When I saw the early press coming out this morning about Windows Phone 7 Series (WP7), I was absolutely stunned.  I expected a device that merged the current Windows Mobile platform (6.5) with a lot of concepts from the Zune HD and Xbox 360.   But, WP7 was actually a complete rewrite of the whole platform.  In every sense, it is a brand new mobile OS based on the Zune HD and XBox 360.  What is even more impressive, is that the new platform seems to borrow little from the current mobile market leaders—the Apple iPhone, Blackberry OS, and Android.  In fact, it eschews the current paradigm that a mobile OS is simply a gateway to your apps.  Rather than apps, WP7 focuses on hubs for content.  Each hub (people, pictures, media, games, marketplace, etc.) actively polls social media and pulls in content relevant to that hub.  For example, if I want to to view a contact on the device, I just click on their name and it automagically pulls in their recent Facebook, Twitter, and (hopefully) Flickr information and aggregates it into a single view.  And, based on the early walk-throughs, this works contextually for every hub.

Now that I have had a little time to digest all the news and watch a few videos, I am still pretty amazed that this product came from Microsoft.  Not because the UI is  so good (MS has recently came out with a number of good  UIs), but because the new UI is such a huge risk.  I honestly expected Microsoft to go the Bada route, and just come out with an iPhone clone.  This would have been a safe choice.  And, based on how bad Bada is getting panned, a fairly poor choice.  But, Microsoft decided to go the other direction and come out with a highly unique, very stylized creation of its own.  And, I think that this is going to really help differentiate them in the marketplace.

While there are a number of questions remaining about WP7, I think the initial showing was extremely positive.  I know that I personally am going to put off buying a new device until the fall to see how this platform plays out.

I just got done reading an op-ed by former Microsoft VP David Brass entitled Microsoft’s Creative Destruction.   The article was about why, in his view, Microsoft is no longer an innovator in the technology marketplace.  His end conclusion was that the company did not create an “environment” for innovation.  His arguments were based on his experiences with two technologies (ClearType and Tablets) that he helped pioneer.  And, he makes it clear in the first line of the op-ed, that this lack of innovation is in direct contrast with that of Apple.

Now, I know absolutely nothing about Microsoft’s internal workings.  So, I am not going to argue the premise of the article.  But, what I do find completely disparaging is how loosely Brass throws around the word “innovation”.  Is the iPad really innovative?  To me, it is a giant iPod touch.  I actually stopped watching Job’s keynote half way through because the device was so utterly unimaginative and boring that if you would have asked me to write its key features out 6 months ago, I would have been about 98% accurate.  Now, I am not saying it isn’t a cool device…but, it is far from innovative.  Now contrast this with a truly innovative device—Project Natal.  With Natal, you can actually move your body in front of the TV and the device senses the movement in 3D and maps it to the game in real-time.   This is Avatar-type stuff.  It is not coming out 10 years from now…it is coming out this year.  And, who is it coming from?  Yup, Microsoft.

Now, I am not (as the kids say) “hatin’ on Apple”.  I am just saying that not everything that has an “i” in front of it is innovative.  And, sometimes VP’s are better off doing what they do best—crashing yachts into Ferraris—than, speculating on what innovation is.

I honestly have spent very little time reading about the iPad.  As Dennis Green once eloquently put it “they are who we thought they were”.  Sure, the interface is a little different and it has a lot of new software, but at the end of the day, it is really just a big iPhone.  I think that is one of the reasons that this device has got a mixed reaction early on.  A lot of tech folks expected a little Apple magic to usher in the new category, and it never showed up.

Now that is not to say that the device will not sell.  Trust me, Apple will sell a bunch of these devices.  But, I will not be buying one.  Alex Payne said it best: “if I had an iPad rather than a real computer as a kid, I’d never be a programmer today”.  As a UI developer, who spends most of his time using a computer to create, a device like this seems strange to me.  But this is the new reality.  The iPad has ushered in the era of passive computing.  An era where the target audience of mass computing devices are people that aim to consume media, not create it.

Quick Take. In my opinion, the Google Phone is the most technologically advanced phone on the market right now.  If I bought a phone today, it would be from Google.  There are phones that compare in specs (HTC HD2) and phones the compare in UX (iPhone), but nothing is as complete as the Google N1.

A new approach to buying a mobile phone? In the press conference yesterday, Google announced that they would sell the N1 directly to consumers and allow for the option to purchase the phone unlocked.  They described this as a new approach to buying a mobile phone.  As someone who has been using unlocked phones for 2+ years now, I can tell you that Google’s approach is far from novel.  What is mind boggling about the announcement is that the unlocked phone still only works with 3G on 1 carrier.  But, honestly, the blame for this lies with the FCC, not with Google.  Because the 3G spectrum is unregulated, it is pretty much impossible to sell a true unlocked phone in the US.  Hopefully this changes with 4G.

What I really like. I think I like the concept of Android as much as I do the device itself.  Android has taken everything that people like about the iPhone—an easy-to-use interface, access to a bunch of apps, and a great browser—and ported it to an open platform.  In addition, they have added best-of-breed access to all their services.

On the shortcomings of the Google N1. I think Walt Mossberg always provides the best reviews.  And, his N1 review follows suit.  As his negatives, he mentions some UX issues, a fewer amount of available Apps, and a lack of cohesive media software like iTunes.  In terms of UX issues, what I like about Android is that no one iterates as fast as they have.  There has been 4 major releases of Android in the last year, compared to 1 each from the other major mobile devices.  In terms of apps, they already have 20,000+ and a ton more coming with market share.  I personally can only think of about 5 apps that I would want, and their app store covers the bases on that.  In terms of media applications, I really expect this to be dominated by third parties on the N1.  I believe that next year is the year services like spotify will take hold.  And, we will start thinking of storing MP3s on your own hard drive as being last decade tech.

Will I buy it? Maybe.  I think I almost talked myself into while writing this article.  But, I still want to wait and see what Windows Mobile 7 looks like before I make a decision.  As I said at the beginning of the article, the Google N1 is at the top of my list.

It looks more-and-more like Google is going to offer a Google branded (HTC made) phone in January.  If you don’t keep up on tech, it is going to look pretty much like an iphone. A lot of people are asking what does this mean for the mobile segment, the iPhone, and especially the Android platform.  Here are my thoughts.

First off, I think this is a classic example of market segmentation.  There is no question in my mind that device has its cross hairs firmly fixed on the iPhone.  Google sees a segment, lets call it the high-end smart phone segment, with a single competitor.  Now, I know a lot of people think that this segment has more than one player.  But, lets be honest, there is really only one phone on the market right now that people are willing to consistently shell out $199 for, and that is the iPhone 3GS.  Back to the Google phone.  One thing is apparent in this segment, brand matters.  Google knows this and that is why they are throwing their name behind a new phone in this segment.

So, lets assume what I said above is true:  Google aims to compete directly with the iPhone 3Gs (and the iPhone 4) in the high-end smartphone segment.  How exactly will they compete and, more importantly, how well will they do?  I think at the beginning Google is going to compete on features and on cost-of-ownership.  The Google phone is going to feature a lot of what the Droid already does:  multi-tasking, built-in navigation, apps, etc.  Google knows that on a feature-for-feature basis, they will fair pretty well.  But, lets be honest, the iPhone 4 will probably match most of these on its release.  I think the killer feature for the Google phone will be built-in, fully integrated Google Voice with free wi-fi calling, free SMS, and host of other features that I don’t think any mobile OS has an answer for, not even Apple.  This is such a huge advantage because it will probably lower most phone bills by at least $10-20 per month giving the Google phone a huge advantage in lifetime cost-of-ownership.

How well will the phone do?  I think the wild card here is the iPhone UX.  Most people that have an iPhone are pretty passionate about this aspect of the phone.  And, honestly, I don’t see a whole lot of people switching.  People that have the iPhone already pay a ton of money to own one, so cost-of-ownership probably will not be a big deal to them.  I do think that a new Google phone will get a large percentage of new smart phone owners, and a large percentage of budget conscious smart phone owners.  Honestly, I would not be surprised if it gobbles up 1-3% of smart phone sales in its first year.

What does this mean for HTC, Sony Ericsson, Samsung, and other smart phone manufacturers?   I do not necessarily look at this as a death blow to the Android platform.  In fact, I think it could be a boon for the low to medium end segments of the market.  A successful Google phone would bring tons of developers to the platform, and make the free to $150 Android phones pretty appealing to a large number of consumers.  I also think that this is a blessing in disguise for Microsoft Phone OS.  Staying out of the branded phone business could make them seem pretty appealing as long as Windows Mobile 7 is not a flop.

What are your thoughts?

As I was reading about the ChromeOS announcement on Engadget and Techcrunch this afternoon and early evening, my reaction slowly went from “Is that it?” to “Huh?” to “That is brilliant”.  And, finally I settled on my overall opinion of the announcement—ChromeOS is brilliant, but a couple years too early.

On the surface, the OS looks pretty good.   The early UI concept video shows an intuitive interface, although I think it needs a lot of work.  The two big UI issues I noticed were the panels and the window management.  I thought how the panels hovered above the browser was pretty annoying.  And, the window switching seemed like an afterthought.   I really didn’t like how there is no indication on the screen on how many windows you have open.

The idea behind the OS itself is pretty brilliant—the browser is the OS.   Your images would be stored on Flickr.  Your music would come from GrooveShark.  Your email and documents would come from Gmail, Office Live, etc.  And best of all, the OS will run on extremely cheap hardware.  This means that we could potentially have it running on $100 laptops, tablets, and MIDs.

But, like I said at the beginning, the idea is still a couple years too early.  I think Gizmodo did the best job of laying out the requirements for this new OS to be successful.  The Internet needs to be ubiquitous, it needs to be faster, and web applications need to be better.  In the short term, I don’t think Google OS will be too useful to me.  I cannot develop on it.  I cannot run Photoshop on it.  And, I really don’t want to do word processing on it.  All these tasks are still better on Windows.  With that said, I could definitely see myself running this OS on a complementary device in the near future.  For example, if you stuck it on a multi-touch tablet for $200, it could be a killer device.  In the long term, I think that ChromeOS has the potential to be a large competitor in the OS market, because it is perfectly positioned to take full advantage of the coming advances in web technology.

That was quick, pundits are already predicting ChromeOS to be a failure. I don’t agree.  Like I said, for this OS to be successful in the short term, it has to be on really cheap, single purpose hardware.  Listen Google, put this on $200 multi-touch tablet and people will buy it.

I just got done reading Jon Gruber’s article The OS Opportunity.  In his article, Gruber posits that now is the time for large companies, such as Dell, to start making and marketing their own consumer desktop OS.   He references the success Apple has had doing so.  And his main point of reason is that it is the only way these companies can successfully differentiate.

Seems like a reasonable assertion, right?   Sure, Apple as of late has had a lot of success by coupling hardware and software in the mobile market.  And, even has had a modest level of success doing so in the consumer PC market.  But, lets not so easily forget, that this strategy almost bankrupted the company in the 90s.  It was the iPod and its logical extension, the iPhone, that saved the company.  These devices succeeded because they were new, innovative, and most importantly, disruptive.

By that same measure, does it make sense for a company like Dell to have its own OS?  I would argue a resounding “no” (although, I might be in the minority).  I think this is an incredibly dumb idea for two reasons.  The first is that a new desktop OS is not at all disruptive (unless you look at it from the consumer perspective).   The desktop OS market is extremely mature and a new entry will at the minimum have to match the existing competitors.  The second reason is that building an OS is in no way part of most hardware vendors core competency.  The investment to build a new OS would take away from where these companies should be focusing—building new an innovative form factors using Window 7, Android, and the soon to be announced Google Chrome OS.

As today is the consumer release of Windows 7, I thought I would take a few minutes to share my thoughts.  I have been using Windows 7 for a number of months now.  I started on the beta and soon after moved to the RC.  In my experience, this is not only the best Windows to date, but the best OS out on the market right now.

Yeah, that is pretty big praise.  So, let me qualify it a bit.  In the past year, I have used a number of flavors of Linux and purchased my first OSX machine.  Linux is cool, but the overall experience lags behind its closed source rivals.  I can go on-and-on about how much I like OSX.  It’s stable, beautiful, and simple.  But when it comes to taking care of business, it falls far behind Windows 7.   The new taskbar, peak, snap, and alt-tab features have really upped the ante in OS usability.  When I use the OS, I just feel more productive; and to me, that is the holy grail of OS value.

Have you used Windows 7 yet?  What are your thoughts?

One of my big purchases for next year is going to be a new phone.  So, I thought I would take a few minutes to compile a list of potential suitors for my next mobile device.  The list below is ordered in terms of my excitement level for a phone.

1.  Droid—Motorola’s Droid has quickly risen to the top of my list.  Android 2.0 is looking much better than its predecessors.  Right now, it seems to have everything I am looking for:  a big screen, a fast processor, a QWERTY keboard, and a solid OS with a good browser and a lot of apps.  Since this device has still not been extensively reviewed, I am curious as to how it looks in person and how well the keyboard works.

2. Sony Xperia X3—This device is rumored to be Sony’s first Android phone.  The Xperia X3 1-ups the Droid in form and its UI leaks look pretty amazing.  The big negative for this device is that I do not think it has a QWERTY keyboard.

3. Nokia N900 and N920—If you haven’t watched videos of Maemo 5, then you better hit up youtube.  It is one of the most promising mobile platforms because it features true multi-tasking and a Firefox browser that actually supports flash (good for youtube, bad for ads).  The N900 is the first device to sport Maemo 5 and it looks pretty sweet.  The main problems I have with the device is that (1) it is a from Nokia, and their overall OS strategy is a bit confusing and (2) it doesn’t support multi-touch.  Hopefully both these issues are rectified in 2010, allowing this device to move up my list.

4. iPhone—This is my number 4 phone in the list right now.  And if Droid and Sony’s Android devices are a bust, I could definitely see myself owning an iPhone.  It has the most cohesive UI and large third party app support.  My big problems with the device are that the home screen is pretty much useless less useful—an app menu as a home screen in 2010 seems a bit dated, and I am not a big fan of iTunes.  But, if the device continues to open up like the Mac has, I could definitely see myself owning one.

5. Blackberry Storm 2 or Bold 9700—I have used my friend’s Bold on a number of occasions and really dig it.  The UI is good, and it seems to handle the day-to-day phone operations really well.  I am leaning away from the Bold at this point, because  I think I want to try a new form factor.  The Storm 2 might suffice, but it is a tough sell (versus the iPhone) without a QWERTY keyboard.

Dark Horses—Given that I will not be buying a new device until early-to-mid 2010, there is potential for a few other options to creep in.  The first and most promising is a new Palm device.  I will definitely not be buying a Pre or a Pixie.  While I think Palm by far has the best mobile OS, I think the hardware sucks.  I would much rather have to type on an iPhone than on those rubber keys.  But, if Palm matches its awesome software with some better hardware in 2010, I could be converted to their Web OS platform.  The next darkhorse is Windows Mobile.  Like Palm, I will not be buying their current generation devices.  Windows Mobile 6.5 has the opposite problem as Palm.  They have great hardware, but bad software.  With that said, if Windows Mobile 7 launches early next year and features a better UI and Zune and/or Xbox integration, I would be quickly sold on the new platform.

So there is my top 5 potential phones.  What are yours?

From what I have been reading from Techcrunch and other sources, Google Voice is shaping up to be a killer app that replicates a lot of existing mobile phone technology such as voice mail, calling, and text messages over the existing 3G connection.  There is not a whole lot new technology-wise hear.  Skype has been doing this for years.  But, the big difference now is that (1) it is from Google, (2) they are giving you a phone number to replace your existing number, and (3) they are attempting to do this on the world’s most popular smart phones—the iphone and the blackberries.  What does this mean?  Long term, I think this might be a first step in turning a lot of these big providers (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc.) into dumb 3G/4G pipes.  Meaning that (hypothetically) if WIFI and 3G/4G were reliable enough, you would not even need to pay for phone service or add-ons such as messaging.  You would just pay one rate for data and get all those services via Google (and hopefully other service providers).   Short term, I think we are going to see a lot of fighting from the wireless providers to prevent this from becoming a reality.  They already make a TON of money charging for voice, data, and wireless as separate services.  Although, most rational people realize that these services are, or could be, served over a single data connection in the near future.

Personally, I am all for Google Voice.  It creates competition in an area that has been void of it for years.  It has never made sense to me that year-after-year, voice and texting plans continue to get more expensive.  I think this could be the first step in creating real competition around phone services. What do you think?