New Platforms will Require New Metrics or Reference Points

July 20, 2015

Brian X. Chen and Vindu Goel, for the New York Times:

Yet only five of the 20 most popular free iPhone apps in the United States have versions for the Apple Watch, according to data from App Annie, an analytics firm. And the number of apps for the watch, which now stands at about 7,400, is growing at a slower rate than the explosive uptick of apps that were produced for iPhones and iPads in their early days.

Comparing figures across platforms is a very limiting perspective. It’s like comparing the number of Windows or Mac apps that were quick to create a smartphone version — and guessing the outlook for smartphones based on that. Or the number of television networks that initially made a Roku app, or the number that worked with Apple to create an Apple TV app.

New platforms support products that perform new jobs. Or perform existing jobs in a new way. So, the way customers approach these platforms and products, and the way that developers approach them, will be different than in the last platform.

As time passes, for instance, we might find that the use of native apps on smartwatches is much higher than on phones. Or that the app growth rate is simply different, even in a healthy market. Moreover, we might learn that the “top apps”, let alone the “top free apps”, on smartphones don’t evenly transfer over to smartwatches. And that the way to measure app activity, and to gauge app success or failure, is a bit different. At this point, it’s really too early to tell, and comparisons to smartphones won’t be very helpful.

In a nutshell, you can’t apply all the thinking from the last platform to the new one. That, in part, is why it’s new. And why it will create new uses, new winners, and new ways to thrive.

Google, Huawei Discuss China App Store

July 14, 2015

Sam Byford, for The Verge, incorporating information from the original source, The Information:

The relationship between Google and Huawei could be mutually beneficial beyond the phone’s co-development. The Information claims that talks are in progress for Huawei to help Google bring a mobile app store to China, where government regulations have restricted the search giant from conducting much business of note.

Will this be effective? Call me skeptical. (That’s not a knock on Google, by the way. I respect its choice to stay out of China.)

Google Acquired Agawi, Whose Technology Enables “App Streaming”

June 19, 2015

Ingrid Lunden, for TechCrunch:

Native apps have overtaken the web as the main place where smartphone users go for entertainment, information and more. So it should come as no surprise that one of the companies that profits the most from our use of the web is looking for ways to get us to use the it more again. According to [Amir Efrati at] The Information, Google last year secretly acquired a startup called Agawi, which had developed technology to use and stream mobile apps over the web without downloading them first, used in applications like in-app adds to preview and promote gaming apps.

Cool. The ability to try an app without downloading it is great. There’s speculation, too, that Google might want to apply Agawi technology to make better web apps. Or, in hyperbolic terms, that Google is trying to “kill native apps”. The key question to answer will be: how will web apps deliver a better user experience than native apps? I’m biased toward native apps, for all the known and obvious reasons to-date, but open to the benefit of another approach, too.

Apple’s Bitcode Technology Hints at the Future [updated 3X]

June 12, 2015

A little gem* from Apple’s WWDC “Platform State of the Union” session, introduced by Andreas Wendker:

Andreas Wendker, VP,OS X Platform, introducing Bitcode. (Source: Apple)

We’re also working on a new technology that is very [much] forward-looking. We’re introducing Bitcode into the app submission process.

Bitcode […] allows the store to re-optimize your apps for each kind of device before they get delivered to the user. […] The store will be in a position to constantly re apply the latest compiler optimizations that we’ve been working on. It also future proofs your apps, because it will allow the store to take advantage of new processor capabilities we might be adding in the future, and all that without you having to resubmit your apps to the store.

This is a strong hint that a future iPad may run on a different processor (e.g., an Intel CPU on the rumored iPad Pro). Or that a future Mac might use an ARM CPU. See this interesting view by “Inertial Lemon“, on Medium.

Curiously, using Bitcode is mandatory on Apple Watch’s watchOS. So then, why might Apple Watch apps ever need to target a new CPU? The most likely reason is that Apple might want to adjust the CPU architecture. “Inertial Lemon” speculates that possibility:

In all likelihood, the S1’s CPU is pretty crappy. [In the sense that it’s a first-version of this CPU.] […]

Imagine that the chip designers know they can make the [Apple Watch’s CPU] S2 leaps and bounds better, but doing so would require making some design changes radical enough that they broke existing software. Should Apple go the iPhone 1.0 route and hold back the SDK for another hardware generation, leaving third party developers in the cold? Could Apple get away with breaking the entire first generation of apps and forcing developers to resubmit to be compatible with the next generation of the Watch? What if there were some magical third option that didn’t have any real downsides?

That third option, Inertial Lemon surmises, is Bitcode.

______

*Thanks to Dan Moren for citing it and for Leo Laporte for emphasizing its importance, on Leo’s MacBreak Weekly. Highly recommended.
______

Update 3 (July 17): I removed reference to John Siracusa’s Tweet and perspective on ARM, specifically because I think Inertial Lemon’s view is more detailed and offers a broader framing. I also extended the excerpt from Inertial Lemon. Don’t read into this: John is one of my favorite thinkers and podcasters. Details on updates 1 and 2, along with the original post, are here: OLD-Apple’s Bitcode Technology Hints at the Future [updated 2X].

Does the Apple Watch Really Need a Killer App to Succeed?

May 14, 2015

Yoni Heisler, writing for BGR:

A more reasoned explanation for why products like the iPhone succeed is that they present a wide range of use scenarios that appeal to a broad cross-section of people. Even with the iPod, by the time sales truly began to skyrocket, the iPod came in a variety of different form factors and was something of a jack of all trades as it was able to play video, casual games, display photos, and of course, play music.

Similarly, it stands to reason that the Apple Watch will succeed not because of some wild new futuristic third-party app, but rather because it’s a sleek-looking device that can do a number of varying functions pretty well. Perhaps the fact that the Apple Watch fits seamlessly within the broader iOS ecosystem is all that’s truly needed.

I agree. In fact, when Walt Mossberg published his review, I commented:

That’s the thing about this product. It seemed broad-ranging in functionality when it was announced — and it is — but the upside to that is that it means something different to everyone. (For instance, texting wouldn’t make my top three list. Neither would checking in, at the moment.) I’m not saying a broad range of features was the right move. Only time will tell. But – and this is a big “but” – for people that are curious about smartwatches, it does seem to offer each one something slightly different.

Just like with the iPhone and iPad, Apple intends the Apple Watch to be a general purpose device.

The Smartwatch as a Tool

April 24, 2015

Insightful post by Horace Dediu (he runs and writes Asymco, and also works at the Clayton Christensen Institute), titled “The Battle for The Wrist”. Below are key excerpts (bold emphasis is mine).

The Apple Watch offers a hierarchy of surfaces onto which software can compete for attention:

The Complication Layer

The Notification Layer

The Glances Layer

The App Screen

These surfaces are arranged in a hierarchy where the highest is the most accessible and the lowest is the least accessible. […]

It follows then that software which is located at the top of each hierarchy on each device will have the greatest exposure to user interaction and that the device which has the nearest proximity to the user will provide the greatest value to software developers.

This implies further that the most valuable “real estate” for software will be the Complication layer on the Watch. […]

You’ll note that the winners on the phone were different than the winners on the PC. My bet is that the winners on the Watch will be different than the winners on the Phone.

I would put the Watch Face at the top of this list. I’m guessing Horace didn’t mention it because it’s off limits to developers today. If you’ll bear with me, let me explain what seems obvious: Why the face is the most important layer.

First, consider that, once it meets our fashion requirements, a watch is a tool more than it is anything else. That’s because a watch is ill-suited for the other class of jobs a device can do — entertainment (audio aside). Unlike devices that enable both hands to be used (phones, tablets), the watch’s wrist-placement adds friction to most entertainment use cases. For instance, you have to try especially hard to keep it facing you.

On a device that’s a tool, the layer that has the most utility is king. That’s the watch face.

If one accepts that the watch is primarily a tool, it makes sense that the most valuable layer is the one that best embodies low-friction utility: the face. The face is low-friction because it’s the default view. The utility of the face comes from the fact that it displays a set of multiple, varied, structured, data elements. Some elements display the past (elapsed time), others anticipate the future (e.g., next meeting). So, the face is a set of information available in a moment’s notice. In a digital age sense, the face is a tool. No other information layer (complication, notification, glance element, or app screen) has the same default-ness and information density. On a device that’s a tool, the layer that has the most utility is king. That’s the watch face.

(Now, if you don’t consider the face, because it’s off limits to developers, then you’d have to consider the most-face-like contenders: an app that you might continously keep open on your watch, or a Complication.)

With this frame of reference, any hardware, OS, and application attributes that support this utility are especially valuable. Some examples:

Display area that is well suited to structured information and information density
- Rectangular displays work well in this regard. They provide natural positions for information (corners) and the ability to keep segmented information aligned (e.g., left- or right-justified)
Display and watch faces that support many information segments
Good selection of watch faces or complications
Complications that surface information from 3rd party apps
Always-on ambient mode (so that useful information is readily available)
Easy manipulation of what’s shown on the display
Natural language input
Independence from the phone

Today, both Android Wear and Apple watchOS have some, but not all, of these capabilities. Apple Watch, for instance, has a good selection of watch faces and complications. But it lacks custom faces and an always-on ambient mode — two high strengths of Android Wear. Android Wear also allows for independence from the phone.

The odds that Apple would deny developers access to the watch face are low.

Seeing so much value in the watch face (rather than a notification, a glance, or an app) brings me to two final predictions.

A. Whatever the #1 element is (watch face, in my estimate), the odds that Apple would *deny* developers access to it are low. Apple knows, I’m sure, that (developers) x (the most powerful information layer) = (tremendous number of high-value apps). Or if it doesn’t, examples from Android Wear will soon make that clear. I would be surprised if Apple didn’t allow 3rd party watch faces in the next two years.

B. With regard to Horace’s point about “winners” (apps) on the phone vs. the watch: While many games are “winners” on the phone, the list of winners on the watch will have a lower proportion of games and a higher proportion of tools / utility apps. The watch’s position on the wrist, and the limited way of interacting with it, lowers the odds that games will thrive in the same way they do on the phone. That’s not to say there won’t be some break-out successes, but on average, the watch appears better-suited to providing utility, rather than enabling games.

The list of [app] winners on the watch will have […] a higher proportion of tool / utility apps.

It’s exciting to witness what Apple and Android developers are going to create and invent to move this mobile device forward.

Tuesday Assorted Links

April 21, 2015

1. Why Under Armour is making a costly bet on connected fitness.

Apparel maker Under Armour believes connected fitness is the future in an increasingly digital world. While athletes are increasingly on board with this vision, investors need more convincing.

2. ABI Research “Apple to ship 13.77 million smart watch units at an ASP of $445 in 2015 to account for 49% of the 28.1 million smart watches forecast to ship in 2015.”

3. Continued supply chain chatter about a 4″ iPhone in 2015.

4. ‘Free’ apps may not be so free after all: They take a big toll on your phone.

The Future of Apple Watch and Apps

April 7, 2015

Credit John Gruber (Daring Fireball), for finding the most interesting part of Abdel Ibrahim’s article “The Future of Apple Watch and Apps” (TheTechBlock).

From the Watch Face, you are able to see your Glances and notifications. In order to see apps, you have to engage the Digital Crown. This makes it seem pretty obvious that Apple has purposely designed apps not to be front and center like they are on iPhone. Instead, Apple Watch apps are mere repositories where stored information can be pushed to the user in the form of Glances and via Notification Center.

This may sound a little weird, and I think to some of us it is. We’re used to apps being the focal point. But on Apple Watch, on initial waking, they’re not.

Mobile Forward