cullmanndesign blog

If you design or develop for any of the web, iPhone or iPad LiveView is a must-have app. Essentially a screencasting tool, it allows the user to place a “virtual” device on their host mac and share that marque view with an iPad or iPhone via WiFi. Great tool, genius idea. John Hicks has posted a video that does the product justice.

Quick demonstration of how LiveView works from Jon Hicks on Vimeo.

Apple’s iPad has been out for a few months and there is still quite a bit of excitement as publications begin to experiment with this new platform. Both Popular Mechanics and WIRED had been quick to release 2 very impressive “App” versions of their publication. Both of these pieces are very engaging and mirror content found in their print publication. The interactive versions include some dynamic enhancements including video content, interactive 3D models and social media integration. Of course, there are also video-based ads and dramatically animated advertisements. These pieces, and a number of other publications that have been released in the AppStore, are showcases for what can be implemented on these platforms.

Despite how impressive these applications are, they are not the future of publishing. In fact, these publications offer none of the benefits of what an “App” can offer at all. The WIRED application as well as PM and many other newly launched periodicals available in the AppStore are merely screenshots of the print publications they are replacing. There is interactivity and user engagement not found in the pulp-versions, but there is no evidence of what is really driving people to online media: Real-time, always on information. One of the most attractive qualities of the web is the ability to retrieve information as it becomes available: RSS, cross-linking, related posts, comments. These are all data-points flowing into one another as a real-time conversation. The “new publication” model utilizes few, if any of these differentiators.

What I am especially discouraged by is how closely the new “publication as app” model resembles the CD-ROM boom of the early 90’s. Very much like the iPad publication hype, CD-ROMs where supposed to change the way that media was distributed. CD-ROMs fell from popularity because they where proprietary, not easily shared, difficult to update and did little to further user engagement beyond what was already being offered in the market. I don’t want to come across as an Apple hater or someone who doesn’t think the iPad is a paradigm shift. My issue is with publishers who believe that porting their print materials to a screen and accompanying a few interactive elements is going to save or reinvent their industry.

Equally as offensive to the “interactive” arrangement of JPG and PNG files is the cost model that is being provided for subscribers. Although the cover price is similar to what is found on the traditional newsstand, the development costs don’t seem to warrant the $4.99 app costs that need to be paid every-month for an issue. One hope I had for the new publication model is that without the cost for printing and shipping, that the hyper-engaged advertising opportunity would provide a reduced subscription cost. Instead, users are downloading 400, 500 and even 600MB+ files into their devices to deliver advertising (a issue still pending is how metered bandwidth will affect this model as over-the-air download of these applications is not available via AT&T). Even with the proliferation of broadband, the “web” as a rule is still very lean and content can be provided over a range of bandwidths while maintaining a decent user experience.

The iPad offers so many opportunities for developers and content creators. The massive selection of useful applications is a testament to that. Taking the WIRED and PM samples to task, the solution that should have been implemented is one that provides a subscription “stub” on the device with a framework for the publisher to populate daily or over the course of the month as opposed to a traditional release cycle. This would provide a benefit beyond traditional content delivery and make user engagement more meaningful. This would also lessen the storage footprint and make the application more serviceable to those who have purchased devices with smaller amounts of memory. Advertising would be downloaded on a cycle so that the ad-model itself would apply as it does now. Interactive ads could pull “on-demand” with smaller portions of the ads cached and delivered under a “no-charge” bandwidth model-perhaps the Apple iAd service. I think an offering like this is more valuable and more inline with what the iPad’s benefit is to it’s users: Always-on content delivery that is up-to-the minute.

The release of the iPad and its settling into the market point to a distinction between the devices and software we use to “consume” media and create it. The digital workstation is long overdue for an overhaul and Microsoft Research is developing a solution. In recent demonstrations, Microsoft is leveraging their Surface technology to create a naturally manipulated user interface to draw, write, cut, copy and paste digital data. The demonstration presented shows how you can marry user input devices, in this case a pen, with touch to treat the screen as if it is a true “art-board”.

Surface, as demonstrated here, goes beyond previous generations of tablet and touch interfaces like those currently offered from Wacom and Adesso. Although these input devices make use of naturalistic behavior, they offer a limited surface area for manipulation and lack the utility of multi-touch demonstrated on the Surface technology. Both Microsoft and Apple have incorporated mutli-touch into their native operating systems, the keyboard and mouse software is still the primary paradigm for operation. This is partially due to software developers not yet taking advantage of the new native APIs available in the operating systems, but also a lack of clear indication as to how users will use these technologies. The introduction and evolution of “consumption” dedicated devices like the iPad may yield an answer.

Having used Wacom tablets for year and recently being able to spend time with the Surface, both offer an add a freedom beyond the mouse. Both pressure sensitivity and a natural movement allows fast and quick almost gesture-like actions. This is a benefit and attraction because of the nature of my work in design. I’m unsure how much wide-market appeal it will have or if, beyond page-turning and “flicking”, it can offer with today’s content structure. The iPad, the publishing industry and how developers begin to use this technology will help shape the next generation of user interface. I believe that this is why so many people are excited about the iPad and what it brings to the marketplace.

Interface design like the one presented by Microsoft Surface is creating a completely new arena for content creation and will also influence the aesthetics of design to come. Both print and new media designers may completely change their approach with the freedom presented by these new tools. It may seem strange, but there is an entire generation of designers who may not know what it is like to sit at a drafting table or balance a bottle of India Ink in their hands while burning the midnight oil.

Thanks to John Nosta for the Microsoft Research clip inspiring this post.

Apple’s announcement of the iPad this week and the incredible growth of Apple’s AppStore, I thought it would be appropriate to share my thoughts on software distribution and marketing in a closed eco-system for software. This post is the first half of a two part series on closed eco-systems, like the Apple AppStore, for application development and distribution and the effect that will have on customer adoption.

Last week, I had written the first in a two part series on software development and distribution on closed application store eco-systems. I had used Apple’s AppStore as an example partially due to the release on Apple’s newest device the iPad and also because the AppStore is by far the most successful example of a single distribution system for software developers. In part 1 I had outlined the benefits to consumers and developers in using a closed system like Apple’s. Part 2 will show some how control can negatively impact those who create content for AppStores and those who want to use software on their devices.

To be clear, Apple represents one of the most aggressively closed systems for both developers and consumers. The platform itself only allows for loading of native applications from the the Apple AppStore. Beyond creating a web-based application that is optimized for the device itself, there is no way to implement a solution that is not specifically endorsed by Apple. Other mobile platforms such as Android, BlackBerry, Symbian and Palm all offer methods for users to install applications directly onto a device without the need to have their wares approved by a governing entity. Being able to distribute a piece for software on your own website, your own terms or with any licence agreement gives developers flexibility and channel that is better suited for innovation and support to the end-user.

The ability to work beyond confining terms and license agreements allow developers to push platforms and solutions that allow the the mobile industry to grow and be challenged. This was true with the explosion of Palm in the late 90’s and continued in a smaller scale with platforms like WindowsMobile, Symbian and recently with the open-source based Android operating system. The adoption of a popular piece of software can challenge manufacturers to change hardware, create a new use-case or even extend the life of a product. Software developers can also support a product far beyond the “end-of-life” that a manufacturers support. Ironically, Apple is a prime example with users of their Newton still supporting and improving the platform. If it were not for devoted developers still writing software and loading it directly onto the devices, many working Newtons would have long-ago become plastic paperweights.

AppStores are positioned as a solution to preserve quality and integrity for the end user. Each application is screened and tested to ensure that it is free from anything that may harm the end user or expose them to an unpleasant experience on a manufactured device. There are too many iFart applications or virtual lighters to allow one to speculate the definition of “quality in taste”, but the model holds true for most in maintaining security and safety for the end-user and their data. It does represent an issue that Apple (nor BlackBerry at the time of publishing) has disclosed the criteria for what parameters are used to judge if an application should be allowed or rejected from their AppStore. This presents several issues for application developers poised to pour many, many hours into an application’s development. The first is “how do I know if my application will be accepted?” the second “what do I do if my application is rejected?”. Neither of these are clear beyond the requirement of developers to adhere to the Software Development Kit (SDK) specifications provided. This is not a consequence of an open system where a developer has several solutions if the hardware manufacturer does not approve or endorse an application. For most devices, there are several methods to install or append software to a device by either I/O access (USB, FireWire, etc.,) or via a networked solution.

Having a focal rally point for comments would seem to be an ideal way to communicate with and distribute user feedback for a developer’s software. In an open system, comments and reviews are distributed all over the internet and users looking for a solution must sift through search-terms and potentially irrelevant material to discover a solution. AppStores put search-term results in logical formats and focus a single point-of-distribution with a link, install option and user reviews in once place. This may not be a good solution if your product is #2, or #3 (or lower) in the search results. Users searching for a solution via Google, Bing or any other search engine may find results different depending on their search history, the terms that are searched or how much they may have invested in their own marketing. An open-system gives a more fractured option list, but a better opportunity for the less popular, and potentially, more appropriate application or content for the searcher. Reviews can also be reached in this same matter rather than shown in aggregate in a single AppStore page.

As a follow-through thought on marketing, you have to think about the financial implications of participating in an AppStore. For some, BlackBerry and Android for instance, there is no commission taken for sales within their eco-systems. Both of these examples are not market-leaders and participation by developers are required to help build the brands. The developers are a corner stone in the platform’s infrastructure. Apple has a slightly different model. Developers pay a 30% charge for every sale. Apple, a market leader, presents a different marketing position. The Apple user base has only one choice to find and install applications: The Apple Store. If you are a developer for iPhone, iTouch and now iPad applications, the AppStore 30% is the only game in town. This is one of the more influential criteria driving developers to more open solutions like Android and, one can speculate, creating a market amongst thought-leaders and geeks to purchase more open-platform devices like the Google Nexus One and Motorola Droid. The popularity of the iPhone and it’s AppStore has set a president and a trend for software distribution that I hope will be contained to the mobile platform and not to the computer industry in general.

That same distribution method is also changing the model for how companies are using the web and “Apps” for marketing and customer conversion. Many of the most popular applications in the AppStore (and Android Portal) are no-cost solutions allowing customers to interface with paid-services or free-mium services. Pandora, DropBox, Box.net and Amazon are only a few examples. Many of these services leverage easy access to position advertising or easily provide consumers access to their content from anywhere they may be to monotize interactions. Native apps and even having an application, a brand footprint on an always-connected, intimate device like a mobile phone is ideal for encouraging interaction and brand loyalty. 2010 will show that there will be a saturating of the market with Apps and brand touch-points. Those not already in the market will have to fight against early incumbents for mind-share and a coveted place on the user’s home-screen (the new prize in marketing real-estate).

Dichotomy: As a developer I am frustrated by the confines that the AppStore represents. As a marketer, any AppStore can be a new distribution channel and focal point to drive customers to interact with your brand from anywhere at anytime. The Apple iPhone, a market-leader, and soon the iPad (success is to-be-determined!) will provide ambitious developers willing to work within Apple’s confines an opportunity at wealth. For those who want to think beyond those confines, platforms like Android and BlackBerry are an opportunity to spread their wings and push the devices they develop for to the limit.