Why Were the Experts so Wrong about the iPad 2?

Right before the iPad 2 hit the stores March 11th most pundits said it was no big deal - a minor upgrade - and thought the demand would not rival the first version that came out eleven months earlier. They could not have been more wrong. Not only did the first shipments sell out within hours but there have been lines of people every morning at every Apple store waiting with baited breath for the next truck. How could the experts have been so wrong?

They tend to overestimate the interest and knowledge of the general public. They believe everyone has the time and inclination to hang on every tweet from every tech vendor and writer. Surprise, surprise most people have real jobs and a variety of interests besides computers. In spite of all the hype about the first iPad a year ago, few people really knew much about it on day one - from the basics of how would it actually work to the more important "is it really suitable for business?" Questions like these prevented the vast majority of people from purchasing the first iPad early in the cycle.

Along the way, three things happened. First, the positive reviews came in and the early adopters showed theirs off to anyone they could corner - friends and coworkers alike. This created the buzz and the associated "cool factor." Next, businesses began to experiment and found that it really was appropriate for many tasks involving their mobile workforce - storage of sales and technical documents for example. Finally, at the end of 2010 many people who decided to buy were advised to wait because the next version would have a camera - or maybe two cameras.

Consequently, when the iPad 2 became available there was a huge demand in spite of the experts suggestion that it was not a major improvement over the original. When you think about it, what would the "experts" have required for a major improvement? It is unlikely in my opinion that any new tablet from any vendor will be considered a major advance over the preceding tablet. Just like the succession of PCs over the last thirty years, each one will be a little faster or have a slightly better screen or camera. The fact that tablets are primarily touch screens with a processor and solid state storage makes improvements primarily a matter of new and upgraded apps. There's not much you can do with the basic tablet slab except speed it up and add a new I/O port or button. I certainly am not saying there will not be better tablets in the future; I'm just suggesting that few new versions will be considered major leaps forward.

Mobile Operating Systems Galore

First a little history - Some of us are old enough to remember what life was like before Microsoft Windows dominated the world of desktop computing starting in the late 1980s. For the previous ten years there were a dozen or more hardware designs and operating systems including Radio Shack (Trash 80), Commodore (Pet), Sinclair, Franklin, Timex, Altair, Atari, Heathkit, Ohio Scientific and of course the venerable Apple II. None of these survived or thrived for more than a few years. Even Apple faded into the background for a long dark night.

We are today in the middle of a similar struggle involving mobile operating systems. Early leaders included Palm and Blackberry. Now the question is: How many products can survive in the long run. In particular which operating system(s) will dominate. Once that is decided, phone and tablet makers as well as carriers will fight to differentiate their devices - all based on one of the dominate operating systems. The OS competition today involves Google Android, Google Chrome, Apple iOS, HP WebOS, MS Windows Phone 7, MS Windows Mobile, MS Windows 8 (possibly) and RIM Blackberry OS. And you thought it was a two way race.

How did this turn out in the PC world when (almost) everyone used Windows and also used basically the same hardware? It turned into a price war and there were many casualties. Hundreds of small and large companies went into and out of the PC business in the last twenty years. Technology was a minor consideration - shelf space and advertising budgets were what mattered most. PCs became commodities which meant the death of companies and the death of innovation.

There is every reason to believe this will happen in the mobile field as well. It's an issue of software developers, shelf space and mindshare. Companies can only develop apps for a limited number of operating systems; retailers have room for only a few products in their stores; and consumers and companies cannot spend countless hours choosing between dozens of platforms.

Watch this space (and every other space) for ongoing discussion of this exciting topic as the Mobile Internet unfolds before us.

About time we named these new gadgets

For several years now we've called our most popular new gadgets Mobile Devices. That's a name only a geek could love. We have smartphones and tablets of all sizes and they all share common characteristics so it makes sense to name this group. I think they should be referred to as - drum roll - Companion Computers. First, they really are computers and should be identified that way. Some are used as phones but referring to them as phones misleads the public into thinking they are primarily phones - they are not. We've had desktop computers and laptop or portable computers so it makes sense to use the word computer here as well. In fact, some survey organizations are now including iPads in computer sales statistics as I believe they should.

Companion has two meanings. First, many of these new devices will be with us constantly and will be our companions. Certainly smartphones and the smaller tablets - think smartphones without a phone - will be in our pockets, our bags and our cars. Larger tablets can be taken and used everywhere much more easily than "traditional" computers. Second, these computers will also be companions for our desktop and portable computers. They will not replace them in the near future and will coexist peacefully and perform whatever tasks each one does best.

I'd certainly like to hear what you think - other nominations are welcome.

Comparing Apples and Androids

I've been thinking about this topic for some time and decided now that the back-to-school and Christmas shopping seasons are upon it's to time do it - and nothing represents the Christmas spirit like a shiny new Motorola DROID 2 running the Android 2.2 "Froyo" OS and including Flash Player 10.1, a 3.7 inch screen, a slide-out QWERTY keyboard, a five (count 'em five) megapixel camera, an 8GB microSD card and a 3G mobile hotspot feature (for an amazingly low $20 per month.) Am I right?

All kidding aside (you did know I was kidding?) I thought it would help to summarize what is happening in the major technical competition of our day - the battle between Apple and Android phones. I use an iPhone so my knowledge of the Android market is limited to what I read and hear from colleagues. Any comments you can add will be appreciated. First a summary of major points you need to know:

Apple - Simplicity is the key - If you want to walk into a store, pick up a phone, set it up and begin using it in an hour, buy an iPhone.

• Easy to setup and use

• Easy to select - only two models and one decision - 3Gs or the latest 4G (16GB or 32GB)

• One operating system - iOS

• One carrier - AT&T - for now

• Number of apps - Huge

• Well designed portal - iTunes Store

• One source of apps - Apple App Store

• Tightly controlled apps - security, viruses, etc.

• Small size - pocket or purse

Android - Vast array of choices and decisions - If you want a carrier other than AT&T, or a physical keyboard, a larger screen or other specific hardware features and want no restrictions on your apps, then buy an Android phone.

• Choice of vendor - HTC, Motorola, LG, Sony-Ericsson, Google, Acer, Samsung and others

• Multiple designs - Each vendor can design their own phones and most have more than one version resulting in nearly a hundred different Android phones available today
• Wide array of features that vary from model to model - larger screen sizes, more physical buttons, physical QWERTY keyboards, higher resolution cameras, customizable screen layouts, dedicated social network functions, etc.

• Multiple OS variations - There are currently five different Android operating systems in use (1.5-2.2) and each vendor can add their own user interface (UI) to the OS.
• Multiple app sources

• Unrestricted apps

• Number of apps - Huge

• Competition will cause prices to drop

There are of course many other smartphones available but Apple and the Android family are all the rage today. Apple defined the category with the iPhone 3G in 2008. Google changed the game by introducing an operating system that runs on many phones and dozens of companies seized on this approach. This is reminiscent of the PC wars in recent years - Apple versus the "PC".

While it is often stated that Apple lost that battle, remember that IBM - the other major player - failed in the business altogether due to brutal price competition. Contrary to poplar wisdom, IBM tried to stop others from making PCs but less than ten months after the IBM PC was introduced in 1981, the first clones were announced.

The current hoard of Android phone manufacturers might look like an army storming the Apple "castle". What should not be overlooked in this scenario is that the attacking warriors are also trying to destroy each other - not a pretty scene. Who will ultimately prevail as the preeminent Android provider (like the 1990s Dell or HP) is anybody's guess.

The variety of choices in Android hardware and operating systems is confusing for many people. These differences can cause serious problems for vendors as well as explained in this article by JR Raphael in CompterWorld. Raphael is normally a vociferous Android proponent.

A footnote about Apple: Rumors have circulated for years about another carrier for the iPhone. In the past these have sounded more like hopeful speculation for the "I hate AT&T crowd" and those with poor AT&T service but recently the rumors have coalesced into a strong possibility that Verizon will be a choice after the first of the year. Stay tuned.

More info about spotting dangerous web site links

 A reader ask for more information on this item from a previous post.

An address you see in an email message or web page may look legitimate but the link connected to that address may be entirely different. The button or words you click on are totally arbitrary and the underlying web address (the hyperlink) is what matters.

There are two easy ways to discover the real address of a clickable button or text phrase. You can "hover" over the item - move your mouse pointer over it without clicking - and see the real link displayed - usually at the lower left border of the browser window. You can also right click on the text or button and choose "copy the link" or "copy the shortcut". Then past this into your browser window address bar or any other document and see the actual link displayed. Both approaches - hover and copy/paste should also work with email messages that include links.


As mentioned in the earlier post, you should look closely at the Top Level Domain Name - which includes .com, .edu, .gov and country codes such as .us, .ch, .ru, etc.

A PC Defender - What do you think of his idea?

John Dvorak, a well known PC writer. has this to say when comparing desktop PCs to mobile devices "With my PC I can actually calculate, with accuracy, the trajectory of a rocket shot to the moon, and the amount of fuel it needs to get there. On my desktop." Is this something we all need to worry about? Read the entire article in PC Magazine.