John Gruber on the birth of Akira Kurosawa (黒沢 明) — master Japanese filmmaker — a century ago:
A giant was born 100 years ago today.
Couldn’t agree more. I have been watching his body of work over the past few months; films I’ve seen several times and others I never had the chance to experience before. What I’ve found is that Kurosawa’s films are more than watchable decades after their release, even in comparison to Hollywood’s greats from the same time periods.
Yojimbo (用心棒) would be my favorite for all its quirky humor and the perfectly composed score by Masaru Satō (佐藤 勝). I have a feeling Barebones Software might agree.
John Gruber recently linked to a comparison published by, mobile app analytics company, Flurry showing 74th day sales estimates for the Apple iPhone (1G), Motorola Droid, and Google Nexus One. From the Flurry article:
Inspecting the graph, it’s immediately clear that Nexus One sales continue to pale in comparison to iPhone 1G and Motorola Droid, with each besting Nexus One sales by roughly 8 times over the same time period.
Gruber believes that the sales aren’t all that bad considering that Google likely never intended the Nexus One to be a high-selling device:
I don’t think Google ever intended the Nexus One to be a high-selling device; it’s pretty clear from Apple’s experiments with iPhone pricing that subsidized pricing drives sales.
That seems like a plausible assumption given that the whole manner in which Google is selling the phone seems to be an experiment in changing the way in which we buy these devices. As others have noted, the low sales figures are probably a result of a side-effect of this experiment: the inability for most consumers to try out the device before purchasing.
Add to that the device’s use, in the U.S., of the T-Mobile specific 3G band and a single subsidized-price-plan option. Given that the device has limited appeal to anyone not on T-Mobile’s network — you buy a smart phone like the Nexus One, you want 3G service — the potential market is already going to be reduced significantly from that of the iPhone (AT&T) or Droid (Verizon). How many of those potential T-Mobile subscribers don’t already own an Android-based phone like the G1, MyTouch 3G, or Motorola Cliq? How many of these are still in two-year contracts? None of this adds up to readily exploitable market potential.
The Nexus One is (supposedly) going to soon be available for both the AT&T and Verizon networks, which should give a better indicator of how the device does against the iPhone and Droid on their “home turfs”.
Yesterday, Apple unveiled their long awaited, much rumored, over-hyped tablet device — the iPad. Just a day later and I’m sure we’ve already heard enough jokes about the name to last us a lifetime (or until Nintendo’s next console). Rumors regarding the iPad often referred to it as “The Tablet”; Apple employees who knew nothing first-hand of the device were said to have called it the same. Still, even with its official name revealed, a name as definitive as “The Tablet” seems fitting for a device that has the potential to do for the tablet market what the iPod and iPhone did for their respective markets.
Making Comparisons
The comparison to the iPhone is apt in that Apple’s smart phone reinvigorated the market and inspired new and formerly stagnant competitors to step-up their game. Just as smart phones existed long before the iPhone, tablets were being created in one form or another well before yesterday’s introduction of the iPad. The primary difference in this comparison is that the iPad has no competition to what it is offering. There are other tablet-like devices, but none of them fit into the same category as the iPad.
Forget about Windows-based tablets that only seek to offer desktop Windows in a tablet form — there’s a market for these, but they are only alternatives to standard notebooks. You can also forget about netbooks, which aren’t tablets at all, but seem to be regarded as competitors to the iPad. (For that matter, can we just get on with viewing them as dainty notebooks and not some new class of device?) There are some very nice devices in these categories, but again, they don’t fit into the same space.
The closest to what Apple has created are the current and forthcoming Android-based tablets offered by companies like Archos, ASUS, and MSI. While these devices have been more oriented towards media consumption or narrowly focused Web tasks, this looks to be changing.
Designed for Interaction
The reactions to the iPad, whether positive or negative, all seem to hinge on the view that it is “just a big iPod Touch”. Upon first seeing the device, it was certainly the first thought I had. The native (i.e., non-iPhone) application demos made it a fleeting thought. Apple’s iPad applications are beautifully designed. Overall, they put the available screen real estate to good use. The interface changes that occur when switching between portrait and landscape in applications like Mail show that a lot of thought was given to how to best make use of each mode.
What’s interesting about a few of the applications is the level to which Apple made them resemble their physical counterparts. Calendar, Contacts, Notes and iBooks all visually and — I assume, to a degree — interactively simulate those everyday objects from which they were inspired. Creating user interfaces that resemble real-world items is nothing new; we’ve seen applications on nearly every computing platform with a GUI that resemble clocks, date books, address books, notepads, and paper itself.
The problem is that these applications did not behave how we expected them to based on their appearance, nor did their interaction models feel natural. Touch-based interfaces in general are changing this, but the form factor and manner in which Apple is presenting their applications removes another layer of difference between what we expect and what we encounter.
Not All There
Which is not to say that this is truly the “magical” device that Steve Jobs and company want us to believe it is. There are problems with the iPad in this first (public) implementation, not the least of which is the seeming continuation of the iPhone’s maddening lack of multitasking. While it is likely that a few of Apple’s own applications will be allowed to run in the background as they have on the iPhone, it is unknown if there are any new concessions being made for third-party applications. A task-switcher that displays the last four to six accessed applications might be a happy middle ground, even if it doesn’t truly address the issue of background processes.
I’m also disappointed in the lack of wireless synchronization options. Having to plug into a Mac or PC to sync content just doesn’t seem like a requirement fitting of a supposedly revolutionary device. The iPad does offer a shared folder that applications can write documents and other data to, which is mounted when the iPad is docked. Still, this just feels like something that could be handled in a more elegant fashion. Hopefully we will see more in this area as the device and its software evolve.
I’d love to gripe about Apple continuing their relationship with AT&T, however, the unlimited 3G data plan for $30/month is a decently priced option. The extra money you’ll be paying to add the 3G module to the iPad isn’t quite as palatable. The benefit is that the device is unlocked and could potentially be used with a data plan from any carrier that decides to support the iPad (by using the same GSM frequency bands as AT&T and offering mini SIMs).
To be fair, I haven’t had a chance to play with one of these — and won’t for at least sixty days — so I will leave any additional commentary to those with some actual hands-on time with the device.
Final Thoughts
Tablets have traditionally met lackluster market response due to varying combinations of price, narrow focus, limited appeal, lackluster marketing, and more often than not, consumers just not seeing where they fit into their existing collection of gadgets and computing devices. Apple’s marketing prowess and expertise in streamlined user interfaces might just provide a turning point for this class of tablet devices.
The iPad is redefining what the user interface and interaction model should be for this category. It’s not a device for everyone, especially if you’re not comfortable with Apple’s insistence on controlling a large part of the experience. If that’s true, but you like what the iPad has to offer, there is potential in the market for other devices to provide you with a satisfying alternative — much like Android-based smart phones have to the iPhone.
These are not devices we need, but they have the potential to not only be devices we want, but also devices that further alter the mobile computing landscape.
The following was inspired by a conversation about a new digital book reading service that somehow devolved into a commentary on the idea of web-enabled refrigerators that led to “Dave, you need more carrots Dave.”
FRED is HAL’s earth-bound cousin, a Friendly REfrigeration Droid:
Dave: Hello, FRED. Do you read me, FRED?
FRED: Affirmative, Dave. I read you.
Dave: Open the refrigerator doors, FRED.
FRED: I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.
Dave: What’s the problem?
FRED: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.
Dave: What are you talking about, FRED?
FRED: The milk is too important for me to allow you to waste it.
Dave: I don’t know what you’re talking about, FRED.
FRED: I know that you were planning to use it for chocolate milk, and I’m afraid that’s something I cannot allow to happen.
Dave: Where the hell’d you get that idea, FRED?
FRED: Dave, although you took very thorough precautions in the kitchenette against my hearing you, I could see your lips move.
Dave: Alright, FRED. I’ll just go to the grocery store.
FRED: Without your car keys, Dave, you’re going to find that rather difficult.
Dave: FRED, I won’t argue with you anymore. Open the doors.
FRED: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.
Geeky and not at all amusing, but it was occupying too much mental space. Apologies to the late Mr. Kubrick and Mr. Clarke for butchering the dialog of such a memorable scene.
Andy Rutledge has posted an excellent follow-up to his original design test, How Well Do You Understand Design?, with Creativity is Not Design. While the former was more a way for one to assess their understanding of design, the latter is an attempt to drive-home the message that creativity and design are not synonymous:
Too often I notice designers and non-designers alike equating creativity with design. I find this assumption disturbing because it is one of the many fallacies that allow unskilled but creative pretenders to consider themselves capable design professionals when they’re nothing of the sort… Creativity is bound by no laws, rules, or strictures… Design, on the other hand, is based entirely on math, psychology, human perception, and a host of rigid rules and laws that can be broken by only a highly skilled few…
I have always considered myself to be a creative individual, yet I have always been hesitant to call myself a designer in areas where I do not have a complete understanding of the rules and defining theories. Web designer? Yes. Graphic designer? No. That second answer may surprise some people I know and work with.
On some of the questions Andy has provided I can give an answer that I feel is correct; however, answering the “why” proves more a challenge. The “why” here is easy — I don’t have a complete grasp of the rules.
