A measure of how Apple has changed the game: even die-hard advocates of a browser-first-and-last method for building applications is starting to second-guess their conclusions.  The Apple iPhone/iTouch platform has so many devices out there, that it is hard to resist developing for it first – even if it wasn’t the best-looking target environment to deploy software to.  On top of that, it *is* the best-looking target environment.  Even more troubling for other platforms: Apple has the “cool” factor working for it to.  You can develop for the most populous platform, that shows off your service or application the best, and also get a halo effect of the Apple cool-factor to rub off on you.  When’s the last time you saw USA Today take out a full page ad to advertise their Droid app?  But on Monday they had one advertising their iPhone app (or was it iPad?). And I didn’t even look at it as USA Today being a pretender – it just made sense to me that they’re targeting this platform.

But there’s another factor that analysis like that offered by John Arnold overlooks.  The mobile website experience is significantly degraded by the quality of your 3G or Edge signal.  It makes some web applications nearly unusable, even though they were specifically designed for Android or for the iPhone.

Cameron Moll gives a similar critique of the current state of affairs:

I argued that “smart clients” (lightweight apps installed on a device whose content is primarily fed by and stored in the cloud) would and should remain secondary to providing the same experience in the browser, again for the reasons mentioned above.

Since the release of iPhone and now with the release of iPad, I’ve gradually found myself questioning more and more the assumption I made. Apple has consistently proven that holistically controlling the entire user experience—inclusive of hardware to software and everything in between—has the potential to yield a more pleasant experience overall. Think of Mac OS + Mac, iPhone OS + iPhone, and now iPhone OS + iPad.

He wonders if HTML5 and CSS might still offer viable alternatives to objective-C on the iPhone, but I think without a fully “local” experience with the cached data, it won’t be good enough.  One of the things phone users are starting to value is how their applications behave when they’re offline (in the subway, on a plane, or just in a dead spot).

If I were writing my “mobile experience” for a product today, there’s no question I’d write it first for the iPhone OS.  Odds are it will have the best overall user experience and set the stage for positive reviews and buzz – as well as reaching the largest number of people.  People on phones other than iPhone and Android phones simply don’t use the mobile web – it doesn’t truly work for them.  Android is gaining steam but it is still a distant second, and has a fractured marketplace for me to publish my apps to.  In fact, I’d probably write the iPhone App first, then the mobile web app.  And then evaluate market demand for Android.

But that’s just me.

Interesting developments in the land of “tablets” and “netbooks”.

It isn’t really my area of primary interest but because I like following Apple’s product direction I follow the news.

First, there’s this article from the day after the keynote, in which Andy Ihnatko goes into great detail with his iPad experience.  I like that he took the time to actually use the device rather than rushing to get a story out and cutting short his time to experience the device.  I’ll note that most of the journalists who stayed and laid hands on it actually had a more positive impression than those that didn’t.  That’s surprising (usually expectations meeting reality is a set up for disappointment).  And it says something about Apple’s attention to detail.

Some of the comments that jumped out from Andy’s review were that it “felt right”.  The “rightness” of products is something Apple has really been excelling at in the last few years.  Another was his commentary on its speed – that it actually feels like you are moving something – not just gesturing and waiting for the phone to move it – a much more complete experience, if you will.

The implications for the iPhone are that Apple may be able to squeeze its A4 (or similar) design into an iPhone and offer this kind of speed in the smaller form factor.  I think there’s limited runway for SPEED to differentiate with phones – and we’ll hit those diminishing returns faster than the 20 years or so it took with PCs -  but right now there’s a lot of room for improvement over my iPhone 3G, and it sounds like Apple has a chance to do that – and still preserve battery life.  That’s impressive.

The truly impressive thing Apple did was leverage the App Store to make the iPad instantly relevant instead of making it a platform in search of applications and utility.  The Kindle and other single-purposes devices suddenly pale in comparison.

Also, regarding the most oft-reported shortcoming (no Flash support):

Months ago, I installed a browser plugin for Safari called “ClickToFlash.” It blocks all Flash content. You’ll see a placeholder image in the webpage and if you want to view the content, give it a click and it’ll load in. I have not noticed any drop in my ability to enjoy the Web. What I have noticed is that my browser is faster and more responsive, and that I can leave a couple of dozen tabs and windows up for weeks without having to force-restart my Mac.

Interestingly, I do this as well, and it doesn’t diminish my experience one bit – in fact it enhances it.  Granted, I do like the option of turning on flash for, say, streaming stock quotes.  But HTML5 can handle that level of animation and is “more standard” than Flash… I think Apple has done the smart thing here by protecting their platform and brand image, and putting pressure on Adobe to step up and make Flash a better product, or get out of the way and make way for HTML 5.

Next, the North Temple blog has an interesting post: On iPads, Grandmas and GameChanging, but I would have called it, so a Grandma, a Technophobe, and a Luddite meet in a bar… The short point here: people he never expected to be interested in a computing device are interested in the iPad.  I had a similar experience when my parents told me they were “buying each other iPhones for Christmas.” And then they asked me if they should get the 3G or 3GS… seriously?  I was tempted to tell them 3G just so they wouldn’t leap frog me technologically.  Then, I find out they’re Netflix subscribers.  When my parents start buying something technical – it is going to be big – because they are NOT early adopters anymore by any stretch.  But they are influencers.  My dad proudly tells of all the guys at the golf club who now have gone out and gotten iPhones to keep up.  And hey, they like the big numbers on the phone.

On a surprising, but I think intelligent response to the advent of the iPad, Acer says it will not release a competing device per se.  I think it is refreshing that Acer is sticking to what it does best.  Honestly, I think this is what RIM should do – make the keyboard experience better and better, rather than try to be a touchscreen phone company.  Acer understands that if they make a tablet it will lack the advantages of Apple’s iPad, but it will have all the same disadvantages.  So they’re punting (for now). Smart move, in my opinion.

Many pundits surmise that Apple won’t have a 2 year lead this time… but I think they will have at least 1 year before a competing system (an Android tablet?) will come along that can leverage apps (android apps?) that even come close to putting it in the same league.  And Apple is also adding pressure by having what looks to be better performance that will be tricky to match in the short-term. The key points from Lin of Acer:

Lin pointed out that designing an iPad-like device would not pose any technical challenges for Acer, but said such a product does not fit into Acer’s business model.

Apple is able to support the iPad through its iTunes ecosystem, while few other makers, including Acer, have comparable experience in operating an online store, Lin noted.

Astute analysis.

Now, StevenF argues that the iPad is a signal of the New World, versus the Old World.  Gen X being smack in the middle of old world computing, and the New World being targeted at those both older and younger than Gen X.  I’m not a big fan of generational themes like Gen X, but he has a point.  If computers in the future will “just work” and reduce the expertise required to use them, they become accessible to more people, and become more important to our society.  I’m constantly trying to get people (rather, the people who ask me IT questions) to switch to Macs because the number of IT-related issues is so much less (as judged by how often they ask me for help).  But an iPhone? I never get questions about how to get some driver installed or printer to work with it… !

I especially enjoyed reading how stevenf railed against the iPhone’s closed system at first -but a month later came back and used it full time.  Because it is just a better phone / smartphone experience, and the open/closed argument doesn’t really matter outside of technophiles like me.  And even I can see that it shouldn’t matter to 99% of the world’s population.  When it is your phone, or your car, you just want it to work. Period. No BSOD. No crashing.  To that end, foursquare can you please fix your app? It crashes more than any other 3 apps I use combined.

So how are things going elsewhere in smartphone land?  Jay Yarrow of the Insider says that the Google Android app store is a joke… You don’t often hear Google described as “sloppy”.  The fact that Android developers feel they can make more money on the Apple App Store is not a good sign for Google/Android. And it is an indication that doing this stuff right is harder than many of us assumed.  From Skyhook Wireless:

In December, wireless firm Skyhook Wireless produced a report about developer frustration with Android. Skyhook interviewed 30 mobile application developers and concluded, “developers are not generating real revenue via Android apps.” As a result “developers are becoming hesitant to invest more time and effort into apps that do not pay off.”

Ouch.

Finally, some would argue that the iPad is a sign of the third revolution…

I’m looking forward to laying hands on the iPad. But more than that, I’m looking forward to iPhone 4.0 – I want to see if it is worth upgrading!

Apple’s net profit from iPhone’s exceeded Nokia’s by approximately 50% ($1.6B in net for Apple, $1.1B in net for Nokia). Its the first time Apple’s net profit in phones exceeded Nokia’s, and it is a dramatic reversal. Just 7.4 million phones generated this profit for Apple. Nokia sold 108 million phones to generate its $1.1B.

The way things are headed, Nokia and others may have more volume, but Apple and RIM will have substantially all the profit.  This is similar to what’s happening in the PC world, where Apple has a stunning 90% share of computers that cost over $1000, according to NPD reports.  Meanwhile the profit is getting sucked out of the rest of the PC business by netbooks and lower cost laptops.

Meanwhile, the AppleInsider has a really interesting comparison of the business models of Apple’s iPhone and Google’s Android phone.  It points out that while Google’s model has some advantages, there are also some disadvantages – no control over the Android brand, for one, and lack of clear accountability to fix customer issues once they have an Android phone.  AppleInsider points out that one bad Android phone can tarnish the brand – which is true of the iPhone as well, but the difference is that Apple has control over what gets released with the iPhone brand, but Google can’t exercise the same kind of control over Android derivatives.  I can’t help but think that the fragmented market of Android phones will only be an advantage if collectively the phones can evolve faster and take advantage of new technology faster than Apple’s iPhones… but so far technology adoption hasn’t been the problem – user experience has been the problem.  And it seems like Apple still has the edge there.

In previous posts I pointed out how Apple made the right call in putting off all the me-too features in favor of the platform-  and then a followup post on the actual execution of that strategy once the iPhone 3GS was released.  The day after the latest Apple presentation seems like a good time to revisit the topic.

First, its apparent that the standalone iPod line is a little less interesting than it was, now that the iPhone and iPod Touch are here.  The incremental improvements are still there, but a little less exciting when you’re so many iterations into a product cycle that gets new offerings literally every 12 months.

But let’s take a look at how the iPhone is doing, shall we?  Oh, we could look at unit sales.  Or revenue.  Or profit margin.  But I just read a blog post that makes the point from the application developer’s perspective. Matt Hall writes in “Android Market Sales, Are Those Tears or is it Raining in Here?” that Android sales are dramatically lower than sales on the iPhone – more so than just the difference in units shipped would suggest.

Let’s take a look at the two charts that are pretty brutal:

Larva Labs Android Market Sales

Followed by a comparison of how their apps are doing on Android Market versus iPhone’s Appstore:

Larva Labs Sales Android vs. iPhone

Ouch.  Matt goes on to give a good critique (and advice) to the Google Android Market for improving their site from a developer’s perspective. But my thought is the key thing the Android Market is missing is that it doesn’t appear to be as focused on making buying decisions easy.  The iPhone/Apple App Store didn’t get everything right with their App Store, but they sure made buying apps easy.  Those customer-facing or customer-touching processes are really important…Matt remains optimistic about Android in the medium- to long-term and I think that’s valid – because the OS is good and it is free – it is likely to be adopted by a lot of phone makers and be in the hands of a lot of users.  But it also may get fragmented like Unix (see China Mobile’s plans for its oPhone and its own application market, powered by Android but not exactly “in” the original marketplace). There are also a lot of complaints in the comment feed about piracy (something Apple’s ecosystem makes harder).  There’s a lot of platform risk in the Android market… and not much (anymore) in the iPhone App Store platform.

And the strategy of building the network-effect marketplace behind a new software platform on the iPhone appears to be a big winner for Apple at this point.  No one else is even close to challenging its ecosystem in this respect.

Still not convinced?  Take a look at the Chart of the Day from the Business Insider:

Apple's iPhone Games vs. Nintendo DS and Sony PSP