jeff's blog

Paul Kedrosky on the under-appreciation of mobile web platforms:

People just don't get how good web apps on mobile can be. I get stuck in many conversations about native apps on mobile, which always strikes me as vestigial. The same way that I live in mostly browser-based apps on my desktop and laptop, I am convinced I will live in web apps on my mobile device. Pretending otherwise seems wrong-headed and self-defeating.

At MobileCamp Vancouver I pushed just this point on the industry panel. I'm not sure the other telco folks on the panel were convinced. But - what I found after the panel among the broader development community there, was intense interest in targeting mobiles through web-based runtimes - be they web sites, widgets, Adobe AIR, Google gears, etc.

There are really two issues to consider here.

1. Are web runtimes capable of delivering the necessary functionality and experience equal to native runtimes? The answer is yes although not everybody gets this yet. See my post on Adobe AIR / Google gears like platform for iPhone for an argument in favor of mobile runtimes over native runtimes.

2. Recognition of another under-appreciated benefit of mobile web runtimes - they drastically expand the world of people that can develop mobile applications. In this sense web runtimes are poised to play a role similar to that played by Visual Basic for desktop apps in the 90's. To be clear - I am not comparing the two in technical terms, but in terms of "developer reach". Undeniably (and to many developers' deep regret) VB drove a huge developer population.

Earlier today AppleInsider posted photos of the banners hanging at San Francisco's Moscone Center in preparation for the Macworld Expo.

They feature a teasing phrase - "2008. There's something in the air."

Today Bob Cringely also posted an article on why Apple will buy Adobe.

There's something in the air.

Adobe AIR.

Will Apple announce an acquisition of Adobe? I don't know, but I'm betting that Steve Jobs will at a minimum announce the delivery of Adobe AIR support in not only the next iPhone firmware, but in the next Apple TV. I wrote about the argument for delivering Adobe AIR or an AIR-like platform on the iPhone back in October. It made sense then and it makes sense now.

Back to the potential acquisition - who doesn't love Cringely? He's always entertaining and thought provoking, but not right all that often (which is understandable because he dares to predict big and bold). But the idea of this acquisition makes a lot of sense on many levels.

Not to mention - can you imagine Steve Jobs' glee at sitting atop a triumvirate of Apple, Adobe, and Disney? That's a powerful combination.

It's been quite a year in the world of mobile apps and we've had a ton of fun building out the EQO service at the front of the pack this year. There is a huge amount of pride among the team here at what we've accomplished both inside the company and among our community of EQO users.

For all the users who have joined the EQO network and given feedback to the team and on the to improve the service - Thank You!

To all the EQO users and fans out there, please take a moment to nominate us for one or more of the following awards ("The Crunchies") run by techcrunch.com.

Thanks!

This past weekend Vancouver had its very own MobileCampVancouver event organized by the Handi Mobility team.

I was on the mobile industry panel with Dennis Knothe of Nokia, Harmander Gill of Wavefront, Dr. Richard Smith of SFU, and Jim Udall of QuickMobile.

Jim and I ended up debating very different views on the future of mobile web platforms, making for a spirited discussion. The ultra short version - I was very bullish on mobile web technologies to expand the mobile developer base, Jim saw mobile web tech as over-hyped and that existing platforms (SMS / MMS / J2ME / Symbian) will rule at the expense of web technologies. Proof that reasonable people can differ even on fundamental issues.

As is always the case, the time allotted was very short - Jim, I hope we can continue the discussion another time!

Jeff

Following on the results of the Facebook ad-targeting "factfinding mission" that Chris @ EQO kicked off yesterday, I present a bit more data. Since reading Chris' analysis on the topic I have a heightened awareness to what get served up to me on the 'book. I'm proud to say that Facebook still considers me part of the MTV generation even if Chris doesn't.

Today's serving:

The text is a bit small in the resized ad, but it says "16 Lesbians, 16 Dudes - A Shot at Love".

Targeted ads on Facebook? Seems so.

The big takeaways from today's announcement of iPhone native SDK availability in February:

1. Partly this is a preemptive strike for the holiday season - remove a reason for some people not to buy, and take away the only real "down" side to the iPhone story in consumers minds post-launch. Instead turn it into another focus of desire for consumers - let the lust begin for the native apps just around the corner.

2. Give app developers the confidence to begin writing apps now on hacked iPhones, knowing that with a bit of tweaking they will be deployable on non-hacked devices when the SDK arrives.

3. Predictably, application signing will be part of the equation. Much depends on the signing model. The big questions - will compliance testing be required to get signed? what capabilities will be restricted?

4. The SDK release coincides roughly with the reported release date of the first GPS-enabled iPhones. Prediction: Apple is going to make 2008 the year location-based services go mainstream.

The actual announcement:

Third Party Applications on the iPhone

Let me just say it: We want native third party applications on the iPhone, and we plan to have an SDK in developers’ hands in February. We are excited about creating a vibrant third party developer community around the iPhone and enabling hundreds of new applications for our users. With our revolutionary multi-touch interface, powerful hardware and advanced software architecture, we believe we have created the best mobile platform ever for developers.

It will take until February to release an SDK because we’re trying to do two diametrically opposed things at once—provide an advanced and open platform to developers while at the same time protect iPhone users from viruses, malware, privacy attacks, etc. This is no easy task. Some claim that viruses and malware are not a problem on mobile phones—this is simply not true. There have been serious viruses on other mobile phones already, including some that silently spread from phone to phone over the cell network. As our phones become more powerful, these malicious programs will become more dangerous. And since the iPhone is the most advanced phone ever, it will be a highly visible target.

Some companies are already taking action. Nokia, for example, is not allowing any applications to be loaded onto some of their newest phones unless they have a digital signature that can be traced back to a known developer. While this makes such a phone less than “totally open,” we believe it is a step in the right direction. We are working on an advanced system which will offer developers broad access to natively program the iPhone’s amazing software platform while at the same time protecting users from malicious programs.

We think a few months of patience now will be rewarded by many years of great third party applications running on safe and reliable iPhones.

Steve

P.S.: The SDK will also allow developers to create applications for iPod touch. [Oct 17, 2007]

Adobe's AIR platform has shown that the web development model is fundamentally capable of delivering applications every bit as rich as native platform apps. Hence the outcry over the idea of web applications as the primary development model for the iPhone is overblown. Yes, the current iPhone development environment sucks but it's important to keep in mind that we haven't seen the true power of this model.

So what will Apple do if they are serious about the web development platform?

First up, a JavaScript bridge into native device capabilities on the iPhone. Right now in terms of access to device functions via web technologies, the iPhone offers nothing beyond the microbrowsers on feature phones. Yes, the AJAX support enables a quantum leap in usability, but we need more.

Top of the list - "the basics"

• file access
• camera access
• location
• address book
• calendar

But beyond these now familiar mobile device capabilities, there is an opportunity for Apple to provide powerful APIs that would provide an unparalleled mobile development environment, web or otherwise:

• SQLite local store
• Access to iTunes account-based charging
• Event subscriptions with persistent ECMAScript object handlers
• timers
• calendar events
• location
• support for installable URI handlers

Key to app usability is that these capabilities should be provided through a user consent system which does not take away the user's choice to make use of device features with a given application, a la the restrictions in many J2ME runtimes:

On first load, present the list of "privacy affecting" services being requested by the application - and listen to what the user wants! Empower the user already - they bought the damn thing.

When can we expect such features? Who knows, but I would be very surprised if the first GPS-enabled iPhones, expected in Q1 2008, ship without at minimum a JavaScript bridge to location data following soon after.

Gut check: For anyone with development experience on J2ME, can you imagine going back to the underachiever that is the J2ME RMS storage API after being provided with a local SQL store?

The native app vs. web app argument is stale!

Jeff
Chief Software Architect, EQO

Last week I was at the EmTech conference at MIT to be recognized among this year's TR35 recipients. I had the pleasure of meeting a number of recipients doing truly amazing work in a variety of fields - biofuels was a particular hotspot this year.

Overall: Fantastic sessions, good connection value, very poor exhibitors.

Conference highlights: Charles Simonyi's session with big claims for progress on the fundamental bottleneck in software engineering, Ann Winblad's fireside chat with Jason Pontin, and a pair of great panels by TR35 recipients in the synthietic biology and biofuels area.

Ann Winblad was fantastic. Enough to make an entrepreneur love VCs, not just their money (I kid, I kid). Very smart, very insightful. Watch the video, it's worth it.

Despite the overall poor exhibitors in the showcase part of the conference, the highlight was MIT Sloan MBA student Eric Silverberg's Numberpedia.org. The idea is to aggregate openly available statistics on everything under the sun (but most interestingly market data). Could be quite useful if executed well.

Jeff
Chief Software Architect, EQO

The mobile operators have made a huge mistake on the identity front. The one long-term point of value they have aside from being a bit pipe is the possession of validated identities tied to a mobile billing platform. But with their continuing efforts to maintain their walled gardens, they have passed on the opportunity to become the identity and billing providers of choice on the mobile.

Now there is another mobile player with this capability. Apple. Not only does the new iTunes wifi store not deliver music over the operator network, the billing is not enabled by the operator.

Oops.

An enlightened move by Apple would be to break the lock the operators have on billable mobile identities permanently wide open by giving every iTunes account an associated OpenID, and publishing an open payment API around OpenID identifiers. This would cause a few things to happen:

- a 100% uptake of OpenID within days by makers of iPhone apps
- a practical, simple billing mechanism for OpenID apps of all types
- overnight Apple could become the largest payment provider in the mobile space. Not just on the iPhone, but on any reasonably web capable phone owned by an iTunes user. Not just in the mobile space. Anyone with an iTunes account would be a payment-capable.

Will it happen?

Jeff
Chief Software Architect, EQO

A class-action suit against the long-running practice of Canadian mobile operators to charge unadvertised additional fees has just been certified by a judge in Saskatchewan.

Any Canadians that would like to join the class action can do so here. (Roland, that means you!)

Here is Michael Geist (Canada's answer to Lawrence Lessig) on System Access Fees:

"Emboldened by limited competition, [Canadian] providers have not hesitated to pad their prices by adding the deceptive "system access fee." Contrary to popular belief, the fee, which adds nearly $100 per year to every wireless phone bill (MTS Mobility in Manitoba just increased its system access fee to $107.40 per year), is not a government-mandated charge but rather a slick method of camouflaging higher prices."

Jeff