they were, then it will be as a different app (Blah blah blah HD!) that you will have to purchase. If you have 200 Android apps, then you are good to go on the Tab.

The Tab has a few other advantages over the iPad. The one most people talk about is that it is more portable. This is not a small advantage. I just got back from a trip to Portland. When I’m there, I often like to go to the Starbucks near Pioneer Square to get tea and a scone for breakfast. One time I took my iPad with me, because I wanted to read blogs or news, catch up on Twitter and Facebook, etc. while I ate my scone. However I didn’t like having to carry it, and it was especially inconvenient once I got my tea and scone (3 items, 2 hands.) So I took it with me one time and never again. Instead I would just use either my iPhone or Nexus One. However this time I had my Tab and I always took it. Even with it raining, I could just put it in the inside pocket of my jacket and it was no trouble at all.

Then there is the related issue of weight. I have often read books (via the Kindle app) on my iPad while on airplanes, or at a café, or just around my house. The iPad always makes my wrist very tired, and I find myself switching hands or trying to awkwardly prop it up on something. The Tab is so much lighter that this is never a problem. I am currently reading Stephen King’s The Waste Lands on the Tab (also via the Kindle app) and have had no problems with my wrist tiring out.

I would say that the above three things are the major advantages of the Galaxy Tab over the iPad. Android apps work much better on it than iPhone apps work on the iPad; it is portable; it is much lighter. There are some other things too, like it having two cameras instead of zero, or being available on Verizon, T-Mobile, etc. Just to be fair though, the iPad still has some significant advantages over the Tab.

The bigger screen is obviously the biggest advantage. This really opens up the iPad for a lot of experiences that aren’t possible on the Tab, or would suffer. Also, it makes using non-mobile optimized websites much better on the iPad. For example, ebay.com is pretty usable on the iPad. On the Tab, it is ok in landscape mode, but definitely not in portrait. So I would not really consider using it on the Galaxy Tab, but would on the iPad. Of course there is still a decent chance that a non-mobile optimized site is going to have problems on the iPad still.

The bigger size of the iPad also leads to a larger battery. To me the battery life of the iPad is amazing. I do not use my iPad that much, so often it will go many days on standby. It blows me away how little battery is drained from say five days of standby. I have the non-3G iPad, so that makes a big difference, but still you just cannot beat the battery life of the iPad.

Big screen and big battery are big advantages. However if you want to watch TV & movies on your tablet-of-choice, then the iPad has an even more bigger advantage: iTunes. There is no good way to download a movie and watch it on your Galaxy Tab. I think we will see Netflix on Android and thus the Tab in the next few months. That will help, but Netflix’s streaming selection is still very limited. However, iTunes has an excellent selection. I would guess that we will also see Amazon’s Video-on-Demand on Android, since it is on the Android-based GoogleTV. That will help with selection as well, but still it will fall well short of what’s on iTunes. Plus any streaming solution is more limited than iTunes buy/rent model. Not to mention that there is already a Netflix iPad app, and it would be shocking if Amazon didn’t have a VOD app for the iPad sometime next year as well. If you want to watch TV shows or movies on your tablet, the iPad is definitely the way to go for the foreseeable future.

Based on the above, if a friend/family member asked me if they should buy a Galaxy Tab or an iPad I would ask them three questions:
1.) Do you plan on using it primarily at home/office, or do you want to take it with you when you are out or traveling?
2.) Do you use a lot of apps on your phone?
3.) Do you want to watch TV shows or movies on it?

Regardless of how they answered these questions, I think that a tablet like the Galaxy Tab or the iPad can replace a laptop for most people, but not everyone. If you are a heavy user of office-apps (word processing, spreadsheet, presentation software), then a tablet cannot be your primary device. I think the new MacBook Air is perfect for such folks. This is also a space where the ChromeOS netbooks have a chance to compete, as well as traditional Windows-based netbooks. If you do more “creative” activities, like graphical design, photography, and of course programming, then you need a real machine with serious RAM & CPU. That’s why my MacBook Pro will remain my primary machine for a long time. A tablet will always be complementary for folks like me. That’s why I think the portability and lightness of the Galaxy Tab outweighs the bigger screen and battery of the iPad for people who really need a laptop or even a netbook.

Apple, Flash, and The Truth

I'm sure by now you've read "Steve Jobs"'s Thoughts on Flash. Did it convince you? Do you think it was truthful? Not me. Sure it has some valid points, especially about Flash being buggy on OSX. As someone who has developed Flash applications using a Mac, I am especially aware of this bugginess, and part of me can't help but get a perverse sense of satisfaction that this bugginess is now coming back to haunt Adobe. However, this doesn't change the fact that Jobs's epistle is far from the truth. It is corporate slander, designed to make Adobe look as bad as possible. Why? So that when devices from competitor's ship with full support for Flash, this technological advantage can be discredited in the eyes of consumers. In other words, this well thought out post by Apple is not some intellectual/technical analysis, it is just marketing designed to boost Apple's profits.

The most dishonest thing about the post is what Apple says is "the most important reason" to ban Flash from their devices: that it will result in sub-standard apps and hurt their iPhone/iPad OS platform. This is complete bullshit. It's not like developers would suddenly only be able to create iPhone apps using Flash. It's not like they could no longer use all of the tools they use today. The difference is that they would have a choice. They could choose to use Flash. Or they could choose to use Objective-C/Cocoa/XCode.

But don't forget, that not only would developers have a choice, but so would consumers. If for some strange reason, some developers started choosing to use Flash,  it's not like consumers would be forced to buy those Flash-authored apps. No, they could still choose other, traditional apps. In fact, if, as Apple claims, Flash-authored apps would be of such low quality, then one would expect that few consumers would choose to purchase those apps.

So if Apple allowed developers to use whatever tools and technology they wanted to use, to create apps for the iPhone and iPad, what might happen? Well if Apple's claims are right, then there would be bad apps that nobody would buy (aren't there already a lot of such apps on the App Store?). Consumers aren't idiots, and they won't buy crappy apps when there will be better alternatives. So those Flash-authored apps will lose money. Developers aren't idiots, and they won't keep using technology that produces software that nobody wants. So they would abandon Flash and go back to Cocoa. So Apple's "concerns" would be unwarranted.

Or perhaps what would happen is that some developers would produce good apps using Flash that consumers bought for their iPhones. Certainly developers would continue to use Flash. However, in this scenario, Apple's "concerns" are proven to be false -- Flash produces some good apps. But wait, what about Flash holding back innovation on the platform? Apple would still be free to add new features to their OS, and make them available to developers through new APIs in the iPhone SDK. Who knows how long it would take Adobe to expose those features through the Flash authoring tools, but who cares? If those features greatly improve apps, and they aren't available in Flash authoring, then what happens? The power of choice wins again. Developers can still choose to use Cocoa, tap into these innovations, and user's can choose to purchase the apps that take advantage of these innovations. If these features are so great, one might expect that Adobe would try to bring them to Flash authoring as quickly as possible. Either way, the notion that the Flash platform would be held back makes no sense.

So Apple's self-described most important point is so false that it is laughable. Some of their other parts are equally false. For example, the notion of touch and Flash. Yes, many things in Flash are designed for users interacting with a mouse, not a finger. Such things don't work well on touch devices. However, this is not just true for Flash. It is equally true for HTML and JavaScript. If you've done a lot of surfing on your iPhone or iPad, you have surely experienced the "rollover" issues described in Apple's post. Want more examples? Check out this clever little video on HTML 5 and the iPad:


So why all the bullshit? As I said earlier, the reason for the post is to discredit any competitor that provides Flash support on their devices. First and foremost on that list is Android, which will support Flash in Android OS 2.2. That doesn't explain why Apple doesn't want to allow developers to use Flash to develop for the iPhone? The answer to that is simple. They want complete control of their platform. If you want to make money off of the iPhone, you have to be in bed with Apple. They saw how the web has hurt Microsoft, and they will not let this happen on the iPhone or iPad.

Now wait a minute, isn't Apple investing heavily in the web, namely HTML 5? Doesn't that demonstrate that they are willing to give up control of their platform? Yes, and no. Yes, Apple has invested into WebKit, a technology that in various forms implements a decent chunk of the HTML 5 standard. But you see, the key word here is "standard." This is how Apple fools you into thinking that they are providing an "open" alternative to their proprietary system.

It's easy to get fooled into thinking that any company that implements and open standard is innovative, but just the opposite is true. We think standards=innovation for browsers because of Microsoft IE 6. That browser dominated the world for a long while being completely stagnant. It was both non-standard and non-innovative, but this is an exceptional. It is rare that such technology can flourish. It took the unique nature of Windows, IE, and Microsoft's legal troubles to produce this situation.

Adopting a standard just means that you either change an existing feature of your technology to comply with the standard, or you copy a feature from others in the space. It is anti-innovation. When it comes to web standards, they are introduced post-hoc. XMLHttpRequest, the key technology behind Ajax, was proprietary Microsoft technology for many years before it became a standard. Many of the features of HTML 5 were introduced by various plugin technologies like Flash or Google Gears before they became part of the HTML 5 spec. You cannot innovate while waiting for some super slow moving corporate committee to vote on a new standard.

Going back to the iPhone/iPad, Apple is saying: pick either Cocoa and go through the App Store, or stick to the web, but only the "open standards" part of the web. They have given you a choice, but only the weakest, most impotent choice possible. You see this is where the other part of their Flash ban comes into affect. Not only have they recently banned compiling a Flash authored application into a native iPhone application, they have always banned Flash running in the browser. Why? Because with browser plugin technologies like Flash, Silverlight, and yes even Java, you can create user experience's on par with desktop applications. If they allowed Flash in the browser on the iPhone, then developers could create web applications that might rival the native iPhone applications. And we wouldn't want that, now would we? So Apple give you a single alternative to using Cocoa/XCode/AppStore, and then they horribly cripple it, by removing the most innovative parts and tying a design-by-committee-technology weight around its neck. Apple's endorsement of HTML 5 is one of the greatest marketing ruses ever. They stifle innovation, limit choice, and line their own pockets while getting everyone to believe they are being developer friendly and innovative.

After all of the above, you might think that I am very anti-Apple, anti-iPhone, anti-iPad. I'm not at all. I am anti-bullshit though. I don't like being lied to and treated like a lemming. Apple has every right to keep Flash off of their devices. It's their OS after all. They have very right to ban apps that were authored with Flash from their AppStore. It's their AppStore after all. Just don't lie to me about this stuff. Don't say it's better for developers or better for consumers, when it's actually worse for both. Just tell the truth: it's just better for Apple.

iPad Web Applications

So you might have heard about this... This Saturday, April 3, there's a new computer coming out from Apple. You might have heard about it. Anyways, lots of iPhone developers have been scrambling to port their iPhone apps or write new iPad apps. A lot of folks have been predicting that developers would start to shun Apple after all of the controversies surrounding iPhone app submissions and the "walled garden" approach that Apple has taken. On the other hand, Microsoft has decided that a controversial walled gardens are once again the way to go, and is diligently copying Apple. Well if the iPad is any indicator, developers continue to agree with Apple and Microsoft. There is a lot of interest in developing native applications for the iPad.

Still, if you're like me and a big part of your job is to figure out how to build web applications for all kinds of devices, you have probably been spending a lot of time trying to figure out what to do about the iPad. On one hand, it's a big enough device that most websites will look just fine on it.

I think you must agree that the above looks a heck of a lot better than a "mobile optimized" site like this:

This seems great at first -- no work! Just make sure that if you are using any browser sniffing/redirecting code that it does not redirect for the iPad. However, there are some disadvantages to this. First, there are some issues with 'normal' sites that will not translate well to the iPad. There is the obvious thing with Flash... There are more subtle things like, "hovers", i.e. mouse-overs. That is when you toss up a UI layer when a user hovers their mouse over a link, or an image, or whatever. These are pretty popular, and they are not going to work on the iPad. Apple has quite figured out how to detect a finger hover... There are other events that are different on the iPad as well. There is also the question of how to best use the real-estate on the device, and the related question of dealing with landscape mode.

I think a lot of sites will look great in landscape mode, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't look better. It might be more optimal to go to a multi-column layout. That could let a site place useful content "above the fold", i.e. visible so the user does not have to scroll to get to it.

There's also the possibility of "embracing the native" on the web. There are a lot of iPhone-optimized websites that do a good job of making their website look and feel like a native iPhone application. Joe Hewitt's excellent iUi JS/CSS framework is an easy way to do this. The iPad has some of its own metaphors not found in the iPhone. Take a look at this native iPad app:


Notice all of those columns? We've kind of touched on that already. Did you notice the pop-over menus? These are likely to be ubiquitous on the iPad. Here is a picture of them from one of Apple's iPad apps, Numbers:

Obviously there is nothing in HTML-land that is quite like that. However, it is certainly possible to craft something similar. In a way, it's kind of like the mouse-over menus that are popular on the web, only the interaction model is slightly different and the UI is definitely more rich than the average mouse-over menu.

So what to do? Just stick with your "normal" site? Develop an iPad optimized site? Tweak your iPhone-optimized site to suck less on the iPad? Tweak your normal site to suck less on the iPad?

The Anti-Netbook

For Christmas this year, I bought my kids (ages 4 and 5) their first computer: an Acer Revo. I call this the anti-netbook, but it actually shares a lot of things with a netbook. First is its processor, an Intel Atom clock in at 1.6 GHz. This helps to make for an incredibly small form factor, especially for a desktop computer. It has a 160 GB hard drive, but no optical drive.

When I bought the computer, I had exactly one reason for it. I wanted my kids to play educational games on it. That was all. The Revo came with Windows XP installed on it, and this was perfect. I needed Windows on there to get the largest number of potential games for it. Windows 7 seems to be much less of a resource hog than Vista, but I am still wagering that XP comes with less overhead.

I had another somewhat unusual plan for the Revo. It is completely isolated. No network access, not even local intranet. This is why I call it the anti-netbook. I want no Internet on it, I only want software that I personally installed to ever run on it. It is like a miniature Battlestar Galactica. Now I know there are a lot of websites with great games for kids, but I don't need them. I can find plenty of shrink-wrapped software to buy at incredibly cheap prices. However, this did lead me to some problems with the computer.

The first problem was how to install all of this software, since I had no optical drive. I was prepared for this. I simply copied the software to a flash drive and plugged that into one of the four USB ports on the Revo. This is where I encountered my first problem. Many of these titles require the original CD to be inserted into an optical drive in order to run the game. I suppose this is an anti-piracy tactic, but it really caused me problems. For a couple of the games, I could leave the flash drive plugged in and they were happy. This did not work for most of the games.

So I bought an external optical drive that could be connected via USB. This worked perfectly well, but it does mean that to change the games, one has to generally change discs in the external drive. This is not something that I trust my kids to do yet... I had one more nasty surprise in store for me. Many, actually most games published these days require the game to connect to the Internet, either to install or to play or both. There was a PBS Kids game we bought that was like this, and it was complete fail when we tried to install on the anti-netbook. So I had to make sure to only buy games that did not explicitly list an Internet connection as a hardware requirement, which generally meant buying a lot of older games. Still I found plenty of such games to choose from.

At some point I will want my kids to be able to do more with a computer. They will need a word processor. Of course I would like to teach them both to program. I would like to get them something like Mathematic/MatLab. And of course by then, they will need a computer that is connected to the Internet. When that day arrives, I will get them a Mac -- but probably not an iPad. I will teach them the old school ways!

The iPad: A Brave New World

Has any piece of technology ever been more anticipated than the iPad? Has anything created as many extreme reactions? Has anything generated as much immediate ridicule?

Anyways, there are a lot of opinions out there, including some very good ones. I really like Alex Payne's take on the iPad. His post led me to Daniel Tenner's analysis, which is probably the closest thing I have seen to my own opinion. While we are at it, I think Timothy Blee's case against the iPad is definitely worth a read. Adobe's Mike Chambers has a very predictable reaction, but is still worth a read as well. But who cares about those guys, you're reading this because you want my brilliant insights, right?

I think the iPad is Apple's boldest move since the 80's. In the 80's, they liberally borrowed a lot of existing ideas and added some of their own twists to reinvent personal computing. It was no longer the command line driven process. There no need for Unix or DOS. The iPad is equally ambitious. 

Over the last two years, Apple has had a chance to experiment with a new kind of computing. The iPhone is accurately described as very capable personal computer that fits in your pocket. With it, Apple changed the way a user interacted with their computer. There was no more mouse, yet the keyboard was rarely needed. There was very little physical media to interact with, i.e. no floppy disks, CDs, or DVDs, only a very occasional physical linking to a desktop/laptop. Apple gave software developers a much more limited environment than they had ever had to deal with. Compared to desktop computer software, iPhone software is amazingly limited in how it can interact with the system (the iPhone). The distribution model was also controlled in a way rarely seen before. Apple had to approve your applications before they could be sold to users.

Yet even in this most restricted of environments, software developers have flourished. Why? As Joe Hewitt wisely points out, many of these restrictions really are for the best. I can install any app from the App Store, and I don't have to worry about it harming my iPhone. This is in stark contrast to desktop software, particularly the ubiquitous world of Windows. 

But wait, it's worse. At least if you're a software developer. The Draconian distribution machine that is the App Store and its approval process is a key part of this peace of mind given to iPhone users. It also makes their lives much easier. Just go to the App Store, and you can find whatever kind of software that you are looking for. Or just browse the games, or maybe lifestyle or social media apps, and you can find something interesting. Reviews are built right into the system. It could get better, and Apple is working on this with their Genius system, but it beats the heck out of anything else out there. 

The iPad takes this new model of personal computing and packages it into a personal computer. The iPad does not invent a new category. Just like the iPhone, it is going after an existing huge category, only this time it is the desktop/laptop category. Yes, this happens to be a category that Apple already plays in and is having a lot of success in. That is part of why this is so bold. The iPad is not going after the statistically insignificant category known as netbooks. Apple does not aim so low. Instead it is going after every person who owns a laptop.

Perhaps you think I am overstating, that Apple is not as bold as I claim. There were four new apps that Apple unveiled along with the iPad. One of those is iBooks, and I won't bother too much with that. The other three were Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. This is Apple's office suite. These are competitors of Microsoft's Word, Excel, and PowerPoint. Now you can read many Office documents on an iPhone, but it is largely a read-only experience. These are not read programs. These are content creation programs. If you think about the history of Apple, could there be anything more symbolic than them shipping a word processing application with their new computing platform? 

I bought my wife a laptop a couple of years ago. It was essential for her to have Office on it. Word processors and spreadsheets are the meat and potatoes of desktop software. Of course she uses photo management and media management software too. All of these things are available on the iPad. The truth is she could easily replace her laptop with an iPad. It would be easier for her to carry around, have better battery life, and the 3G would work even if she was visiting her mother (who does not have wi-fi.)

Think about all of the people whose job involves a computer. For most people, could they not do their job on an iPad? Wouldn't it even be easier in many cases? Of course it would be more convenient, again because of the size, battery life, and always being connected.

Now there will definitely be some people who cannot use an iPad for their job. I am one of those people. Maybe you could write code on it ok, but compile/debug? Don't think so. Designers who do intense things with Illustrator, Photoshop, etc. will need more than an iPad, too. Ditto for scientists, engineers, etc. There are more groups as well, but it's still probably a minority. For all of those people who have to do a lot of typing? Well there's a dock for that. You get the idea.

Apple is offering a new model for personal computing. They are attempting to disrupt an entire industry, once again. The iPad is not a big iPod Touch or a big iPhone. It is not Apple's attempt to go after Amazon's Kindle. It is an attempt to dominate in a way that even Microsoft never got close to. Apple is going to every person who owns a computer and saying "look there's another, better, easier way." I think it's an all-or-nothing bet. The iPad is either a world changer, or a total failure. Which one will it be?