Personal Computing Biases

Posted on February 26, 2012 by Frank

We all have biases, the difference is that some people are better at not wearing their biases on their sleeves than others. In the tech world our biases are most commonly expressed through the computer gear we use. A person who choses to use an Android phone is likely going to think that Android is a better operating system than iOS. So what are my biases?

I seek flexibility so that I can tailor a device to my needs and therefore get the best value. Back in 1996 when Apple stopped making MessagePads the available choices were the Palm Pilot or Microsoft’s Handheld PCs. I chose the Handheld PC because it had a PC Card slot that supported peripherals and storage, and therefore I felt it was capable of doing more than a Palm Pilot.

Another bias is that I think a device should conform to my needs, not the other way around. To input text with a Palm Pilot you had to learn a character set called Graffiti, which you used to write letter by letter on a specific location of the device. Handheld PCs came with a QWERTY keyboard, which meant I didn’t have to learn something new in order for the device to be useful.

My biases toward flexibility and low learning curve were formed by the first mobile computer I owned, or what I call my first real personal computer, the Apple MessagePad and its Newton operating system. The MessagePad had a PC card slot for storage cards and peripherals and it translated natural handwriting rather than requiring one to learn a unique character set. (Graffiti was actually developed first for the Newton OS to provide an alternative to Newton’s famously inaccurate handwriting recognition.)

It’s ironic that the company who developed the first real personal computer upon which my biases are based later developed the iPhone, which conflicts with my flexibility bias. One can debate the merits of the design choices Apple makes, but you cannot debate that using an iOS device requires conforming to Apple’s approach and therefore one loses flexibility. I equally recognize that flexibility leads to more complexity that I tolerate, perhaps I am even drawn to, but that more people prefer the simplicity that is the hallmark of Apple’s user centered approach.

You probably are not surprised by now that I prefer to use Android smartphones rather than the iPhone. The first Android smartphones supported storage cards and you can continue to find phones that have storage card slots while an iPhone never had nor never will have such support.

Of course, it is well known that there are far fewer restrictions with the Android Market than Apple’s App Store, however, Android also supports direct installation of apps that one could find from other app stores, such as Amazon’s, or even any web site. This “sideloading” of applications is not possible with iPhone unless without rooting the phone.

One final bias that I have is the Internet. What I have learned is that personal computing is much more powerful when connected to the Internet. Although the iPhone has always been able to connect to the Internet, it is made by a company that designs its products around the user experience. Google designs its products around the Internet.

It’s not that I don’t appreciate a good user experience, but Google’s approach to the Internet more closely aligns to my needs. Google Maps is acknowledged by most to be a superior mapping and navigation application and it is because of how it uses servers on the Internet to provide current maps, directions, and voice interaction. Long before Android came to market I had already shifted to web applications for much of my personal computing, putting the Internet at the center of my computing needs.

So there you have it, the biases that form the context for what personal computers I use, my experiences using them, and what you see in my writing. I don’t fancy myself a journalist, so you won’t see news reporting and I commend to you one of many very fine web sites to get your technology news.

I think of myself as a teacher and I attempt do my teaching by writing. I write about my experiences so that the reader may learn from them, or as Jerry Pournelle often writes, “I do this crazy stuff so that you don’t have to.”

Posted in Opinion, Site Info | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

What Is A PC?

Posted on February 10, 2012 by Frank

In an article for Time.com published this week, Harry McCracken states that we need a new definition of ‘PC’. While writing the article McCracken asked on Twitter, “What is a PC?” Because it relates to what I am writing about here, I have been mulling the question in my mind all week. It seems to me that the real answer lies in a common definition of what is computing.

I have a formulaic definition for personal computing. It is:

personal computing = hardware + software (apps) + Internet + intelligence

McCracken’s definition is that a PC:

runs apps AND is a general purpose device AND is designed for use by one person at a time AND can be of any size

The important point being made here by McCracken I think is that personal computing is not about what a device can do nor its form factor, but rather how much a user can do with it. Games running on gaming consoles are definitely a form of computing, and game consoles are definitely computers. Put another way, a PC is hardware than runs software so that it can be used to complete a number of different tasks by a person. No constraints nor requirements are placed on the size or shape of the hardware, it just needs to be capable of being used.

McCracken equates “personal” to a number and emphasizes the general purpose functionality of the device. In principle I don’t disagree with that but I think there is an emerging change of the definition of “personal” from meaning one person using a device at a time to there being something uniquely mine about the device, which is where the Internet + intelligence portion of my formula comes in.

I have not yet seen the type of personalization that I think we are heading towards, but here are a few examples of what I mean. Android 4.X, commonly known as Ice Cream Sandwich, uses facial recognition to automatically detect that a phone is being held by an owner so that it is unlocked. Android also uses speech-to-text translation that enables a person to dictate to their device and have it translated to text. As it is used more by users Google collects information in order to learn how well translation is being done. Siri on iOS also does speech translation to be able to determine what action a user wishes to be performed on the iPhone.

All of the above examples require an Internet connection because servers more powerful than smartphones are used to perform the translation and then send the results back to the smartphone. Intelligence occurs with data being collected on the servers that is then used to improve the translation. In this case the level of intelligence is not yet as sophisticated as imagined by artificial intelligence, but can be seen as a baby step in that direction.

McCracken wrote his article in response to the debate over whether it is right for tablets like the iPad to be included in the count of the number of personal computers sold. Including the iPad in the count makes Apple the number one personal computer company, ironic given that Apple is no longer a computer company.

While I don’t think declaring one company as victor is particularly important, I agree with McCracken’s assertion that when you take into account the evolving, new definition of what is a PC, tablets ought to be counted. For that matter, so should smartphones. All this also affirms that we are not in a Post-PC era, but rather just at the beginning of a new, more real, personal computing era.

Posted in Opinion | Tagged | Leave a comment

It’s Not About The Number Of Platforms But Rather The Amount Of Change

Posted on January 16, 2012 by Frank

Conventional thinking is that the mobile market, or what I call the real personal computing market, will be the same as what we have known as the personal computer market. Over time the original personal computer market consolidated until there were only two popular choices: Macintonsh and Wintel. The question is, while today there are many players in the mobile market, will it too consolidate down to two choices: iOS and Android?

Market data and anecdotal evidence suggests that like the original PC market, the new market will indeed only end up with two choices. Most people who counter that argument point out that the potential market size is so large that even a small percentage of the market can be profitable. The theory is that even if Microsoft only ever gained 5% of the market, that represents enough profits to keep Microsoft in the market.

I think it’s wrong to apply past history to the new personal computing market. For one, there is a significant influencer in this market that did not exist before, the mobile operators, who have tremendous control over entry into the market. However, I think what may be an even greater factor is the speed of change that is now expected by consumers today.

If the launch of Windows 95 was the tipping point that resolved desktop and laptop computing down to two platforms, it took nearly a decade to get to that point. The pace of change is so fast now it is nearly impossible to imagine what the new, real personal computing market will look like in 2017. What I am pretty sure of though is that users won’t be satisfied with platforms that don’t change much during those ten years.

Therefore, while the tendency is to look at the current platforms that aren’t the market leaders and ask whether they have enough to take over a position, it is equally important to ask whether the current market leaders are changing enough to maintain their position. A change in platform leadership is most likely going to be due to stagnation at the top combined by change from below.

In my opinion iOS (Apple) is at risk simply because when you believe you have the perfect product, and the sales numbers support that belief, there is little motivation to change. For the most part iOS looks, feels, and does much the same now as it did in 2007 and that is why I think there is a degree of anxiety about the next version of the iPhone.

Android (Google) is also at risk because their approach to openness is diluting their market share and creating complexity. Which “version” of Android holds the number 2 spot? HTC’s? Samsung’s? Amazon’s? I think there is a point where if users have to know too much or have too many choices the whole platform begins to look too complex.

The real problem for Android is that there are too many stores for Android apps, not all stores have all of the Android apps, nor do all Android devices have access to all Android stores. For example, one of my favorite Android apps is Are You Watching This?, which you can find in the Android Market and therefore install it on most Android devices, but its not in the Amazon Appstore so you can’t install it on the Kindle Fire. What happens when a Kindle Fire user really wants that app and finds out even though his device can run it, he can’t install it because its not in the Appstore?

Above I give an example of issues with the current top two platforms of the new personal computing market that provide opportunities for other platforms. True, it’s hard to imagine Windows Phone taking over either iOS or Android near term, but Microsoft has done this before when it waited out Palm to eventually become the top PDA platform.

I don’t believe the new personal computing market will consolidate down to two platforms simply because the amount of change users now expect provides more opportunities for failure and success. Continued success in this market is going to rely on long term vision, persistence, and constant evolution, all of which is why I think the new personal computing market is so exciting.

Posted in Opinion | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Top Four Platforms Of The Emerging Personal Computing Market

Posted on January 10, 2012 by Frank

When we talk about the desktop and laptop computer market we typically break it down into two categories, which are the platforms upon which the desktop and laptop computer products exist. The two platforms are known as Macintosh and Wintel. While Macintosh is solely owned by Apple and today is the combination of OS X and Apple’s hardware, Wintel is a combination of Microsoft Windows and hardware from several companies like HP and Lenovo.

Ironically, while the “tel” portion of Wintel represents the Intel processor in the computers that run Windows, Apple also uses Intel processors in their desktop and laptop computers.

Several platforms also make up the emerging personal computing (or what others may call the mobile computing) market, although for the moment only four are the most relevant: iOS (Apple), Android (Google), Windows Phone (Microsoft), and Blackberry (RIM). If you are going to follow what I claim is the new and real personal computing market these are the four platforms and companies to keep your eye on.

Apple transformed itself from a computer company (up until January 2007 it was known as Apple Computer Inc. but changed its name to Apple, Inc.) to a user electronics company. Apple challenges the status quo of the electronics and computer industry by making products that have the absolute best user experience.

Google exists to make it easier to find information on the Internet, and it makes money when people use the Internet and see advertising that they sell. Consequently, Google is motivated to make it easy for people to use the Internet so that they stay connected. Android exists to insure that the majority of smartphones and tablets have the best access to the Google products on the Internet.

Microsoft exists to sell software, although it is by far the most diversified of these four companies and frankly the reason why Microsoft exists is very muddy. The reason why Microsoft made Windows Phone is to remain relevant. I think Microsoft would like to think itself as a user experience company much like Apple, but user experience is not at the core of why Microsoft exists. Microsoft’s goal is to have as many products running their software with the Windows brand as possible because it makes money from the licensing of that software.

RIM can actually be considered the most focused of these four primary platforms of the new personal computing. Originally RIM existed to provide the best mobile messaging experience, and did so by selling devices that had the best portable keyboards and wireless network connectivity. Unfortunately, it appears the downfall of RIM may be due to leadership unable to redefine why the company exists nor have they been able to keep their original reason for existing relevant. Right now, like the “traditional” computer companies before it, RIM exists to sell as many smartphones as possible.

Posted in Opinion, What | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Let’s Get Real

Posted on December 31, 2011 by Frank

Personal computing is not about a device, its about a mashup. I contend that all of the components of this mashup are necessary for real personal computing. Three of the components are well known although they each have different degrees of maturity, but I think the fourth component is the real secret sauce. Here is what the mashup looks like:

personal computing = hardware + software (apps) + Internet + intelligence

What do I mean by intelligence? The fundamental problem with computing today is that it requires users to interact with it in very specific and unnatural ways. Programmers have to know a specific syntax in a programming language to write apps. Users need to learn how to navigate menu options, memorize commands, and type in order to interact with the computer.

Real personal computing will be achieved when we don’t have to learn anything special in order to do it. What might this look like? First, we will be able to talk to the personal computer, ask it for information or for it to do something, and it will understand no matter how we speak. Siri is a good first step, but it still requires users to know how to use it, so there is still room for improvement. Some call this understanding context, but I think for a computer to correctly understand any request that requires intelligence.

By the way, don’t interpret the mashup as to mean all of it is on a device. Remember, the “computer” on Star Trek is a mainframe running on the Enterprise, and the users mostly interact with it using a communication device. A simple press of a button, a spoken question, and an answer is the personal computing of Star Trek. The network, what we call the Internet, is a key foundational component of personal computing.

Another important point is that voice will not be the only form of interaction in personal computing. Just like our conversations with others can be by voice, written notes, or e-mail, personal computing will involve handwriting and typing. The form of interaction will be dictated by the circumstances and preferences of the user.

So, the focus of this web site will be on the emerging personal computing era that I have laid out in my first post and in this post. I will be writing about the mashup of hardware, software, Internet, and intelligence that I think will make personal computing real. As I said previously, each of these components are at different degrees of maturity, so I will write about each individually and together as appropriate.

In the spirit of weblogging, I mostly plan to use this site to share what I find about each of these components that I think are interesting. I really do think that we are on the verge of something very interesting and I am looking forward to writing about it here. My simple request of you is that if you find something here of interest, whether you agree or disagree with my opinions, to share it with others via whatever means is easiest to you.

Posted in Opinion | Leave a comment