Why Apple’s New .Mac—or MobileMe—Will Be More Important Than the 3G iPhone

Apple, Opinion, Web | Saturday, June 7th, 2008

There has been a lot of talk around the web about .Mac’s successor and it’s rumored appearance at WWDC on Monday. It started with the 10.5.3 update changing all .Mac references to a localizable string—%@—as opposed to a hard-coded name, possibly implying that Apple could change the name of .Mac in the OS with a small update.

The rumor grew as references to “MobileMe” were found in Apple patents and iPhone SDK beta strings. Then Apple was discovered to have purchased “me.com” as well as a variety of new top-level .me domains such as apple.me, ipod.me, and itunes.me.

Something is happening with .Mac—everybody knows that. The question remains as to what Apple will do to their web-based software as a service suite. I believe that if Apple plays their cards right, the new .Mac—or MobileMe—will be far bigger, and more important than the 3G iPhone announcement.

The Master Plan

Apple has always wanted full control of the hardware and the software of any device they’ve manufactured. They want you to have the best experience on your Mac, your iPod, and your iPhone. Apple, and more specifically, Steve Jobs, want to be in control of the experience you have with your Apple products.

While your Mac and your iPhone might function and integrate perfectly, there is something missing that connects them. Currently, the only “integration” between the Mac and the iPhone is a two-foot, USB cable that may occasionally get plugged in. That’s not the seamless integration and design that defines the Apple experience.

Apple’s goal—and the reason for their existence—is to integrate and control your experience across all your devices. And while Apple has succeeded at creating a stunning Mac and iPhone experience, there has always been an area that Apple has had little to no control in—the Cloud.

Cloud Computing

Cloud Computing is nothing new—I’ve written about it’s pros and cons before. Apple has a chance to completely revolutionize the cloud computing space. They have the advantage over any other company (Adobe, Google, Microsoft, etc.) because they already control the hardware and software. Combine this seamless online experience with your desktop, laptop, and iPhone, and you’ll never have to leave the cohesiveness of the Apple environment.

Apple can begin to change the way people use the Internet even with existing .Mac technologies. Kyle Baxter—author of TightWind, one of my favourite new blogs—beat me to publishing a brilliant piece on the integration of .Mac with the iPhone:

I can imagine Apple enabling iDisk on the iPhone so you are never “disconnected” from it — it connects more or less invisibly to your iPhone. No FTP login, password, and directory data to input, no UI even necessarily needed to login and connect — it does it itself.

Placing a file on your iPhone would not require the annoying steps of mounting it on your desktop, dropping it into your phone, and dismounting it. Instead, you would just drop the file in your iDisk, and suddenly that file is available to all of your devices, seamlessly. Forgot to print out a homework assignment or paper? No big deal; just access your iDisk on your iPhone and email it.

Effectively, your iPhone and your Mac would be tied together at all times by shared storage, whether they are physically connected or not.

This is just the beginning of the power that a connected experience will bring to the iPhone. Forget about an Internet connection simply meaning the ability to surf the web. The Internet will begin to be associated with the term “connected”. When connected to Apple’s online “Me” service, all of your devices will sync up—contacts, calendars, emails, passwords, and notes.

But imagine the possibilities beyond that. Imagine if Apple positions this “Me” service along with it’s mobile division rumored to be called “MobileMe”, as a consumer’s identity management. This service will know the podcasts and RSS feeds you subscribe to. It will know your user names and passwords for all the popular social networking sites. It will know the IP addresses of all your devices at any time, and will be able to access any file, located on any device at a moments notice. It will know precisely where you are via GPS or triangulation. Yes, it may sound terrifying that one company has all this power—but imagine the potential.

No one company has ever been able to successfully pull off a move this big, because they simply do not have the leverage that Apple does. They did not have control of both the hardware and the software. And that is what cloud computing is truly about.

The Apple Way

.Mac is not going to be overhauled. It’s going to be entirely revamped from the bottom up. And if Apple does this right, they can become the first company with a complete 360° solution. In order for this to catch on though, they need to do a couple things:

  1. Give it away: In order to do this right, Apple has to make it free. Free as in Google free. Make the online services accessible to everyone. Make it so that you get a free access to “Apple Online Services” with the purchase of an iPhone or Mac. Make it so that pro users can pay a minimal annual fee to upgrade their features.
  2. Ensure that it’s more reliable than Twitter: If I’m going to be sending you all my private information, I want to be sure that I can access it at any time. And having it work 24/7 would be a bonus as well. .Mac isn’t really known for it’s reliability and stability—hopefully Apple will work to improve this before launch.
  3. Don’t duplicate services already in place: I love making .Mac Web Galleries. They’re beautiful, dead-simple to make, and integrate perfectly with the iApps and Aperture. But I’d much rather use Flickr with an established community. Don’t try to replace Facebook or Google or Flickr or Twitter. Make the new .Mac’s goal simple: To integrate all Apple devices with services on the Internet. Integrate the Apple experience with other online services (i.e. Flickr and YouTube upload from the iPhone)

Apple has the opportunity to do something game-changing with .Mac. Something that can, potentially, be bigger than the 3G iPhone. Brett Peters says it best: “Faster bandwidth allows me to do the same things I already do, only … faster. It’s equivalent to an incremental increase in storage capacity or processor speed. That’s just not sexy.”

Steve Jobs is not going to go on stage, come Monday, and announce a 3G iPhone that everybody knows about, without telling us the super-cool Star Trek-like things that we will be able to do because of this 3G technology. RIM, Nokia, Samsung—better watch closely.

The Double-Sided Nature of RSS

Opinion, Web | Tuesday, May 13th, 2008

Theoretically, technology exists to make our lives easier. In the real world however, it’s not that simple. In many ways, technology over complicates even the simplest tasks in our lives. And so the story continues with RSS.

RSS is one of those technologies that seems like a revolutionary way to simplify your life at first, but ends with tireless hours of complex organization and wasted time. At the very core, RSS is a brilliant idea - bringing the news you care about to you, instead of you going to the news. However, the existing RSS readers ruin the simple foundation that RSS was built upon. Once again, software is shown to be the major bottleneck in the development of a platform.

The creation of any revolutionary new technology represents a major paradigm shift. However, in order to explain a new technology to a person, you must compare it to an existing technology. Sometimes these comparisons don’t always fit perfectly (for instance, see the original Macintosh manual where the Finder is described as “a central hallway in the Macintosh house”). Two different comparisons are typically used when explaining RSS - email inboxes and newspapers.

RSS as an Inbox

It’s no coincidence that the most common way to consume RSS is similar to one of the most common uses of a computer. Everyone uses and understands the way an email inbox works, and so, that knowledge is translated into an RSS reader that functions like an inbox. You refresh your RSS feeds much as you get new mail in your email client. You sort your feeds by folders much as you do - or should do - with email. And there is a big annoying number that marks your “unread count”, or the number of new RSS items you have to “read”.

This is where the comparison between RSS and email fails.

RSS is not email and shouldn’t be treated like it. Most email is specifically directed at you, and requires your attention to read and possibly take action. RSS feeds, on the other hand, are not specifically for you. They don’t all require your attention, and need to be “read”.

How many times have I come home from a weekend away, only to find the RSS count in the thousands. RSS quickly becomes a burden that is dreaded. And so the question remains - is there a better way to get your content?

RSS as a Newspaper

Times.png

Recently, there has been a push towards a different approach for RSS. Instead of treating RSS feeds as emails in an inbox, Dustin MacDonlad’s new app, Times, takes a new - actually, an old - approach to RSS. Alex Wooley, a casual RSS user, sums up the game-changing nature of Times nicely:

Before the introduction of Times, it’s fair to say I wasn’t really an RSS worshiper. I had NetNewsWire installed on my system (after they made it free) and opened it once in a while (where I would be blasted with 200 feeds which I really didn’t want to have to read through). So, I didn’t want or have a need to read RSS feeds. Upon downloading Times, I knew I’d been hit with a new kind of RSS feeder, something I hadn’t experienced before, something quintessentially different.

Times frees RSS from the dreaded “unread count”, and allows you to consume RSS feeds in a different, more refreshing way. The philosophy is that you will be able to scan headlines and find the content that is appealing to you without having to go through and “read” every single article. While it’s an interesting approach, it is suited for more casual RSS users. When you begin to have hundreds of feeds in your arsenal, Times quickly becomes cumbersome and useless.

None of these paradigms really do RSS justice. There are personal blogs that I enjoy reading every word of, and there are news blogs that I purely use to obtain the latest information from. They are two very different and distinct uses of RSS, and deserve to be treated differently. There is no single software application for the Mac or Windows that distinctly defines these two categories, and caters to them individually.
The ultimate RSS application would combine both of these approaches to make it easy to scan over the news, while prioritizing your favourite content and ensuring that you do not miss a single post. Of course, there’s the whole syncing over the Internet thing as well. I’ve yet to see an application do all this seamlessly, and look forward to the day where my RSS dream finally becomes reality.
This has been part one in the series of posts on RSS organization. In part two, Michael will cover other RSS flaws and his personal RSS workflow. To be kept up-to-date with all the latest content on MichaelMistretta.com, why not subscribe to the RSS feed (convenient considering the topic of this post).

Living in the Cloud

Web | Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

Ever since Tommy Vallier’s “Living in the Cloud” talk at Podcamp Toronto this year, I’ve been pondering the idea of truly living in the cloud. In many ways, it is the ideal solution - being able to walk up to any computer in the world with an Internet connection, and access all of your data.

Of course, at this point in time, it is next to impossible to store 500GB+ of your data on a server in the cloud, and have sufficient download/upload speeds to be able to interact with your data at an acceptable rate.

But when I began to think about it, the majority of my most important data doesn’t take up much space at all. Almost all of the stuff I’m interacting with on a day-to-day basis can be done in the cloud. Email, RSS, contact information, calendars, web history, chats, login information, and documents all come to just under 5GBs, which can easily be stored online.

This isn’t new. Most of this stuff can be done online right now through services like Netvibes, or Google Apps. With online apps like Gmail, Google Reader, Google Calendar, Google Docs, and Meebo, you can access and use your data online. Unfortunately, with all the Web 2.0 services out there, no one has got it right. Sure there are a ton of webapps out there, but they are never as good as the desktop alternative.

My Mac has a consistent user experience. I’m able to navigate via keyboard shortcuts that are standard across multiple applications, and I’m able to use the full power of my computer to create a beautiful user interface. Working in the cloud just doesn’t have the Great Moments by Design that are found in so many desktop applications.

Why in Google Docs does it replace my context menu, and force me to click a button at the bottom of the screen to preform spell check. Why do I have to think about how to create a new group in Google Reader? In many ways, going from a desktop user interface to a web app is on par to going back to a Windows 98 style interface. Sure there are the exceptions to the rules, but generally, web apps are a downgrade from the desktop experience (the very reason I’m writing this post in MarsEdit as opposed to the Wordpress admin panel).

A step back

We’re living in a time where computers are powerful enough to create beautiful user interfaces that enrich the experience of interacting with an app. But instead, it seems that we have taken a step back. The Internet has wooed us to a place where we will put up with slow, laggy, and weak applications just for the sake of “living in the cloud”.

Whenever I use webapps, I feel like I am just getting by. There are no “ah ha” moments of greatness where you know in your heart-of-hearts that the developer spend hours working on a seemingly insignificant feature in order to enrich your experience.

Am I willing to give my seamless desktop experience just so I can live in the cloud?

No.

Everyone has tried to create a beautiful, “web 2.0″ app that stores all my valuable data on the cloud. Google, Netvibes, Meebo, Facebook, Del.icio.us, Flickr, Apple, Youtube. But no one has got it. No one understands what living in the cloud is truly about. It is not web apps vs. desktop apps. It’s the convergence of the desktop and the Internet to create a rich application that interacts with the Internet through a fluid, intuitive, desktop UI.

Desktop apps + the Internet

Now, if only someone would take all the valuable hours they spend coding for the web, and create a native application that automatically interacts with the Internet in the background in order to send and retrieve data for you. It makes perfect sense. Why download a slow and laggy UI from the Internet when there is limited bandwidth? Simply use a desktop app for the UI, and only use the Internet as a backend to upload and download pure data.

There are already very functional apps that do this. MarsEdit is a perfect example. It integrates seamlessly with Wordpress, Blogger, and most other blogging platforms to create a one-stop location for all your blogs. You can write posts and save drafts offline while you are on a plane or in a car (obviously not when driving). The same concept is used with desktop IM and Mail clients. Having email that I can drag and drop into folders, and that is indexed with Spotlight provides me with a lot more flexibility than using the web.

A perfect application is not one that solely lives on the Internet or the desktop, but uses the interaction of both to create the best experience for the user.

Flickr Video: Hell Has Not Frozen Over

Web | Wednesday, April 9th, 2008

One of the problems with web apps is they get updated on the server end. The user has no choice to “upgrade” to the new features or hold back - you’re upgraded whether you like it or not. This becomes particularly difficult when you have many different kinds of users using a popular service.

The news is out. Flickr now does video. The last 18 hours have been a buzz with tweets and blog posts regarding the new feature. Pro photographers are outraged that Flickr is not “remaining true to the photograph”. Some are disappointed over the implementation - having 150MB and a 90 second limitations. I understand where that frustration is coming from. It’s hard to watch one of your favourite social networks go through a change. After taking some time to look at it over the past few hours, I for one am very impressed over the implementation.

Before we go any further, let’s make something clear.

It’s not a Youtube competitor. If you want an alternative to Youtube, use services like Vimeo, Viddler, or BlipTV. These services have much less restrictive limitations. You can upload HD footage, and not be worried about the duration.

Part of the problem is in the way it was covered by the media. Really, it should not even be called Flickr video. It should be called Flickr with video. Their focus is still the same - photos. Video is simply meant to compliment the photos. As I think back to many of the photos I’ve uploaded to Flickr from concerts and events, I imagine how some video could have helped to compliment the pictures. With the increase in the number of consumer cameras and cell phones that take video, it is a surprise Flickr hasn’t done this so this sooner.

Flickr isn’t “caving into the pressure” and “abandoning true photography”. If we thought like that, we’d all still be using film. No, Flickr is merely expanding the definition of what photography is, by adding another element - video.

Why 90 seconds?

Undoubtedly, the most complained about limitation of this new service is the 90 second time limit. Actually, the change to 90 seconds was a last minute decision as revealed by Paul Stamatiou who was one of the few early beta testers. Originally, the time limit was set to 60 seconds.

The million dollar question is why?

For the same reason that I love Twitter. There is a certain value in brevity that can not be defined easily. The major problem with videos on Youtube is that there is no editing. People just ramble on and on. Twitter is different though. You only have 140 characters to get your point across. You only mention the most important things and cut out the garbage.

Inevitably, the same thing will happen with Flickr. It will not become a place for video shows or music videos. Instead, it will become a place that, much like twitter, where you are free to express yourself and what you are doing visually. Before, you could only do this through photos. Now, you have photos and video.

I’m sure there will still be those who hate the idea of having video mixed with their photos on Flickr, and will somehow find a way to blame this on Microsoft. But I, for one, am excited about Flickr video, and cannot wait for it to come to devices like the AppleTV and the iPhone.

Good job on this one Flickr.

Why I Love Craigslist

Web | Thursday, March 13th, 2008

craigslist.png

Me: I’m selling a pair of Shure e4c headphones for $199.
Buyer: I saw those on Amazon for $170. Will you sell for $125?
Me: I’ll sell them for $150.
Buyer: $140 and I’ll pick them up right now.
Me: $150 and you have a deal.
Buyer: I’m looking at a couple of other models also. If you decide to sell for $140, let me know.
Me: There’s a Wendy’s right outside my house. If you pick me up a combo, you can have the headphones for $140.
Buyer: I have to drive 30 minutes on the highway to get there - you should be buying me lunch! Whatever, I could go for Wendy’s today too.. $140 and a combo it is. No gigantic-sizing anything though! Where are you located?

Liked this post? Check out my in-depth iPhone 3G review, or an Introduction to Pro Photography. If you’re interested in Apple, there are also posts on Snow Leopard and MobileMe. Enjoy!

1st Twitterversary

Web | Tuesday, February 5th, 2008

twitterstats-1.jpg

Exactly one year ago, I opened a Twitter account and began tweeting. Back then, it was anything but popular. It was weird to type 140 characters about what you were doing into a webpage for the world to see. Fast forward a year later, and now Twitter is my favourite Internet social network. With 11,000 tweets, 240 friends, and 433 followers, my Twitter stream has really become a community.

When I have a question, I just type up a tweet. When I need someone to interview for school, I just tweet. It has come to the point where I feel disconnected from what other people are doing if I don’t have Twitterrific open. I can’t really put my finger on the appeal of it, but having a community of people all over the world is a really amazing thing.

While Twitter isn’t perfect, having lots of downtime, and bugs, I wouldn’t trade it for any other service. This year, we have seen the rise and fall of many other similar sites. Jaiku. Pownce. While they may have had more features and been more reliable, they didn’t have the same appeal as Twitter. Everyone is on Twitter. It is the single best way to stay in touch with people, meet old friends, and expand your online network.

Read More

Microsoft + Yahoo! = ???

Web | Friday, February 1st, 2008

The big news today is Microsoft’s $44.6 billion bid for Yahoo!. This comes with little surprise, as many were expecting Yahoo! to get acquired sometime this year. They were a dying company with little innovation, and didn’t have what it took to go up against Google. Microsoft, on the other hand, is a company equally as big as Google, if not bigger. When it comes to computers, Microsoft is the obvious market leader. However, Microsoft wants to get into the ad business. They want to take down Google’s monopoly on online ad sales. They’ve tried by placing a $240 million stake in Facebook - the biggest online social network. They have won over other big social networking sites like Digg, to use their ad system instead of Google’s. Now with Microsoft’s attempt to acquire Yahoo!, they are going head-to-head with the king of the Internet - Google.

The question in people’s minds this morning is, “What will happen to Flickr and Del.icio.us and all the Web 2.0 sites that Yahoo acquired?”. “Will Microsoft ruin them?” “Will they create a Microsoft Flickr 2008 Ultimate Pro edition?” I really believe that Microsoft and Yahoo! are very similar in this respect. When Yahoo! acquired Flickr, there was already an established user-base. Yahoo! didn’t drastically change anything about Flickr. And I don’t believe Microsoft will either.
Read More

Pukka: Del.icio.us Made Simple

Web | Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008

Delicious.jpg

How many social networks are you a part of? Five? Ten? I find myself constantly dreading signing up for new social networks, because they are another “thing” that I will have to update. No matter how cool or awesome they may be, each new network is going to require more of your time. That’s how I felt about Del.icio.us - the leading site for online social bookmarks. Don’t get me wrong, I use bookmarks all the time. But the thought of having to go to Del.icio.us to add each bookmark was too cumbersome, and as a result, I stopped using Del.icio.us altogether.

Then along came Pukka - the app that makes adding bookmarks to Del.icio.us so simple and seamless that you don’t even have to think about it. Pukka functions as a desktop interface to Del.icio.us. Simply opening Pukka will allow you to enter in a URL, name for the bookmark, tags, and even an optional description. A simple tap of the return key, and your bookmark will be added to Del.icio.us in the background. Still, I thought, it’s not easy enough to add bookmarks to Del.icio.us. Then, I discovered the Pukka bookmarklet.

Read More

Michael Mistretta 2008 - Today | Licensed under Creative Commons | Powered by WordPress | Theme by Roy Tanck