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.

I have had my home on the market for 90 days now, and I get a lot of questions about what it is like to sell your home by owner.  So, I thought I would take some time to talk about how it has been so far. As some background information, I decided to list my house for 6 months by owner before I hired a real estate agent.  The big justification for doing so is the 3% savings I could potentially see if I am successful.  At $150,000, that rounds out to $4,500—not a small chunk of change.

Marketing. I am going to start out with the most important part of the process—marketing.  My experience is from the St. Louis market, but I am pretty sure it would transfer to where you are at.  To date, I have considered several forms of marketing:  (1) craigslist, (2) word of mouth, (3) newspaper, (4) flat-fee MLS, and (5) signage.  Out of those, I have implemented 1, 2, 4, and 5.  I decided not to put my property up in the newspaper because my local paper, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, is priced ridiculous.  Their  packages start at $300 for web and paper coverage.  And, honestly, when I looked around the listing, I saw very few FSBO homes.  I wonder why.  Out of the the four marketing avenues I have worked, to date I have only received responses from items 4 and 5—the flat-fee MLS and signage.  Both of these have been extremely effective.  This week alone I have gotten 1 walk through from signage, 1 walk through from the flat-fee MLS, and 1 call from the flat-fee MLS.  Surprisingly, I have received zero serious inquiries from craigslist.  I say “serious” because I do get emailed spammed left-and-right from local real estate agents every time I post there.  I attribute this to two reasons:  (1) most people buying a house have a buyer’s agent and they use the MLS and (2) craigslist is overwhelmed with listings in the real estate section.

By the way, if you are interested in going the flat-fee route, I recommend soldbyme.com in the St. Louis area.  They have been great.

Showings. Showing by far are the worst part of selling a home.  Before I started doing showings, I thought the 3% commission was outrageous.  Now, I am coming around a bit because when you are selling your home, you personally have to do all the work.  In terms of actually doing the showings, my lessons learned are pretty simple:  (1) keep your house clean, (2) protect yourself, (3) be honest about the situation, and (4) stay out of the other realtor’s way.  One is pretty self explanatory, so I will skip it.

To protect myself, I do three things.  The first is that I reverse phone lookup anyone that calls me.  90% of the time it will trace back to a real estate office, so you know that the call is valid.  The second thing I do is I look up the person on Google.  It is a good validation check, and often you get match a name with a face.  The third thing that I do is when I am showing the house, I get a card and often get the license plate of the realtor.  This is easy if you follow step #4.  This all might be overkill, but I don’t think you can be too careful when dealing with strangers.

The next two lessons-learned are related and can be really grouped into one tenant:  respect the other realtor.  When I get a call, I am always upfront and explain that my house is for sale by owner, I listed it on the MLS using a flat-fee broker, and that I will (and am obligated) to pay their commission.  Believe it or not, most realtors do not run into this situation on a daily basis.  In fact, I have gotten a number of questions about how I listed my house on the MLS.  So, this upfront honesty is important.  The next piece of advice is from HGTV, but I think it holds true:  stay out of the other realtor’s way.  I let the other realtor show the house.  In fact, I go outside for every showing.  It is 10 degrees outside right now, so believe me, it is tough.  But, the worst thing you can do when you show a house is to walk around with the other realtor.  Of course, it goes without saying, to not keep anything small of value laying around your house.  I figure I should be able to notice if someone walks out with my HDTV.

Frustrations. I think the biggest frustration I have had when showing the house, is that lack of notice you often get.  I often get a call in the morning for an afternoon showing.  I am not sure if this is the industry standard, but I think that this would be pretty tough for families even if you went the traditional route of selling your home.  The second big frustration is the lack of background research other realtors do before showing a house.  I have a two story town home, and I have gotten a couple walk throughs where the biggest complaint was that people did not like steps.  I think the realtor probably should have eliminated this earlier in the process.  These incidents are pretty isolated, but when it happens, it is a bit annoying.

Conclusion. Overall, I am really trying to be positive about the process.  Of course, if I sell the property, it will be worth the time and effort.  But, if I come out empty handed, I am not sure I will feel the same way.  In the end, the process provided a good life lesson and really gave me a lot of insight into the process of buying and selling a home.

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.

Given that most people have written off Windows Mobile, I figure I would give Microsoft a quick three step plan to make Windows Mobile relevant into 2010.

1.  Great Hardware and an improved UI. This is pretty obvious.  To compete in the smart phone market you need these two components.  Given that they already have a small screen device with great hardware and one of the best UIs on the market (the Zune HD), you would not think this would be too hard.  But, you never know.

2.  Zune. The Zune ecosystem needs to be completely integrated with the device….both music and movies.  The experience needs to be seamless.  Finally, I think the Zune service needs to be expanded to support both free (ad supported) and premium streaming.  I think 2010 is the year where your personal catalog of music becomes obsolete as music moves to the cloud.  If this was baked-in to the mobile Zune experience, Windows Mobile would have some additional appeal.

3.  Halo (and Xbox). Where Microsoft (and Sony too) still have an advantage over Apple is in IP.  And, the biggest untapped resource is the XBox IP.  I guarantee that if Windows Mobile launches with XBox branded gaming support, it would immediately be relevant again.  And, if you throw the Halo title in there, you would have converts jumping from both the Android and iPhone camp.

So, there you have it…a simple, and completely achievable road map for making Windows Mobile relevant into 2010.  Someone send this to Balmer.

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?

I made two small updates to the site, I updated the look-and-feel of the date. This makes is work much better for 1024×768 resolutions. I also added a Kitt inspired separator. Yup, no big deal.

It seems like everyday Engadget and Gizmodo are bombarding us with tablet rumors.  We already have the horribly named JooJoo and the Archos Tablet.  And, now there are rumors that Dell, Apple, Asus, and maybe even Google are going to produce tablets.  I am all for new form factors for computing.  But, this one does not seem to make too much sense to me.  So, I pose the following questions:  would you buy a tablet PC?  And, how would you use it?

I follow these questions with my thoughts.  I definitely would consider this form factor.  But, I am not sure that it would be much more than a novelty for me because I do most of my computing on a couch or at a desk.  In both those situations, a light-weight laptop makes much more sense.  With that said, I could see the tablet having mass appeal to travelers.  Laptops suck on planes, trains, and automobiles because usually you are in cramped quarters.  But, travelers already split their times between iPhones (and similar devices) and Kindles.  Could a tablet replace any of these devices?  I am not so sure.  I think that the Kindle has been successful because e-ink has a huge advantage over LCDs for reading.  And, I think that iPhone-like devices are good enough for 90% of your media and browsing needs.  So, in the end, I think it would be a tough sell even toward this demographic as well.  What are your thoughts?

Chrome’s Market Share—Buried in an article that points out gains in Win7, Firefox, and IE8 is a statistic that Chrome’s market share (measured by Net Applications) is nearing 4%.  I am a big fan of Chrome.  Its speed, security, and simplicity tower over the competition right now.  I install it on every machine I configure and use.  This is also good news for web developers because it is a great browser to develop on.

Retailer email craziness—This shopping holiday has brought a flood of retailer email.  Personally, I don’t mind receiving an occasional email from retailers that I use on a regular basis.  But, it is getting ridiculous.  I am receiving about 2 an hour.  I am going to have to start unsubscribing if the insanity continues.  Listen marketing and communications folk: as a rule of thumb, you should send 1 email per week per mailing list.  No more.

Dropped call etiquette —Because of the crappy state of mobile voice technology, I propose a dropped call etiquette.  If a call is dropped, the original caller should call back.  If not, it turns into a crazy mess of busy signals and voice mails.

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.